General Discussion

Choose Your Own Topic

Read 796 times

wonderer

  • *****
  • 14829 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: World Attribute -> Source Attribute?
« Reply #45 on: September 07, 2019, 11:50:00 am »
This seems to me like rationalization based on a metaphysics that I don't think corresponds with reality.

Can you describe your subjective experience of this "immediacy" in a way that others can relate to?  You did say, "all I am saying is from basic experience, which we all share."

Can you outline a scientific experiment that would demonstrate this "immediacy"?

Also, what about experience that is not universal - that we don't all share?  Might that be relevant?  For example, would you expect your consciousness to be unaffected by something physical like LSD?  If not, why?  If so, why?

Yes, this can be described. Your thoughts are instantaneous, given their instant arrival. Whenever you want to think of something, you think of it instantly. Unless, of course, you want to tell me that you wait for your thoughts to arrive, after you want to think about them. That's called being instant. And you don't experience anyhting outside your mind, in order for this to happen, thus it's immediate - doesn't use a medium, other than the mind alone.

First off, it seems like you are conflating two different usages of the word "immediate":

1a: occurring, acting, or accomplished without loss or interval of time : INSTANT
an immediate need
 
4a: acting or being without the intervention of another object, cause, or agency : DIRECT
the immediate cause of death

Second, I think it is merely your unconsidered subjective impression that your thoughts occur instantaneously.  I'd suggest that you can demonstrate to yourself that your thinking takes time.  Set yourself the following task:

1. Start a stop watch (app).

2. Think in sequence of animals starting with each letter of the alphabet.
A -> ant, B-> bat... ...Z -> zebra

3.  Stop the stopwatch.

If you are able to think those thoughts instantaneously, the time on the stopwatch should be well under one second.

Quote
And thousands of NDEs also show that the mind operates  even when the brain is dead.

No they don't.  No one with a completely dead brain has ever reported anything, and reports from people's whose brains have malfunctioned, of experiences they believe to have occurred during the malfunction, aren't very trustworthy.

Quote
There are no scientific experiments on the mind, because it isn't empirical. So, what you're asking of me is categorically impossible.

There are all sorts of scientific experiments involving the mind.  You should study some psychology.

Quote
EDIT: To answer your last question:

If there's any relevance to the topic at hand in these non-universal experiences, then I don't see it, so I'd ask of you to show me how it relates to the topic at hand - that the mind alone is capable of intentionality, intelligence and semantic generation, and that matter cannot explain the mind, because it's inexplicable where all the aforementioned peculiar properties of the mind come from in matter.


As to whether physical stimuli affect the mind - of course they do, because the mind is fed sense information from the body. And when the body is under influence, so then accordingly the mind behaves. The mind uses the brain to interact with physical reality, so when the brain is affected, so is the mind. However, the processes peculiar to the mind still proceed - thoughts, ideas, concepts, intentionality and so on, which don't hinge on external stimuli. These are internal of the mind, independent of external stimuli for their ontology. They become frustrated, for the mind is deep seated in man's body, but their ontology does not hinge upon those stimuli.

The relevance of experiece with LSD (or similar) is the recognition that there is no aspect of one's thinking which is untouched by the physical effect of the drug.  Sure you can give your uninformed opinion, that taking LSD changes sensation without changing cognition, but of course you lack the experience to know what you are talking about, and are simply making up a story that fits with your preconceptions.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2019, 03:00:08 pm by wonderer »
"The world needed that of us, to maintain—by our example, by our very existence—a world that would keep learning and questioning, that would remain free in thought, inquiry, and word." - Alice Dreger

1

Tom Paine

  • ***
  • 3079 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: World Attribute -> Source Attribute?
« Reply #46 on: September 07, 2019, 11:53:24 am »
kravarnik, you keep saying that thoughts are immediate, instantaneous, but I am pretty sure that experimentation disproves that. They seem instantaneous to you because the time lags involved are very small and because you only have access by definition to your conscious thought, but experiments have been done documenting, say, the lag between brain activity and when you are aware of a thought. I don't have time to look up the experiments now -- perhaps others do -- but I will try to look them up later if they don't.

I know about those experiments, they were discussed some time ago on the RF by WLC, and on the forum. They weren't conclusive enough. Also, if they were that conclusive, I think the scientific world would have exploded. "SCIENCE FOUND THAT BRAIN CAUSE MIND!"

Most scientist would yawn at that headline. We're pretty sure this is the case. We're just trying to figure out how it works.


