General Discussion

Apologetics and Theology

Read 10969 times

carter smith

  • **
  • 256 Posts
    • View Profile
Argument against an Unembodied Mind
« Reply #45 on: February 26, 2012, 02:51:11 pm »
Then we have a problem.  I keep telling you how it is impossible, and you just assert that i am presupposing, and that you dont need to provide any argument or reason for your assertion.

   

   For example, if you say "you cant have a married bachelor" apparently i only need to assert you havent proven it, say i can imagine it and tell you i dont need an argument.  I just say "people who beleive in married bachelors beleive they are capable of existing.". And, for the record you have changed from "unembodied" to "immaterial".  And, you still have not made a case for how you see an unembodied mind functioning without some kind of underlying structure... I would want some idea how you think its possible:

   Just like you would want a basic sketch how i beleive a married bachelor could exist.

   We are attempting a philosophical discussion to understand each other, right?

   

   Is that truly, in your mind, how this is supposed to work?
But God doesn't exist.  How does that affect your arguments?

1

jbejon

  • ***
  • 2610 Posts
    • View Profile
    • My Academia page
Argument against an Unembodied Mind
« Reply #46 on: February 26, 2012, 03:06:31 pm »
Then we have a problem. I keep telling you how it is impossible, and you just assert that i am presupposing, and that you dont need to provide any argument or reason for your assertion.

For example, if you say "you cant have a married bachelor" apparently i only need to assert you havent proven it, say i can imagine it and tell you i dont need an argument. I just say "people who beleive in married bachelors beleive they are capable of existing".

NOTE:  I see you've erased your square/circle comments.  So, just plug in married/bachelor and make the necessary adjustments.

There's a major disanalogy here, which is in fact very instructive.

Everyone agrees that an essential property of a square is having corners.  Likewise, everyone agrees that an essential property of a circle is not having corners.  So, the following argument is fine:

(1) For something to be meaningfully called a square, it needs to have corners
(2) For something to be meaningfully called a circle, it can't have any corners
(3) Therefore, the concept of a square circle is incoherent.

Importantly, note that this argument doesn't presuppose anything controversial.  The arguments you've given so far, on the other hand, do.  They presuppose premises like, "It's impossible for immaterial things to interact with material things".  That's not going to make your argument very convincing to anyone who isn't already a materialist.

2

carter smith

  • **
  • 256 Posts
    • View Profile
Argument against an Unembodied Mind
« Reply #47 on: February 26, 2012, 08:19:21 pm »
I agree this is instructive, so lets respond to your argument in the way you have to mine.

(1) For something to be meaningfully called a square, it needs to have corners
(2) For something to be meaningfully called a circle, it can't have any corners
(3) Therefore, the concept of a square circle is incoherent.

You are presupposing squares need corners, I can imagine a square without a corner, and so its not impossible.


See, I have shown that:

1. The Mind needs to be "embodied" by at least one or law.
2. Unembodied means to be unstructured in any way that would obtain #1
3. Therefore, unembodied minds are impossible.

I need you to give me more on how unembodied means it can function.

Since you have been able to show how a squared-circle is incoherent, I can see that you understand the problem and only need to explain.
But God doesn't exist.  How does that affect your arguments?

3

Michael S

  • ***
  • 2606 Posts
    • View Profile
Argument against an Unembodied Mind
« Reply #48 on: February 26, 2012, 09:08:52 pm »
Oooh, here is a discussion I can sink my teeth into!

Considering that my TCA balances the probability of an unembodied 'mind' versus an unembodied 'mechanism', I've put a lot of thought into this one.

In the original and non-analogous argument, I believe I use the terms 'personal agent' and 'impersonal process' as a means of drawing a dichotomy between a conscious cause and a non conscious cause.

The difficulty comes in trying to imagine either of these causes existing outside of time and space, and then creating a universe comprising of both.

To define a 'new' term here, we take the common three dimensions of height, width, and depth, then add a fourth dimension of time. But if we are to discuss the philosophy of the cause of the universe, then is seems necessary to add in a fifth dimension, where such a cause might exist. Remember, if a cause is responsible for a phenomena, it must exist independant to that phenomena.

