T
- Status
W
wanstronian
Guest
Only because we are going round in circles. Consequently I suspect that no conclusion can be reached, just an infinite loop of disagreement. In fact, I don’t believe a logical conclusion can be reached unless you retract the baseless assertions upon which you base your argument.
More or less. I’m not sure what you mean by ‘independent’ in 5. Assuming you mean “independent of ps” then that would seem to fit with my observations of your comments. I would also caveat the whole lot with “currently” - I can’t see any reason why thoughts may not become tangible (in the context of being able to observe them independently) through continued experimentation on the brain.
No, I said they are not reality. I can have a thought about eggs, you can have a thought about penguins. Those thoughts are real. But they do not manifest eggs and penguins.
Not exactly - ps causing ts is not the same as saying a mind must have a physical host.My comment was not regarding causality, but precedence.
As above.
That’s an erroneous interpretation. I said perception is handled by the brain. The process of turning sensor (name removed by moderator)ut into a cohesive, consistent understanding of our environment is performed by the brain. I did not say that the abstraction of the mind can control, or understand, the brain. If it did, I could instruct my brain to stop processing sensor (name removed by moderator)ut from my right leg, or to stop my heart beating.
More or less, along with some random access memory.
No, but we are not discussing whether thoughts really exist, we are discussing whether thoughts are REALITY. As I said in my last post, I am assuming one (in my view essential) property of reality is that it is consistent for everyone. Otherwise what happens when one person has one thought and somebody else has a directly contradictory thought? Does the world implode?
Yes, but that does not make my thoughts and decisions reality - I have to act upon them if I want them to have any influence on reality.
Purely in order to distinguish between the two. Maybe we could agree right here if we define ‘reality!’
Again, this leads me to believe that we are simply arguing for different meanings of reality.
I never implied it did, I simply used it as an example to show that X does not beget Y in terms of reality precedence.
How is this relevant? The point was that evolution has been shown, beyond any reasonable doubt, to be a fact. I accept it as such without doing my own extensive experimentation, for the same reason that I accept that the Sun is composed of hydrogen, helium etc. without flying up to it and scooping some up in a test tube. If you want to dispute evolution, go right ahead. I won’t even comment on the irony. But if you do dispute then, as I said at the top of this post, I don’t think there’s any point in continuing.
They are granted them by governments. You can Google the exact process.
Evolution has produced beings that are intelligent enough to consider the rights of the individual and ratify laws to protect them.
That’s the theory of Natural Selection, broadly speaking.
Ultimately true. Of course, this is not the same as acting without compunction on a sudden impulse to kill the person next to you on the bus.
I believe that my concept of everything is a product of the processes in my brain.
One’s thought processes are part of the universal reality. The thoughts themselves are not reality other than in the sense that they are a transient, intangible, non-effecting product of the process.
Indeed, because I don’t think the conclusions you have presented are correct.
T
tonyrey
Guest
W
wanstronian
Guest
Not really! 5 seems a bit disingenuous. Thoughts are part of reality. Thoughts really happen. However, thoughts are not in themselves reality, in the sense that if I think of a green pig it doesn’t make that green pig real for everybody to see. I’m not denying the existence of thoughts. I’m denying that individual thoughts have any innate impact on universal reality.
8 - I also assume this, I just don’t assume that the mental aspect is independent of the physical.
9 - Do you assume that ts can and do cause ps only by the individual acting on his/her ts? So the ts themselves do not innately cause ps? (Other than within the biological boundary of the person)
Apart from those distinctions, I think we’re roughly on the same page.
Yes, I never said thoughts weren’t real. I said that the thoughts weren’t reality. The fact that we think is an aspect of reality. But the thoughts you have do not have any bearing on anyone else’s universe until you act physically upon those thoughts.
Having an effect is not the same as control.
I don’t understand the question. I believe, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the continuity of the mind holds for as long as the individual is alive. Mental activity stops when you die. I don’t know what you mean by ‘unity… of the mind.’
Again, I never said it did. I said that the thoughts are not reality, not that they do not really occur. I have outlined the context of my position above.
Only consistently similar perceptions of the world can be held as a datum to the reality of the world.