Quote
But that's not really the case, because those experiments do not really show anything of any significance. What would be of great significance is, say, to find what part of the brain generates thoughts and how to read thoughts through the brain alone - without needing personal revelation from the mind. And where ideas abide. My idea that God exists - where in the brain it is? Can they read neurons, or synapses?


There being a peculiar process in the brain, prior to the person having a thought, doesn't show much, because it could mean way too many things. We simply lack premises from the experiment to set a conclusion of some sort.


And I think you are skeptics, so you'd be with me in my doubts toward it.

Right, it may not mean that mind is not immediate, but I think my doubt resides more in still being not sure what you mean by immediate. Immediate in the temporal sense or causal sense? We do speak about different ideas and thought processes being mediated by different parts of brain. It has been shown that thought about morality and God are apparently mediated in a certain part of the brain.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/belief-and-the-brains-god-spot-1641022.html

If you wouldn't find this at least reasonably considered evidence , if not proof, that your contention that mind is immediate to be false, I'm not sure what you would consider evidence.  But then, I'm still not sure what you mean by immediate. I should check and see if you've answered our query on that yet.


I thought you were a skeptic. These studies are very poorly done and lacking any philosophical underpinnings. It's natural that particular mind activity would stimulate particular brain activity.

No, they share the same philosophical underpinnings as philosophical naturalism. One doesn't have to accept metaphysical naturalism in order to accept methodological naturalism for the sake of science, and many scientist probably accept it w/o much questioning it. However, tjat doesn't mean it has no philosophical underpinnings. You're not agreeing with it's underpinnings is not the same as it not having any.


Quote
I don't see how that show anything of any significance. Nobody is claiming otherwise on both camps, as far as I know. Most Christians' aren't gnostics, in order to believe that there's only the spirit, so that the physical is "illusory", thus this experiment shows them false. Not at all.

OK, and I'm not arguing that the studies prove physicalism. However, I do think they can count as possible evidence towards physicalism.


Quote
The matter is to be decided, at least with the current information we have, in arguing metaphysics and metaphysical postulates and what best predicts and explains what we have. Materialism fails big time, because nobody attempts to even show how the physical can give rise to the metaphysical, how the material can give rise to the immaterial.

 It is presupposed due to metaphysical naturalism, but it isn't demonstrated by scientific experiments, or philosophical argumentation.

I'm not even sure what you mean by give rise to the metaphysical as I see metaphysics as the epistemic branch of science/physics. That's why it's called metaphysics. And if physicalism is such an obvious failure, apparently a majority of trained philosophers haven't gotten that memo.

Mind: physicalism or non-physicalism?
Accept or lean toward: physicalism   526 / 931 (56.5%)
Accept or lean toward: non-physicalism   252 / 931 (27.1%)
Other   153 / 931 (16.4%)

https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

Sorry, gotta go. I'll try and address the rest later.

2

Soren

  • ****
  • 5097 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: World Attribute -> Source Attribute?
« Reply #47 on: September 07, 2019, 11:57:19 am »
NDEs are a scam. Yes, I am aware of claims that so-and-so was was dead or almost died and later described floating up to the ceiling and accurately described something he or she could only know from that vantage point. I am also aware that Yuri Geller claimed to be able to bend spoons with his mind, and I would put NDEs of the type just mentioned in the same category of zero credibility. You're going to have to show me some peer-reviewed studies to change my mind.

And your argument that the mind only uses the brain to interact with the physical world doesn't fly either. Think of asking someone to think of an object and then choose some number of those objects to visualize, so we're talking just the mind thinking its own thoughts, not interacting with the physical world. A person with injury to one area of the brain might be able to name the object but not tell you the number of those objects he or she is thinking of; for a person with an injury to another area of the brain, it might be the reverse.

In short, the mind does not work without the brain because the brain is the mind, or more accurately the mind emerges from the brain. You don't want this to be the case, it seems to you that it just can't be the case, but you haven't really provided any evidence that it is not the case -- you haven't shown any evidence that the mind can work independent of the brain in any circumstance. And you're not really offering any metaphysics or doing any philosophy -- you're just offering personal incredulity.

3

kravarnik

  • ****
  • 5823 Posts
  • Thy rod and Thy staff, they comfort me!
    • View Profile
Re: World Attribute -> Source Attribute?
« Reply #48 on: September 07, 2019, 12:01:01 pm »
kravarnik, you keep saying that thoughts are immediate, instantaneous, but I am pretty sure that experimentation disproves that. They seem instantaneous to you because the time lags involved are very small and because you only have access by definition to your conscious thought, but experiments have been done documenting, say, the lag between brain activity and when you are aware of a thought. I don't have time to look up the experiments now -- perhaps others do -- but I will try to look them up later if they don't.