For instance, I have seen the atheists in this thread make comments along the lines of 'What form does the unembodied mind take? Does it float along like gas?' etc. This also hints at conundrums explained elsewhere, such as 'If God thought the universe into being, but exists outside of time, then was there ever a moment before that thought? Thought implies a before and after, being before the thought took place, and after it took place.'

In the same notion, the theists might ask 'how can a process exist outside of time and space? A process, even an unembodied one requires that certain starting conditions be met before the process begins (ie, I will not fall to the ground (gravity) unless someone yanks my chair out from underneath me). That implies time).

In both of these circumstances, we are applying third and fourth dimensional ideologies to a hypothetical fifth dimensional existence. One can hardly blame us for thinking in this fashion, after all, how else might we think? Trying to imagine 'physical' or 'temporal causational' laws in a fifth dimension would be akin to trying to determine the width of a series, the depth of a square, or perhaps the duration of a chair. Ultimately, we're doing the best we can with the perspectives that we have.

Having said that, I think that there are still some basic principles we can apply, for instance the three laws of thought. It seems to me that even in the absense of any laws of physics, we might still be able to hold true to the law of identity, or the law of non-contradiction etc. We might not know in exactly what terms these laws are satisfied (for instance, as posted in this thread, a brain might be given a sense of identity based on the physical matter it inhabits), but we should be able to hypothesise that they still exist.

In consideration of the above, I would posit that an unembodied consciousness or agent (which might have less third and fourth dimensional connotations than the term 'mind') could still likely posess a uniqueness outside of time and space, though the way in which such an entity could do so is still up for discussion (and that's a discussion I look forward to!). However, I would be cautious about assigning certain 'laws' or 'embodying' constructs that need to be satisfied, because these will certainly involve principles that might not apply outside of time and space.

Hopefully that made sense, and wasn't a case of TL: DR.

There are many things in life worth taking seriously. You and I are not among them.
The Dalai Llama walks into a Pizza shop and says "Can you make me one with everything?"

4

carter smith

  • **
  • 256 Posts
    • View Profile
Argument against an Unembodied Mind
« Reply #49 on: February 27, 2012, 06:01:52 am »
Wow, that's exactly how i was going to argue the existence of married bachelors and square circles!

   

   Arent you going a long way to describe something that seems to have a much more elegant answer: minds are what brains do?

   

   After all, if you didnt presuppose god, what motivation do you have to posit brains, in other dimensions and time realms, etc?
But God doesn't exist.  How does that affect your arguments?

5

Michael S

  • ***
  • 2606 Posts
    • View Profile
Argument against an Unembodied Mind
« Reply #50 on: February 27, 2012, 06:54:01 am »
cartersmith wrote: Wow, that's exactly how i was going to argue the existence of married bachelors and square circles!

Do tell, I'd be fascinated to see how using a fifth philosophic dimension would justify the notion of explicitly self contradictory ideas, especially in light of my positing that the laws of mind would still hold true in such an environment.

cartersmith wrote: Arent you going a long way to describe something that seems to have a much more elegant answer: minds are what brains do?


Not at all. I'm exploring the realms in which such a cause of the universe, be it conscious or not-conscious, might exist.

cartersmith wrote: After all, if you didnt presuppose god, what motivation do you have to posit brains, in other dimensions and time realms, etc?

The same motivation that I have to posit processes and mechanics in other dimensions and time realms. To solve the problem of ex-nihilo vs infinite regress of causality.

It sounds to me like you've just attempted to dismiss the entire post by means of generalisation and/or appeal to ridicule rather than engage with any of it. You might do better to try and show some logical incoherencies in my statements, or use my premises to undermine my conclusion. I might treat your statements with a bit more weight then.
There are many things in life worth taking seriously. You and I are not among them.
The Dalai Llama walks into a Pizza shop and says "Can you make me one with everything?"