Again, you are confusing ‘real’ with ‘reality.’ In some contexts the terms are interchangeable, which again raises my suspicion that we are ultimately arguing semantics.
It need not be… but if it is not, how do we know whether it is actually reality or just subjective opinion? You might be absolutely right in everything you believe… but without evidence of your supernatural reality, how do you know?
Of course they are, I never said otherwise. I’m slightly confused by this statement.
Again, I think you are referring to an individual, personal reality rather than a universal one. In this context, your belief in God, fairies or the FSM is fine. But you need to be aware that your belief doesn’t make it a universal truth.
I’m happy with the OED definition: “What exists or is real; that which underlies and is the truth of appearances or phenomena.” I think the key is in showing something to be true. And isolated, subjective opinion cannot be held up as truth unless it is supported by convincing evidence.
Indeed - I was simply refuting your claim, not making one of my own. There is masses of different evidence that shows that Y begets X - in this instance anyway.
FIne by me - the point is that we (humans) are animals. Which makes us biological machines just like all the other animals. There’s a potentially interesting thread here
I didn’t quite mean that, I simply meant that currently in this world, the rights of the individual are defined and (nominally) protected by government - whether it’s national or provincial. To illustrate this, consider whether your rights are the same in the US as they would be in, say, Saudi Arabia.
I thought it was fairly obvious what I must have meant! But ‘invent’ will do, although that kind of implies arbitrariness.
That’s the theory.
I don’t know exactly - but it’s fair to say that an impulse to murder someone is rarely the only thought process going through someone’s head. So I suspect that other mental processes quickly reject the idea on a variety of bases. I fear this is moving towards a deadlock we have reached before, where you effectively say, “Well, if you can’t describe the process, the effect must be due to something else.” We’re moving towards the “any answer is better than admitting you don’t know” situation!
Not in themselves. The holder of those thoughts must act upon them.
Not sure what you mean by “we” - are you talking about our ‘inner selves’ - our conscious minds - or our physical entirety?
Where did you get that idea from? I haven’t said anything of the sort!
That’s a phrasing that is open to misinterpretation and abuse, but within the caveats I have previously outlined, yes.
T
tonyrey
Guest
If everyone has the same thoughts surely they make a difference…
Do you think and act as if your mind depends on your body?
If we are not controlling the body with our thoughts what is?
How can the mind have continuity when it is a collection of transient events? How can we be responsible for what we did 10 years ago?
How do you know this?
The fact that the mind functions as an integrated whole rather than a collection of events without a control centre.
Why doesn’t this also apply to consistently similar thoughts by everyone of mental experiences?
Everyone’s consistently similar thoughts of our mental experiences are evidence of our supernatural reality.
According to your argument there is no evidence that any mental events are real. Why not dismiss them as illusions?
I am pointing out that similarity and purpose are real even though they are abstract and have no physical location in the brain. So objective reality is not solely physical.
Yes. An individual person is as independently real as an impersonal thing.
When all subjective beliefs concur do you reject them as convincing evidence?
How do you fit purpose into your mechanistic scheme of reality? Can machines understand themselves? Do you tell your family and friends they are biological machines?
Do you mean rights are simply a matter of definition? Are there no universal rights? Is belief in universal rights due to its survival value?
How do some mental processes reject others? What enables you to decide not to act without compunction?
You seem to imply that the** holder** is a conscious agent…
You have stated that thoughts and perceptions are transient products… So evidence must be a collection of transient products (thoughts)!
That means no one should be held guilty or punished for anything…
I have updated the summary in the light of your answers. Please let me know if you agree:
- We agree thoughts and physical events are real.
- You assume physical events cause thoughts.
- I assume we can choose our thoughts.
- You assume the mind is a collection of mental activities with RAM
- I assume the mind is an independent, intangible, autonomous, responsible agent.
W
wanstronian
Guest
Maybe. But if everybody thinks of a green rhino that doesn’t mean it exists. If everybody has the same perception of their environment then I would agree that this perception is probably the truth.
Odd question. Do you mean, do I review each thought and ask myself where it came from? No, of course not. I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at.
Our brain is controlling our body with subconscious and (mostly) inaccessible processes.
Remember the RAM?
I don’t, for sure. It’s a logical conclusion in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.