I know about those experiments, they were discussed some time ago on the RF by WLC, and on the forum. They weren't conclusive enough. Also, if they were that conclusive, I think the scientific world would have exploded. "SCIENCE FOUND THAT BRAIN CAUSE MIND!"

Most scientist would yawn at that headline. We're pretty sure this is the case. We're just trying to figure out how it works.


Quote
But that's not really the case, because those experiments do not really show anything of any significance. What would be of great significance is, say, to find what part of the brain generates thoughts and how to read thoughts through the brain alone - without needing personal revelation from the mind. And where ideas abide. My idea that God exists - where in the brain it is? Can they read neurons, or synapses?


There being a peculiar process in the brain, prior to the person having a thought, doesn't show much, because it could mean way too many things. We simply lack premises from the experiment to set a conclusion of some sort.


And I think you are skeptics, so you'd be with me in my doubts toward it.

Right, it may not mean that mind is not immediate, but I think my doubt resides more in still being not sure what you mean by immediate. Immediate in the temporal sense or causal sense? We do speak about different ideas and thought processes being mediated by different parts of brain. It has been shown that thought about morality and God are apparently mediated in a certain part of the brain.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/belief-and-the-brains-god-spot-1641022.html

If you wouldn't find this at least reasonably considered evidence , if not proof, that your contention that mind is immediate to be false, I'm not sure what you would consider evidence.  But then, I'm still not sure what you mean by immediate. I should check and see if you've answered our query on that yet.


I thought you were a skeptic. These studies are very poorly done and lacking any philosophical underpinnings. It's natural that particular mind activity would stimulate particular brain activity.

No, they share the same philosophical underpinnings as philosophical naturalism. One doesn't have to accept metaphysical naturalism in order to accept methodological naturalism for the sake of science, and many scientist probably accept it w/o much questioning it. However, tjat doesn't mean it has no philosophical underpinnings. You're not agreeing with it's underpinnings is not the same as it not having any.


Quote
I don't see how that show anything of any significance. Nobody is claiming otherwise on both camps, as far as I know. Most Christians' aren't gnostics, in order to believe that there's only the spirit, so that the physical is "illusory", thus this experiment shows them false. Not at all.

OK, and I'm not arguing that the studies prove physicalism. However, I do think they can count as possible evidence towards physicalism.


Quote
The matter is to be decided, at least with the current information we have, in arguing metaphysics and metaphysical postulates and what best predicts and explains what we have. Materialism fails big time, because nobody attempts to even show how the physical can give rise to the metaphysical, how the material can give rise to the immaterial.

 It is presupposed due to metaphysical naturalism, but it isn't demonstrated by scientific experiments, or philosophical argumentation.

I'm not even sure what you mean by give rise to the metaphysical as I see metaphysics as the epistemic branch of science/physics. That's why it's called metaphysics. And if physicalism is such an obvious failure, apparently a majority of trained philosophers haven't gotten that memo.

Mind: physicalism or non-physicalism?
Accept or lean toward: physicalism   526 / 931 (56.5%)
Accept or lean toward: non-physicalism   252 / 931 (27.1%)
Other   153 / 931 (16.4%)

https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

Sorry, gotta go. I'll try and address the rest later.

I agree with your first point, Tom, but I don't understand the difference it makes. Care to elaborate?


Then I disagree with your second point. It doesn't constitute evidence toward physicalism, because substance dualism makes the same predictions as physicalism, at least in regards to these experiments - that doing something to the brain will have an effect on the mind. So, without something ADDITIONAL(for which I'm asking) to eliminate substance dualism, or to consolidate the conclusion of physicalist monism, then you have a status-quo at best.

And at worst, given that I've provided some kind of metaphysics and argumentation for why I believe the mind is its own reality, with which you interact through citing experiments that don't show otherwise, then you have some reasons to give why these experiments show materialistic/physicalist monism.



Also, I can bring you statistics of what philosophers of religion believe in regards to God's existence. I don't think you'd say "they are dumb, or not experts". Just like I wouldn't call these people that you cite "dumb, or not experts". I think they are wrong. I believe we are entitled to an independent opinion, both you and me.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2019, 12:03:17 pm by kravarnik »
"And even if you crush my body and drain it 'til the last drop - you can never touch my spirit, you can never touch my soul. No matter how bleak or how hopeless, no matter how hard or how far - you can never break my conation. Tear the will apart from desire." Insomnium - Weather the storm

4

kravarnik

  • ****
  • 5823 Posts
  • Thy rod and Thy staff, they comfort me!
    • View Profile
Re: World Attribute -> Source Attribute?
« Reply #49 on: September 07, 2019, 12:09:32 pm »
NDEs are a scam. Yes, I am aware of claims that so-and-so was was dead or almost died and later described floating up to the ceiling and accurately described something he or she could only know from that vantage point. I am also aware that Yuri Geller claimed to be able to bend spoons with his mind, and I would put NDEs of the type just mentioned in the same category of zero credibility. You're going to have to show me some peer-reviewed studies to change my mind.