6

carter smith

  • **
  • 256 Posts
    • View Profile
Argument against an Unembodied Mind
« Reply #51 on: February 27, 2012, 08:27:41 am »
Michael wrote: Do tell, I'd be fascinated to see how using a fifth philosophic dimension would justify the notion of explicitly self contradictory ideas, especially in light of my positing that the laws of mind would still hold true in such an environment.
Well, I was going to use the 6th Philosophical circle of metaphysical ontology to explain it... it's based on Modal logical and quantum theism... soo.....


Not at all. I'm exploring the realms in which such a cause of the universe, be it conscious or not-conscious, might exist.
Right, me too....


The same motivation that I have to posit processes and mechanics in other dimensions and time realms. To solve the problem of ex-nihilo vs infinite regress of causality.

It sounds to me like you've just attempted to dismiss the entire post by means of generalisation and/or appeal to ridicule rather than engage with any of it. You might do better to try and show some logical incoherencies in my statements, or use my premises to undermine my conclusion. I might treat your statements with a bit more weight then.
I don't have any idea what you are talking about when you start to propose modes of existence that are completely different than anything I understand, that you don't have any evidence for in an effort to "explain" something that I think is flatly incoherent (as I explained).

Let's simplify your "explanation".  How does the "fifth philosophic dimension" (a term I can't find in use any where) explain why certain regions of the brain become active when different things are thought of?

Doesn't an explanation need to explain things?

Can we shorten "fifth philosophic dimension" to "magic"?  Easier to type.
But God doesn't exist.  How does that affect your arguments?

7

Arthur42

  • ***
  • 1599 Posts
    • View Profile
Argument against an Unembodied Mind
« Reply #52 on: February 27, 2012, 08:49:58 am »
Carter, may I make a suggestion.  The fact that you seem to be unaware of any of the 2500 years of arguments that argue for at least one immaterial part of human consciousness (some with no theological ax to grind at all).  This message board works a whole lot better when people go read actual philosophy and then come back to discuss the finer points of it.  The alternative is people like you who just burst in, guns blazing, asking everyone to teach you the basics of philosophy of mind just so you can knock down the summary version of the arguments.  I've noticed you've done that on several topics now.  If you have access to JSTOR or another academic database through a school or library I suggest you get on there and look up some of the classics of these arguments and that will better acquaint you with the issues at hand.

8

carter smith

  • **
  • 256 Posts
    • View Profile
Argument against an Unembodied Mind
« Reply #53 on: February 27, 2012, 09:02:28 am »
Arthur42 wrote: Carter, may I make a suggestion.  The fact that you seem to be unaware of any of the 2500 years of arguments that argue for at least one immaterial part of human consciousness (some with no theological ax to grind at all).  This message board works a whole lot better when people go read actual philosophy and then come back to discuss the finer points of it.  The alternative is people like you who just burst in, guns blazing, asking everyone to teach you the basics of philosophy of mind just so you can knock down the summary version of the arguments.  I've noticed you've done that on several topics now.  If you have access to JSTOR or another academic database through a school or library I suggest you get on there and look up some of the classics of these arguments and that will better acquaint you with the issues at hand.
Arthur, I am not unaware of them.  This is the point of this.

It appears that everyone here is unaware of them and unable to give an account.  I would like to know why you, or any dualist believes that an unembodied mind is possible.

What, besides an argument from ignorance, do dualists have?

I am aware of the Hard Problem and the other arguments, but I am still at a loss why people HERE can't explain why they think an unembodied mind is possible.

It is possible that I win the lottery if I never play?  Well, sure, I suppose somehow... but how?  Maybe by invoking the 5th dimension of philosophical woo?


But God doesn't exist.  How does that affect your arguments?

9

carter smith

  • **
  • 256 Posts
    • View Profile
Argument against an Unembodied Mind
« Reply #54 on: February 27, 2012, 09:05:42 am »
after all, as I have repeatedly pointed out, the rebuttal to my OP argument is "an unembodied mind is possible".

I would like someone to show how an unembodied mind is possible and destroy my argument.

With a little reading, it should be quite easy if there is 2500 years of discussion about it.....

So, instead of attacking me for not arguing your side, why don't you just argue YOUR SIDE!!!!
But God doesn't exist.  How does that affect your arguments?