Right. I don’t believe my definition contradicts the ‘unity’ of the mind.
Explained in my first comment above.
No - they’re evidence that everyone has thoughts. They are not evidence of an extra-corporeal or supernatural source.
I wish you would stop misrepresenting what I say. If you think of a purple spotted pigeon then this is an illusion. If you see a purple spotted pigeon, then either it’s an illusion or it really exists. If lots of people see a purple spotted pigeon then there’s an extremely good chance that it really exists.
Similarity and purpose are real concepts, yes. How do you know they have no physical location in the brain? Just because you can’t cut open the brain and extract them with a pair of tweezers? Where else would concepts be stored? What evidence do you have that they are stored outside the brain?
Again you are interchanging ‘real’ and ‘reality’ to suit your argument rather than as required by the discussion.
Hmmm. That’s a tricky one, because it’s never happened. I guess if all subjective beliefs concurred then I wouldn’t even consider it, because I’d just believe it too. However, strictly speaking, it wouldn’t constitute evidence. Just that nobody would care.
No, do you tell your wife what colour eyes she has?
Yes. The evidence for this is plain - look at the rights of the individual now compared to 500 years ago, in any given location.
Granted by whom?
Moot question as ‘universal rights’ is a subjective term. Your concept of them would probably be different to someone else’s. Do you believe in the right to bear arms? Should this be a universal right? Who are you to decide?
Lots of things - my social upbringing, which includes an evolved sense of right and wrong; the fear of punishment; the fear of losing the fight; and so on. All theoretical, I hasten to add - I’ve never felt the urge to murder someone on a bus!
Well, yes. I’m not aware of anything without consciousness having thoughts.
I stated that thoughts are transient. Or do you think the same thought for ever? If I tell you to think of a purple spotted pigeon, will you think about it forever? What about perceptions? If you look at the clock on the wall, will you look at it forever? Or will you hold a memory of what that clock looks like in RAM?You have stated that thoughts and perceptions are transient products… So evidence must be a collection of transient products (thoughts)!
Da Da!!! I knew that was coming! It just shows you haven’t bothered to try and understand a word I’ve said. You’re just too busy trying to view my comments in a way that makes your own argument stronger.
I think we’re just about there. Although I’m intrigued by your assumption in point 3. How can we choose our thoughts unless we already know the thought we choose to have? I think your assumption is demonstrably false. I don’t believe you can choose which thought to have. I believe you can choose to think about a subject - that’s not the same as choosing the thoughts you subsequently have on that subject.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Almost all of us think that we exist, control our thoughts, body and environment, that there are other persons who have the same powers as ourselves, the same emotions and feelings, and that we alone are responsible for our decisions. Is that probably true?
Do you behave as if you can control your thoughts and actions? Do you try to resist impulses and desires when you want to do something and believe it is harmful or wrong?
So we are just passive spectators of our thoughts and decisions?
So if we lose our memory we are not responsible for what we have done?
So there is no control centre from which our thoughts and actions emerge?
If, as you believe, mental events are events in the brain they are physical and there is no need to postulate intangible events.
Because similarity and purpose existed before human beings existed. They are not just concepts.
So our beliefs that we make decisions are not evidence for their existence?
That is something we all know on. Do you think your belief that we are biological machines is a subject to avoid? Can machines understand themselves? How do you fit purpose into your mechanistic scheme of reality?
In that case the right to life is therefore simply a human convention and can be ignored when convenient?
What is the mechanism by which some mental processes reject others?
You probably will if you find yourself on a crowded train for an hour sitting next to some one using a mobile phone!
Are brain events conscious of what they are and what they are doing?
There are many thoughts and ideas which are not transient. Logical truths, mathematical and scientific principles, philosophical explanations and personal values have endured for centuries… Are truth, goodness, justice, freedom, equality, innocence, guilt and responsibility simply transient human concepts?
With sufficient practice we can select a thought, focus our mind on it and let it be the sole object of our attention. What is the mechanism by which you choose to think about a subject?