And your argument that the mind only uses the brain to interact with the physical world doesn't fly either. Think of asking someone to think of an object and then choose some number of those objects to visualize, so we're talking just the mind thinking its own thoughts, not interacting with the physical world. A person with injury to one area of the brain might be able to name the object but not tell you the number of those objects he or she is thinking of; for a person with an injury to another area of the brain, it might be the reverse.

In short, the mind does not work without the brain because the brain is the mind, or more accurately the mind emerges from the brain. You don't want this to be the case, it seems to you that it just can't be the case, but you haven't really provided any evidence that it is not the case -- you haven't shown any evidence that the mind can work independent of the brain in any circumstance. And you're not really offering any metaphysics or doing any philosophy -- you're just offering personal incredulity.

I've provided argumentation, Soren, with which you interact through citing some experiments that don't show the opposite of what I claim, or refute it in any way.


Now, you either engage meaningfully with what I say, or we should just agree to disagree. A brief overview:


- I started with saying that matter cannot cause mind/person, because we have no reason to think mind/person is contained in matter, thus matter cannot cause something, which isn't contained in it

- then I proceeded to explain that the mind alone is capable of intelligence, willingness and semantic generation, thus we need a transcendental mind to explain what caused these

- then I proceeded to explain what makes matter alone impossible to explain mind/person: given matter's complexity and mediate state, then we clearly experience the mind as immediate and instant, which requires simplicity, so matter in principle cannot contain mind


Nothing of what's been provided so far has demonstrated the opposite of what I'm saying. You didn't explain how matter is capable to give rise to these things. You haven't explained how mind is contained in matter, both a priori(before having a human brain) and a posteriori(after having a human brain and how it causes the mind).


And somewhere along the liens I said that if you had to go to such lengths as to ascribe mental properties to matter - having designs, having intentions/willingness and in overall be mind-like, or have mind-like properties, then you're no longer talking about materialism, but pantheism.


I don't think anything in the thread showed the opposite of what I'm saying. In the inability to provide how mind and matter are the same(for your claim, if you're a materialist, is that the mind is more matter, for all is matter), then I am in full right to say they are distinct, thus different kind of substance to begin with.


If you want to say that almost all matter everywhere lacks mind-like properties, as we observe, but the human brain is an exception and it is matter with mind-like properties, then that's just ad-hoc. You can always make exceptions of the rules - yes, matter is impersonal in essence and in everything apart from man we are capable to observe, but in the case of brain matter: it is mental. Well, yeah, then you can always have your materialism intact, if you can be so ad-hoc. So, everything which contradicts materialistic metaphysics becomes "emergent property" aka magic and we wait for science to find out the explanation.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2019, 12:16:13 pm by kravarnik »
"And even if you crush my body and drain it 'til the last drop - you can never touch my spirit, you can never touch my soul. No matter how bleak or how hopeless, no matter how hard or how far - you can never break my conation. Tear the will apart from desire." Insomnium - Weather the storm

5

Soren

  • ****
  • 5097 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: World Attribute -> Source Attribute?
« Reply #50 on: September 07, 2019, 12:55:25 pm »
But of course the human brain is not the only instance where matter produces mind-like properties. There is literally no ability of the human mind -- self-awareness, intelligence, language, love, morality, grief -- that you can not find counterparts to in animal brains. Now of course many mind-like abilities (though not all) are most fully developed in humans (as you would expect under evolutionary theory), and some animals' brains produce more sophisticated minds than others, but clearly you can find all sorts of mind-like properties produced by animal brains.

And as for substance dualism, sure, you can probably use it to duplicate a materialistic theory where the brain produces the mind. But I can also duplicate the theory that I see my reflection in the mirror with a theory that there is a magical being who lives in each "reflective surface" who duplicates everything that we or anything else does so that it looks like a reflection. In other words, substance dualism just adds an extra element on an ad hoc basis, to avoid the implications of materialism, without generating any added explanatory power, and thus violates parsimony.

