(2023-06-11, 08:33 PM)David001 Wrote: [ -> ]You make the mind sound very like a computer.
Do you believe that a computer is actually conscious while it is doing a calculation, or that a mind (yours for example) just clicks through a sequence of states and is never conscious at all?
No, the mind is far different from a computer. The mind is the output of the brain and whatever works in conjunction with the brain to make its output. The functioning of the brain is very different from the functioning of a computer.
No computer ever does anything close to conscious thought, and it is doubtful it ever will.
Quote:Do you see how what looks like common sense in materialist philosophy, breaks down when you look at it in detail.
Straw man. As I said before, I am not here to argue that the brain must be totally material or totally physical. My claim is that my mind is dependent upon my brain and cannot in any meaningful sense continue to exist as my self after the brain is gone. See
https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-i...7#pid52457 and
https://mindsetfree.blog/if-only-souls-h...Conclusion .
(2023-06-12, 08:40 PM)Merle Wrote: [ -> ]Straw man. As I said before, I am not here to argue that the brain must be totally material or totally physical. My claim is that my mind is dependent upon my brain and cannot in any meaningful sense continue to exist as my self after the brain is gone. See https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-i...7#pid52457 and https://mindsetfree.blog/if-only-souls-h...Conclusion .
I think it's unfair to claim
is attacking you with a straw man, you are kind of all over the place. Sometimes you seem to be arguing that if Materialism is false souls would be real, other times you accept there is something possibly non-physical yet somehow this "soul" - or whatever you wish to call it - will [be] a kind of lobotomized wraith.
In any case, you haven't given any good arguments for Materialism or this weird lobotomized wraith claim.
Really though it seems to me you are arguing with yourself, hedging your bets -
"Well God cannot damn me because I have no soul, but even IF I had a soul I shouldn't feel anxiety about damnation because I won't be able to feel any pain once the body is dead."
If it's Hell you fear I think you'd be better off doing a serious reading of Survival research, rather than persisting in clinging to the Materialist faith +
lobotomized wraith fallback. Materialism makes no sense and it seems an increasing number of atheists are willing to acknowledge this...as predicted by the B. Russell quote in my signature.
Look at the stuff the atheist Emerson Green writes, he seems quite intelligent (IMO wrong about a few things but only I have Perfect Opinions
) and has explicitly moved away from the virulent pseudo-skeptic / New Atheist community.
(2023-06-12, 08:40 PM)Merle Wrote: [ -> ]No, the mind is far different from a computer. The mind is the output of the brain and whatever works in conjunction with the brain to make its output. The functioning of the brain is very different from the functioning of a computer.
No computer ever does anything close to conscious thought, and it is doubtful it ever will.
You wrote this in response to my statement:
Quote:You make the mind sound very like a computer.
I give up!
David
(2023-06-12, 10:19 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]In any case, you haven't given any good arguments for Materialism or this weird lobotomized wraith claim.
I am not arguing that there cannot be anything non-material. I am arguing that the mind is dependent on the brain, and could not survive without the brain.
Quote:Really though it seems to me you are arguing with yourself, hedging your bets -
"Well God cannot damn me because I have no soul, but even IF I had a soul I shouldn't feel anxiety about damnation because I won't be able to feel any pain once the body is dead."
If it's Hell you fear I think you'd be better off doing a serious reading of Survival research,
Its got nothing to do with the fear of hell. I am simply pointing out that the evidence is clear that the mind could not continue on without a brain.
(2023-06-12, 10:58 PM)Merle Wrote: [ -> ]I am not arguing that there cannot be anything non-material. I am arguing that the mind is dependent on the brain, and could not survive without the brain.
Its got nothing to do with the fear of hell. I am simply pointing out that the evidence is clear that the mind could not continue on without a brain.
You don't see how crazy this sounds? That there could be a soul that is non-physical, but somehow this soul *must* be dependent on the brain?
Anyway you haven't made any good arguments that I can recall, so this bizarre claim remains utterly unconvincing.