O
Oreoracle
Guest
I just wanted to point something out:
Tony, you’re still thinking of yourself as being separate from your awareness, mental activities, etc., that we have every reason to believe are produced by our brains. It’s not that you are a subject watching an object being controlled; rather, you are the controlled subject. So stop this “are we spectators?” nonsense. You aren’t the spectator in the audience, but the actor playing the role.
T
tonyrey
Guest
If "are we spectators? is nonsense then we are “actors playing the role” is even greater nonsense because - according to the materialist - “we” don’t even exist . “We” are “an artifact of cognition, a helpful bit of illusory abstraction that aids thinking about the self”.
(Note that the “self” is another helpful bit of illusory abstraction. So one helpful bit of illusory abstraction is being used to aid thinking about another helpful bit of illusory abstraction!) In other words “we” are alleged to be just collections of electrical currents in the brain. There is no “self” whatsoever and therefore no such thing as self-control or freedom of choice or rationality. There are no actors, only biological machines which function unconsciously and purposelessly. Consciousness itself is an illusion because it is no more than an abstraction created, heaven knows how, by biochemical events. All reasoning, according to the materialist, is merely a sequence of electrical impulses which have originated accidentally. The very hypothesis described as materialism is no more than a particular arrangement of brain patterns which is no more significant than any other arrangement because significance itself is no more than a particular arrangement of brain patterns! When everything is reduced to products of matter nothing makes sense for the simple reason that reality becomes irrational. No materialist takes materialism to its logical and inevitable conclusion: total scepticism. At some stage reasoning is introduced surreptitiously under a cloak such as “an actor playing the role” - which implies that a collection of irrational particles **understand **their own activity. The ultimate absurdity! You can’t have your cake and continue to eat it after you have explained it away…
W
wanstronian
Guest
I don’t think that anybody who considers it seriously would say they can control their thoughts. The old, “Don’t think of a pink elephant” challenge shows that your thoughts are involuntary. We can decide what to think about, that’s not the same as controlling our thoughts. Similarly, we can’t control our body in its entirety. If you refute this, then simply stop your heart beating for five seconds. Other than that I think your comment is reasonable.
From my perspective, I can control my actions. But not my thoughts.
Of course.
No. Oreoracle corrects this misunderstanding nicely.
Actually that is often true in a court of law. However, my point was that it is our memory and/or the chemical makeup of the brain, that retains our sense of self, our morals, our personality. Not just a record of the acts we commit. I strongly suspect you realise this, but you have argued yourself into a corner and you have no choice but to either admit you have no basis for your argument (which would be the honest thing to do), or argue a straw man. As always, you’ve chosen the latter option!
Where did I say that? I’ve made it quite clear that imo, the brain handles this. Are you even attempting to understand what I say, or just looking for toeholds for your argument?
Yes, it depends on your definition of ‘tangible.’ A thought can be held to be tangible because it cannot be held in the hand, measured or observed. Its origin is most likely physical.
Similarity is an objective concept. How can similarity exist without anybody to witness it? How do you know that purpose existed before human beings? Particularly if you subscribe to the common theist belief that animals are unintelligent biological automata, how can you justify that statement?
Not in the strictest sense. I am not saying, for one minute, that human beings don’t make decisions. I am just pointing out that if you take subjectivity to its extreme, there’s no evidence that anything exists except your mind, dear reader. And if that were the case, its origin would still be unknown.
Well, it’s not a belief, it’s a proven fact. And we don’ thve to avoid it, it’s just not generally relevant.
We seem able to, yes.
(sigh) Purpose is a product of intelligent consciousness. We are intelligent, therefore we have purpose. How do you fit purpose into your “God did it” scheme of reality? God just happened to have it and give it to us??
No, not when convenient - yet again you misrepresent my comment to try and win a cheap point. But it is a human convention - the fox doesn’t spare the rabbit.
Nobody knows. But that doesn’t mean that there must be a different answer.
Perhaps!
you are talking about a thought, then no, because a thought is not independently self-aware.
Yes, they originated as thoughts and ideas. The result of these thoughts can be stored mentally, passed on, documented, clarified. The original thought is over, but the result remains.
They are as transient as humanity. If the entire human race was killed off tomorrow, do you think that those concepts would remain? Who would conceptualise them?
As I said before, we can decide what to think about and think about it. Thoughts pop into your head. You can focus on them or discard them, but you can’t choose which thoughts to have in the first place.