6

Tom Paine

  • ***
  • 3079 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: World Attribute -> Source Attribute?
« Reply #51 on: September 08, 2019, 06:09:36 am »
kravarnik, you keep saying that thoughts are immediate, instantaneous, but I am pretty sure that experimentation disproves that. They seem instantaneous to you because the time lags involved are very small and because you only have access by definition to your conscious thought, but experiments have been done documenting, say, the lag between brain activity and when you are aware of a thought. I don't have time to look up the experiments now -- perhaps others do -- but I will try to look them up later if they don't.

I know about those experiments, they were discussed some time ago on the RF by WLC, and on the forum. They weren't conclusive enough. Also, if they were that conclusive, I think the scientific world would have exploded. "SCIENCE FOUND THAT BRAIN CAUSE MIND!"

Most scientist would yawn at that headline. We're pretty sure this is the case. We're just trying to figure out how it works.


Quote
But that's not really the case, because those experiments do not really show anything of any significance. What would be of great significance is, say, to find what part of the brain generates thoughts and how to read thoughts through the brain alone - without needing personal revelation from the mind. And where ideas abide. My idea that God exists - where in the brain it is? Can they read neurons, or synapses?


There being a peculiar process in the brain, prior to the person having a thought, doesn't show much, because it could mean way too many things. We simply lack premises from the experiment to set a conclusion of some sort.


And I think you are skeptics, so you'd be with me in my doubts toward it.

Right, it may not mean that mind is not immediate, but I think my doubt resides more in still being not sure what you mean by immediate. Immediate in the temporal sense or causal sense? We do speak about different ideas and thought processes being mediated by different parts of brain. It has been shown that thought about morality and God are apparently mediated in a certain part of the brain.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/belief-and-the-brains-god-spot-1641022.html

If you wouldn't find this at least reasonably considered evidence , if not proof, that your contention that mind is immediate to be false, I'm not sure what you would consider evidence.  But then, I'm still not sure what you mean by immediate. I should check and see if you've answered our query on that yet.


I thought you were a skeptic. These studies are very poorly done and lacking any philosophical underpinnings. It's natural that particular mind activity would stimulate particular brain activity.

No, they share the same philosophical underpinnings as philosophical naturalism. One doesn't have to accept metaphysical naturalism in order to accept methodological naturalism for the sake of science, and many scientist probably accept it w/o much questioning it. However, tjat doesn't mean it has no philosophical underpinnings. You're not agreeing with it's underpinnings is not the same as it not having any.


Quote
I don't see how that show anything of any significance. Nobody is claiming otherwise on both camps, as far as I know. Most Christians' aren't gnostics, in order to believe that there's only the spirit, so that the physical is "illusory", thus this experiment shows them false. Not at all.

OK, and I'm not arguing that the studies prove physicalism. However, I do think they can count as possible evidence towards physicalism.


Quote
The matter is to be decided, at least with the current information we have, in arguing metaphysics and metaphysical postulates and what best predicts and explains what we have. Materialism fails big time, because nobody attempts to even show how the physical can give rise to the metaphysical, how the material can give rise to the immaterial.

 It is presupposed due to metaphysical naturalism, but it isn't demonstrated by scientific experiments, or philosophical argumentation.

I'm not even sure what you mean by give rise to the metaphysical as I see metaphysics as the epistemic branch of science/physics. That's why it's called metaphysics. And if physicalism is such an obvious failure, apparently a majority of trained philosophers haven't gotten that memo.

Mind: physicalism or non-physicalism?
Accept or lean toward: physicalism   526 / 931 (56.5%)
Accept or lean toward: non-physicalism   252 / 931 (27.1%)
Other   153 / 931 (16.4%)

https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

Sorry, gotta go. I'll try and address the rest later.

I agree with your first point, Tom, but I don't understand the difference it makes. Care to elaborate?

The difference is that I don't buy your claim that physicalism has no philosophical underpinnings.


Quote
Then I disagree with your second point. It doesn't constitute evidence toward physicalism, because substance dualism makes the same predictions as physicalism, at least in regards to these experiments - that doing something to the brain will have an effect on the mind. So, without something ADDITIONAL(for which I'm asking) to eliminate substance dualism, or to consolidate the conclusion of physicalist monism, then you have a status-quo at best.

Hmmmm. Would substance dualism predict that physical change to the brain caused by a chemical could cause one to become totally unconscious. I've had that experience with anesthetics where they are administered and the next thing I know I'm awake again and a whole procedure has been done and I am utterly unaware of even the passage of time. That seems much more consistent with physicalism than substance dualism, where I might suspect that I'd could be made unaware of pain, but not of all else including my own existence during the time I am "under."