(2023-06-12, 11:00 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]You don't see how crazy this sounds? That there could be a soul that is non-physical, but somehow this soul *must* be dependent on the brain?
Huh? That's not what I am saying.
I have said that the mind is dependent on the brain. I have shown the evidence for this at See
https://mindsetfree.blog/if-only-souls-had-a-brain/
I am not even arguing for the existence of a soul, let alone arguing that it is non-physical or dependent on the brain.
(2023-06-12, 11:07 PM)Merle Wrote: [ -> ]Huh? That's not what I am saying.
I have said that the mind is dependent on the brain. I have shown the evidence for this at See https://mindsetfree.blog/if-only-souls-had-a-brain/
I am not even arguing for the existence of a soul, let alone arguing that it is non-physical or dependent on the brain.
Even in that link:
Quote:Sure, let’s suppose that there is some part of us called a soul that survives without our brain. If we survived death in this soul, but lost our brain functions, what would we be missing?
Can't think of any arguments you've made that haven't been addressed in this thread at this point. Largely because the answers were easily at hand because we've seen this sort of stuff before.
(2023-06-11, 06:53 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]What an uncharitable reading of what I've written [and frankly a somewhat dishonest reading of what Tallis has written]. I am the one who has said Materialism being false does not immediately mean Survival is true multiple times in this thread.
Huh? You write this in response to, "Tallis is not making the positive case that souls can do it. Rather he is saying we don't know how it is done."
He never even mentions souls. In his summary he says he is not making a positive case for anything. So if he never mentions souls, and says he is not making a positive case for anything, why is it dishonest to say he is not making the positive case for souls?
He does make a case that thoughts cannot be about things, but I don't think his case is convincing. After all, toads have thoughts about jumping, for instance.
(2023-06-12, 11:17 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]Even in that link:
Huh? Looking at a hypothetical soul proposed by others is not the same thing as saying I think a soul exists.
There may be something non-material that works with the brain. I acknowledge that. But if that exists, I don't think it would be able to carry on my mental function when the brain is gone. For I see that thoughts depend on the brain. So I would not call that non-material thing that works with my brain a soul. You can call it a soul if you want, but it would be very different from what most people call a soul.
(2023-06-12, 11:17 PM)Merle Wrote: [ -> ]Huh? You write this in response to, "Tallis is not making the positive case that souls can do it. Rather he is saying we don't know how it is done."
He never even mentions souls. In his summary he says he is not making a positive case for anything. So if he never mentions souls, and says he is not making a positive case for anything, why is it dishonest to say he is not making the positive case for souls?
Eh, not sure how many more times I can say Materialism being false doesn't mean souls are real.
Quote:He does make a case that thoughts cannot be about things, but I don't think his case is convincing. After all, toads have thoughts about jumping, for instance.
Tallis' point is that material objects - defined by Physicalists as lacking mental character - cannot have thoughts about things.
As already noted in this thread Materialist Alex Rosenberg uses animal examples to support his position that we as humans never really have any thoughts about anything precisely because animals don't have thoughts about things. One of you two must be wrong. Rosenberg's position seems consistent with what Harris says, that logically without a Something from Nothing miracle you can't consciousness from non-conscious information processing. Rosenberg's own argument that Materialist attempts to explain thoughts lead to the absurdity of infinite regression also seems compelling.
But I am having thoughts right now, so it seems my mind is immaterial. Not necessarily immortal or a "soul", but something that cannot exist if everything is "physical" as defined by Physicalists.
Thus Materialism, the metaphysics, is false. This doesn't make Survival true but it does make Survival more plausible.
Could there be some non-Materialist conception of the brain that works but leave personal Survival false? Sure, even Idealism could be true without personal Survival (Kastrup's & Sudduth's position). But we have Survival cases, and no a priori reason to dismiss them. And in most of these cases it seems the dead have at least some memories.
As such, having gone through many cases over several years, I think Survival is a reasonable belief to hold. It's opposite is still also reasonable, why it doesn't bother me you don't believe there's an afterlife. I see no need to be a fanatic about my beliefs and demand everyone believe what I do...