I don’t know. At one point, nobody knew the mechanism by which the planets orbit the sun. Does that mean the mechanism doesn’t exist?
T
Touchstone
Guest
But that perception, if illusory, is itself a real phenomenon, an actuality in our brains, and a crucial one that does give existence to the “self”. Even if we say our “sense of self” is based on a misconception (say the misconception that we are disembodied, immaterial souls), whatever the provenance of that disposition, it is still a real disposition, and an efficacious one.
Back to the “illusion” that a rock is “thoroughly solid”. It matters not that we understand (now) that a rock is almost completely empty space, and the “solidness” is illusory in technical physics terms. It’s “solidness” is perfectly real in practice. The “illusory nature” of our understandings is not a problem, and is in fact a practical necessity; when a rock gets heaved your way, you get out of the way, because any reductionist understandings are of little value compared to “embracing the illusion”, which is only illusory in terms of contrasting different levels of description.
Again, the reductionist fallacy. The mind, like so much of the rest of nature, is an emergent phenomenon, one that exhibits properties and features that are lost by naïve reduction. You might as well complain that water is really not “wet”, because it’s made up of “non-wet” hydrogen and oxygen – “wetness” as just an illusion.
Consciousness is a real phenomenon. It is constituted of atoms and molecules, but configurations and combinations matter – how is water “wet”? It’s quite clear that you are resisting the science here because you are unwilling or unable to think beyond an acutely naïve form of reductionism.
It’s not accidental, or essentially accidental. If I see a arcing through the air toward my head, my reasoning is not accidental; the visual stimuli is processed in a trained, deteministic way, and my high-level response (if I have the luxury of sufficient time for one, rather than just a reflexive one) is not “accidental”, but informed by those senses, my past experience, and my innate goals.
Naïve reductionism, verse 32!
Not. Why is that irrational, that real things are made of real stuff?
Well, if you read materialists on this, you will realize how much you have overlooked or dismissed due to theological biases that renders your “inevitable conclusions” to be crude, cartoonish caricatures of the conclusions that actually do get reached. It seems that the concept of emergent properties of complex systems is just more than you can wrap your head around. If so, don’t bother trying to go any further, as that will relegate you to bobbing back and forth in a little tide pool of naïve reductionism. You are missing essential pieces of the paradigm here, and criticizing what you do not understand in even a passing way.
Particles are not “irrational” or “rational”. No particle understands its own activity, as understanding happens not at the particle level, but at higher levels of description. Emergence, dude. Complex systems. You have a huge, gaping hole in your understanding of how systems work and relate to each other. No wonder you embrace supernaturalism and the superstitions you’ve brought on board. I’d do the same if I thought it was a sensible question to ask myself: *how do these particles understand themselves???At some stage reasoning is introduced surreptitiously under a cloak such as “an actor playing the role” - which implies that a collection of irrational particles **understand **their own activity. The ultimate absurdity! You can’t have your cake and continue to eat it after you have explained it away…
*
-TS
T
tonyrey
Guest
But only in our brains! So it is less significant and important than the brains themselves …
So the existence of the self is so crucial it has to be postulated even though it is not real like physical objects!
So you resort to a subterfuge to maintain the value and importance of the self… “we” are alleged to be just collections of electrical currents in the brain yet the “self” is regarded by materialists as another helpful bit of illusory abstraction. So one helpful bit of illusory abstraction is being used to aid thinking about another helpful bit of illusory abstraction!
So you believe nothing is lost by attributing the origin of persons to particles?? Do you believe persons are autonomous, responsible agents and life has an objective value and purpose?
There is a slight difference between the attributes of objects and persons…
You make the transition from wetness to consciousness as if it is the most “natural” thing in the world"… Why did you omit to mention and explain self-control? How does that fit into your mechanistic system?
I stated "*a sequence of electrical impulses which have *originated accidentally! You attribute everything to matter from which life - and therefore persons and reason - has emerged as the result of fortuitous **combinations of molecules.