Quote
And at worst, given that I've provided some kind of metaphysics and argumentation for why I believe the mind is its own reality, with which you interact through citing experiments that don't show otherwise, then you have some reasons to give why these experiments show materialistic/physicalist monism.

Well, all you've done IMO is assert that the mind is "immediate" and we've cited experiments that would seem to indicate otherwise and as far as I've seen you've simply dismissed them more or less out of hand with some reference to a previous discussion and the claim that if they were conclusive there would have been headlines... 



Quote
Also, I can bring you statistics of what philosophers of religion believe in regards to God's existence. I don't think you'd say "they are dumb, or not experts". Just like I wouldn't call these people that you cite "dumb, or not experts". I think they are wrong. I believe we are entitled to an independent opinion, both you and me.

Of course, we are entitled to our opinions. 

I'm more interested in defending naturalism from the charge of absurdity and refuting the idea that naturalists all know God must exist and we're just stubbornly refusing to admit it because we hate God's authority and stuff like that. I'm more interested in vindicating the rationality of naturalism than I am in trying to convert confirmed theists.

7

wonderer

  • *****
  • 14829 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: World Attribute -> Source Attribute?
« Reply #52 on: September 09, 2019, 04:11:20 am »
Bump

This seems to me like rationalization based on a metaphysics that I don't think corresponds with reality.

Can you describe your subjective experience of this "immediacy" in a way that others can relate to?  You did say, "all I am saying is from basic experience, which we all share."

Can you outline a scientific experiment that would demonstrate this "immediacy"?

Also, what about experience that is not universal - that we don't all share?  Might that be relevant?  For example, would you expect your consciousness to be unaffected by something physical like LSD?  If not, why?  If so, why?

Yes, this can be described. Your thoughts are instantaneous, given their instant arrival. Whenever you want to think of something, you think of it instantly. Unless, of course, you want to tell me that you wait for your thoughts to arrive, after you want to think about them. That's called being instant. And you don't experience anyhting outside your mind, in order for this to happen, thus it's immediate - doesn't use a medium, other than the mind alone.

First off, it seems like you are conflating two different usages of the word "immediate":

1a: occurring, acting, or accomplished without loss or interval of time : INSTANT
an immediate need
 
4a: acting or being without the intervention of another object, cause, or agency : DIRECT
the immediate cause of death

Second, I think it is merely your unconsidered subjective impression that your thoughts occur instantaneously.  I'd suggest that you can demonstrate to yourself that your thinking takes time.  Set yourself the following task:

1. Start a stop watch (app).

2. Think in sequence of animals starting with each letter of the alphabet.
A -> ant, B-> bat... ...Z -> zebra

3.  Stop the stopwatch.

If you are able to think those thoughts instantaneously, the time on the stopwatch should be well under one second.

Quote
And thousands of NDEs also show that the mind operates  even when the brain is dead.

No they don't.  No one with a completely dead brain has ever reported anything, and reports from people's whose brains have malfunctioned, of experiences they believe to have occurred during the malfunction, aren't very trustworthy.

Quote
There are no scientific experiments on the mind, because it isn't empirical. So, what you're asking of me is categorically impossible.

There are all sorts of scientific experiments involving the mind.  You should study some psychology.

Quote
EDIT: To answer your last question:

If there's any relevance to the topic at hand in these non-universal experiences, then I don't see it, so I'd ask of you to show me how it relates to the topic at hand - that the mind alone is capable of intentionality, intelligence and semantic generation, and that matter cannot explain the mind, because it's inexplicable where all the aforementioned peculiar properties of the mind come from in matter.


As to whether physical stimuli affect the mind - of course they do, because the mind is fed sense information from the body. And when the body is under influence, so then accordingly the mind behaves. The mind uses the brain to interact with physical reality, so when the brain is affected, so is the mind. However, the processes peculiar to the mind still proceed - thoughts, ideas, concepts, intentionality and so on, which don't hinge on external stimuli. These are internal of the mind, independent of external stimuli for their ontology. They become frustrated, for the mind is deep seated in man's body, but their ontology does not hinge upon those stimuli.