10

carter smith

  • **
  • 256 Posts
    • View Profile
Argument against an Unembodied Mind
« Reply #55 on: February 27, 2012, 09:22:16 am »
In fact, let's be very clear.
IF the Mind cannot be unembodied, then how are you imagining that it can be?

Right?

I have tried to show how I think it's impossible, but your "side' has not shown how it's possible.
But God doesn't exist.  How does that affect your arguments?

11

jbejon

  • ***
  • 2610 Posts
    • View Profile
    • My Academia page
Argument against an Unembodied Mind
« Reply #56 on: February 27, 2012, 12:57:54 pm »
I agree this is instructive, so lets respond to your argument in the way you have to mine.

(1) For something to be meaningfully called a square, it needs to have corners
(2) For something to be meaningfully called a circle, it can't have any corners
(3) Therefore, the concept of a square circle is incoherent.

You are presupposing squares need corners,…

I'm presupposing that squares need corners!?  Squares have corners by definition.  Are you suggesting that minds are material by definition?  If so, you might want to change the title of this thread to "Assertion against an unembodied mind".

12

carter smith

  • **
  • 256 Posts
    • View Profile
Argument against an Unembodied Mind
« Reply #57 on: February 27, 2012, 01:02:39 pm »
jbejon wrote:
I agree this is instructive, so lets respond to your argument in the way you have to mine.

(1) For something to be meaningfully called a square, it needs to have corners
(2) For something to be meaningfully called a circle, it can't have any corners
(3) Therefore, the concept of a square circle is incoherent.

You are presupposing squares need corners,…

I'm presupposing that squares need corners!?  Squares have corners by definition.  Are you suggesting that minds are material by definition?  If so, you might want to change the title of this thread to "Assertion against an unembodied mind".
Where did I mention material?  Please go over all my posts.
But God doesn't exist.  How does that affect your arguments?

13

jbejon

  • ***
  • 2610 Posts
    • View Profile
    • My Academia page
Argument against an Unembodied Mind
« Reply #58 on: February 27, 2012, 01:06:10 pm »
Where did I mention material?  Please go over all my posts.

So, you're happy to concede that things can affect the material world without themselves being material?

14

Michael S

  • ***
  • 2606 Posts
    • View Profile
Argument against an Unembodied Mind
« Reply #59 on: February 27, 2012, 01:27:43 pm »
cartersmith wrote:
Quote from: Michael
Do tell, I'd be fascinated to see how using a fifth philosophic dimension would justify the notion of explicitly self contradictory ideas, especially in light of my positing that the laws of mind would still hold true in such an environment.
Well, I was going to use the 6th Philosophical circle of metaphysical ontology to explain it... it's based on Modal logical and quantum theism... soo.....


Not at all. I'm exploring the realms in which such a cause of the universe, be it conscious or not-conscious, might exist.
Right, me too....


The same motivation that I have to posit processes and mechanics in other dimensions and time realms. To solve the problem of ex-nihilo vs infinite regress of causality.

It sounds to me like you've just attempted to dismiss the entire post by means of generalisation and/or appeal to ridicule rather than engage with any of it. You might do better to try and show some logical incoherencies in my statements, or use my premises to undermine my conclusion. I might treat your statements with a bit more weight then.
I don't have any idea what you are talking about when you start to propose modes of existence that are completely different than anything I understand, that you don't have any evidence for in an effort to "explain" something that I think is flatly incoherent (as I explained).

Let's simplify your "explanation".  How does the "fifth philosophic dimension" (a term I can't find in use any where) explain why certain regions of the brain become active when different things are thought of?

Doesn't an explanation need to explain things?

Can we shorten "fifth philosophic dimension" to "magic"?  Easier to type.

   

   I think I'm just going to go with 'lol'. Possibly even a 'cool story bro'.

   

   A sixth dimension? Some thing that can be intuitively hypothesised as being independent of whatever framework holds the cause that is independent of time and space?

   

   Sounds fascinating.

   

   Do tell, this is gold.
There are many things in life worth taking seriously. You and I are not among them.
The Dalai Llama walks into a Pizza shop and says "Can you make me one with everything?"