Because you regard the **fundamental *reality as physical energy which lacks the power of reason, insight and understanding. To adapt Weinberg’s words "The more the universe is comprehensible, the more it is pointless.*"
Truth, justice, freedom, equality and love exist even if human beings cease to exist because they are objective realities for all rational beings that exist in the universe**. **In any conceivable society the independent holism of the mind a more adequate and intelligible explanation than atomistic materialism because it corresponds to the way people live and to the principles of every legal system in the world - that we are responsible persons, not fictitious entities…
Precisely. Where do you obtain all these** higher** levels of description? What is the **source **of integration, value and purpose… Or the understanding which you regard as a product of processes which lack understanding…
What caused emergence, complexity and organization? Physical laws which just happen to exist?
I’d be a materialist if I thought it necessary to accept illusions and misconceptions merely because they are “efficacious”…
T
Touchstone
Guest
I’ve been invoking the example of water for its pedagogical value, not because I think it’s equally complex. But before we go 'round and 'round anymore, tell me: is the wetness of water an illusion, in your view?
If it’s not, it seems you have some ‘splainin’ to do. Water is just 2 hydrogens and an oxygen, right? If that’s so, where does its wetness come from?
I think that is not the end of the matter, by any means, but getting some clarity on this issue is essential to further understanding. Tell me how you see the ‘wetness’ of water obtaining from manifestly ‘non-wet’ componentry, and we’ll go from there.
-TS
T
tonyrey
Guest
A rhetorical question!
The fact that it is a physical compound.
Physical compounds have attributes which physical elements lack. They can be made by chemists. It does not follow that a person is in principle feasible from **impersonal **elements…
B
brandymmiller
Guest
That’s an unbelievably smug answer, my atheistic friend. Atheism isn’t more honest than theism - just more arrogant. Atheism substitutes NOTHING for God.
Theists question: What made the universe?
Atheists answer: Nothing did.
Theists question: How do you know nothing did it?
Atheists answer: Because we don’t know anything that could do it, therefore nothing must have done it.
Theists question: But how could nothing make something?
Atheists answer: We don’t know…but we know nothing did.
T
Touchstone
Guest
Theists question: What made the universe?
Atheists answer: -]Nothing did./-] I don’t know
Theists question: How do you know nothing did it?
Atheists answer: -]Because we don’t know anything that could do it, therefore nothing must have done it. /-] We don’t know nothing did it!
Theists question: But how could nothing make something?
Atheists answer: We don’t know-]…but we know nothing did./-]
Fixed that for ya!
-TS
T
Touchstone
Guest
No. Not a rhetorical question. One I’d appreciate a real answer to!
Salt is a physical compound. It’s not “wet”. Why is water “wet” and salt not?
Physical compounds have attributes which physical elements lack. They can be made by chemists. It does not follow that a person is in principle feasible from **impersonal **elements…
Why not? Unless you can tell me where the ‘wetness’ comes from in water, I think you are not in a position to assert that.
-TS
B
brandymmiller
Guest
And in doing so, have removed yourself from being an atheist to an agnostic. The difference between the atheist and the agnostic is the I know versus the I don’t know. Atheists KNOW there is no God while agnostics admit the possibility.Theists question: What made the universe?
Atheists answer: -]Nothing did./-] I don’t know
Theists question: How do you know nothing did it?
Atheists answer: -]Because we don’t know anything that could do it, therefore nothing must have done it. /-] We don’t know nothing did it!
Theists question: But how could nothing make something?
Atheists answer: We don’t know-]…but we know nothing did./-]
Fixed that for ya!
-TS
T
Touchstone
Guest
Thanks, but that’s a point I’ve made about myself a half-dozen times here on this forum just in the past several weeks. All atheists are agnostics, necessarily. An “atheist” is an agnostic who thinks the probability of God or gods existing is low.
-TS
B
brandymmiller
Guest
I wish that were actually true, Touchstone - but having dealt with a plethora of atheists both here and in my own personal realm I know for a fact that your statement may be true to you but is not true to all atheists. I have had many many encounters with absolutely rabid - Richard Dawkins - THERE IS NO GOD atheists. My husband was one of them for the majority of our dating and married life. I regularly correspond with one I met online.
The reality is, Touchstone, that you have graduated from atheism into the realm of agnosticism, and need to give back your atheist card :>)
- Status