The relevance of experiece with LSD (or similar) is the recognition that there is no aspect of one's thinking which is untouched by the physical effect of the drug.  Sure you can give your uninformed opinion, that taking LSD changes sensation without changing cognition, but of course you lack the experience to know what you are talking about, and are simply making up a story that fits with your preconceptions.
"The world needed that of us, to maintain—by our example, by our very existence—a world that would keep learning and questioning, that would remain free in thought, inquiry, and word." - Alice Dreger

8

lucious

  • ***
  • 4607 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: World Attribute -> Source Attribute?
« Reply #53 on: September 09, 2019, 05:25:50 am »
I was reading an article written by a skeptic who converted to theism. A big argument for him was the following:

P1 - If something exists in the Universe, in must also exist in the Source of the Universe (aka the First Uncaused Cause of Everything).
P2 - Consciousness and a Personal Mind exist in the world,
C1 -  Therefore the Source cannot lack them.
C2 - We call this Source possessing a Personal Mind, God.

But I don't see why P1 must be true. Couldn't something new or different arise, that is not possessed by the Initial Source of the Universe? I mean, just think about the physical / immaterial distinction. The Universe is material. Does this mean its Source, God, possesses matter as an attribute also? Most traditional descriptions of God would say that he is fundamentally immaterial. So it seems this line of reasoning does not hold up.

Thoughts?





Although I do agree with the basic causal premise that whatever is present in an effect must also be in the cause , either virtually, formally, or eminently, I believe the question becomes intractable with the Cartiesian-Lockean-Humean-Newtonian-Comtean notion of matter, nature and causality at work.


As a prime example, in classically theistic metaphysics the immaterial and the material are not polar opposites, and to reduce the world to one or the other is a one-sided Cartesianism. Rather, the immaterial and the material are causally and teleologically intertwined in classically theistic cosmology.

9

Tom Paine

  • ***
  • 3079 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: World Attribute -> Source Attribute?
« Reply #54 on: September 09, 2019, 06:48:39 am »
I was reading an article written by a skeptic who converted to theism. A big argument for him was the following:

P1 - If something exists in the Universe, in must also exist in the Source of the Universe (aka the First Uncaused Cause of Everything).
P2 - Consciousness and a Personal Mind exist in the world,
C1 -  Therefore the Source cannot lack them.
C2 - We call this Source possessing a Personal Mind, God.

But I don't see why P1 must be true. Couldn't something new or different arise, that is not possessed by the Initial Source of the Universe? I mean, just think about the physical / immaterial distinction. The Universe is material. Does this mean its Source, God, possesses matter as an attribute also? Most traditional descriptions of God would say that he is fundamentally immaterial. So it seems this line of reasoning does not hold up.

Thoughts?





Although I do agree with the basic causal premise that whatever is present in an effect must also be in the cause , either virtually, formally, or eminently, I believe the question becomes intractable with the Cartiesian-Lockean-Humean-Newtonian-Comtean notion of matter, nature and causality at work.


As a prime example, in classically theistic metaphysics the immaterial and the material are not polar opposites, and to reduce the world to one or the other is a one-sided Cartesianism. Rather, the immaterial and the material are causally and teleologically intertwined in classically theistic cosmology.

So, would you consider it a sort of dual-aspect and/or neutral monism. Does the classical theistic God transcend the mind/matter, psychical/physical, what-have-you, distinction?

10

Tom Paine

  • ***
  • 3079 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: World Attribute -> Source Attribute?
« Reply #55 on: September 10, 2019, 10:37:26 am »
Bump

This seems to me like rationalization based on a metaphysics that I don't think corresponds with reality.

Can you describe your subjective experience of this "immediacy" in a way that others can relate to?  You did say, "all I am saying is from basic experience, which we all share."

Can you outline a scientific experiment that would demonstrate this "immediacy"?

Also, what about experience that is not universal - that we don't all share?  Might that be relevant?  For example, would you expect your consciousness to be unaffected by something physical like LSD?  If not, why?  If so, why?

Yes, this can be described. Your thoughts are instantaneous, given their instant arrival. Whenever you want to think of something, you think of it instantly. Unless, of course, you want to tell me that you wait for your thoughts to arrive, after you want to think about them. That's called being instant. And you don't experience anyhting outside your mind, in order for this to happen, thus it's immediate - doesn't use a medium, other than the mind alone.

First off, it seems like you are conflating two different usages of the word "immediate":

1a: occurring, acting, or accomplished without loss or interval of time : INSTANT
an immediate need
 
4a: acting or being without the intervention of another object, cause, or agency : DIRECT
the immediate cause of death

Second, I think it is merely your unconsidered subjective impression that your thoughts occur instantaneously.  I'd suggest that you can demonstrate to yourself that your thinking takes time.  Set yourself the following task:

1. Start a stop watch (app).

2. Think in sequence of animals starting with each letter of the alphabet.
A -> ant, B-> bat... ...Z -> zebra

3.  Stop the stopwatch.

If you are able to think those thoughts instantaneously, the time on the stopwatch should be well under one second.

Quote
And thousands of NDEs also show that the mind operates  even when the brain is dead.

No they don't.  No one with a completely dead brain has ever reported anything, and reports from people's whose brains have malfunctioned, of experiences they believe to have occurred during the malfunction, aren't very trustworthy.

Quote
There are no scientific experiments on the mind, because it isn't empirical. So, what you're asking of me is categorically impossible.

There are all sorts of scientific experiments involving the mind.  You should study some psychology.

Quote
EDIT: To answer your last question:

If there's any relevance to the topic at hand in these non-universal experiences, then I don't see it, so I'd ask of you to show me how it relates to the topic at hand - that the mind alone is capable of intentionality, intelligence and semantic generation, and that matter cannot explain the mind, because it's inexplicable where all the aforementioned peculiar properties of the mind come from in matter.


As to whether physical stimuli affect the mind - of course they do, because the mind is fed sense information from the body. And when the body is under influence, so then accordingly the mind behaves. The mind uses the brain to interact with physical reality, so when the brain is affected, so is the mind. However, the processes peculiar to the mind still proceed - thoughts, ideas, concepts, intentionality and so on, which don't hinge on external stimuli. These are internal of the mind, independent of external stimuli for their ontology. They become frustrated, for the mind is deep seated in man's body, but their ontology does not hinge upon those stimuli.

The relevance of experiece with LSD (or similar) is the recognition that there is no aspect of one's thinking which is untouched by the physical effect of the drug.  Sure you can give your uninformed opinion, that taking LSD changes sensation without changing cognition, but of course you lack the experience to know what you are talking about, and are simply making up a story that fits with your preconceptions.

For better or worse, like Jimi Hendrix, I AM experienced. I can say that it temporarily anyway, very much changed both my cognition and sensations.

11

lucious

  • ***
  • 4607 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: World Attribute -> Source Attribute?
« Reply #56 on: September 10, 2019, 09:59:23 pm »
I was reading an article written by a skeptic who converted to theism. A big argument for him was the following:

P1 - If something exists in the Universe, in must also exist in the Source of the Universe (aka the First Uncaused Cause of Everything).
P2 - Consciousness and a Personal Mind exist in the world,
C1 -  Therefore the Source cannot lack them.
C2 - We call this Source possessing a Personal Mind, God.

But I don't see why P1 must be true. Couldn't something new or different arise, that is not possessed by the Initial Source of the Universe? I mean, just think about the physical / immaterial distinction. The Universe is material. Does this mean its Source, God, possesses matter as an attribute also? Most traditional descriptions of God would say that he is fundamentally immaterial. So it seems this line of reasoning does not hold up.

Thoughts?





Although I do agree with the basic causal premise that whatever is present in an effect must also be in the cause , either virtually, formally, or eminently, I believe the question becomes intractable with the Cartiesian-Lockean-Humean-Newtonian-Comtean notion of matter, nature and causality at work.


As a prime example, in classically theistic metaphysics the immaterial and the material are not polar opposites, and to reduce the world to one or the other is a one-sided Cartesianism. Rather, the immaterial and the material are causally and teleologically intertwined in classically theistic cosmology.

So, would you consider it a sort of dual-aspect and/or neutral monism. Does the classical theistic God transcend the mind/matter, psychical/physical, what-have-you, distinction?




I don't believe classical theism lends itself to these modern positions on the mind. Hylemorphic dualism is the best way to put the classically theistic position on mind and matter.



Mind and matter are not defined as antipodes of each other in classical metaphysics, as form and matter actually co-determine each other, in a way. Form is always found with its matter and matter exists for the end of demarcating form (and final cause is prior to both).


Whereas, mind is the phenomenon whereby form can be received without matter.

12

wonderer

  • *****
  • 14829 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: World Attribute -> Source Attribute?
« Reply #57 on: September 10, 2019, 10:45:49 pm »
For better or worse, like Jimi Hendrix, I AM experienced.

;)

Quote
I can say that it temporarily anyway, very much changed both my cognition and sensations.

It is easy to be naive about the nature of one's mind, when one has never had such an experience.  I knew an atheist once, who insisted that someday people would be able to be given the experience of taking a psychoactive drug by means of a virtual reality headset.   I'm inclined to agree with Salvador Dali, "Everyone should eat hashish, but only once.", particularly people who want to make credible claims regarding philosophy of mind.
"The world needed that of us, to maintain—by our example, by our very existence—a world that would keep learning and questioning, that would remain free in thought, inquiry, and word." - Alice Dreger