Wednesday, June 20, 2018

Belief, Evidence, and world view

Image result for mind and cosmos





Some mavens of materialism make some pretty strident and triumphalist sounding statements, but when we examine them more  closely they are not so scary. Taken for example an article by  Bobby Azarian in Huff Post:


As more of the natural world is described objectively and empirically, belief in the existence of anything that defies current scientific explanation is fading at a faster rate than ever before. The majority of college-educated individuals no longer accept the supernatural and magical accounts of physical processes given by religious holy books. Nor do they believe in the actuality of mystical realms beyond life that offer eternal bliss or infinite punishment for the “souls” of righteous or evil men.[1]


The same article goes on to contradict this triumphalist view by saying many nuero scientists have embraced the hard problem and we are nowhere near solving it. The article also speaks of Integrated Information Theory (IIT)—put forth by neuroscientists Giulio Tononi and Christof Koch offers a scientific framework in which spiritual understanding can be addressed alongside more objective issues."It simply reveals an underlying harmony in nature, and a sweeping mental presence that isn’t confined to biological systems."[2] What that statement really says is that college educated people no longer resort to magic and spiritualism to explain  natural processes, So mo on thinks God is opening a door in the sky to send rain through but explanation has not been  popular for some time, Like before the time of Christ. Basing understanding of natural processes through scientific education  has been  going on on a broad scale since the 17th century.

We find that major aspects of the topic such neuroscience of free will, are bear no consensus of opinon,

The field remains highly controversial. There is no consensus among researchers about the significance of findings [free will], their meaning, or what conclusions may be drawn. The precise role of consciousness in decision making therefore remains unclear.
Thinkers like Daniel Dennett or Alfred Mele consider the language used by researchers. They explain that "free will" means many different things to different people (e.g. some notions of free will are dualistic
, some not). Dennett insists that many important and common conceptions of "free will" are compatible with the emerging evidence from neuroscience.[3][a][b][c][d]

No consensus among researchers? not the situation we were led to believe was the case. A certain Phl papers survey told us huge majority of thinkers agree. That survey gave us  no stats for science, and the philosophers of mind only had near 60% belief   Physicalism which means a whopping 40% might just believe in God and refuse the idea of mind reducible to brain function, If it was ascendant dried as those who quote phil papers want us to believe then all aspects of nuero scoence should have consensus for reduictionism.

On Monday I quoted evidence to the effect that there is no empirical evidence proving reduction from mind to brain, but I also have evidence posavotvley disputing the possibility,

Some empirical data supports claim:
Irreducibility


            There are, however, empirical data that imply that brain is not necessary to mind. One such datum is the humble amoeba. They swim; they find food they learn, they multiply, all without brains or brain cell connections.[4]  Various theories are proposed but none really answer the issue. Stuart Mameroff (anesthetist from University of Arizona) and Roger Penrose, Mathematician form Cambridge, raise the theory that small protein structures called microtubules found in cells throughout the body. The problem is they don’t cause any problem with consciousness when damaged.[5] Nevertheless, the amoeba is a mystery in terms of how it works with no brain cells. That leads to the recognition of a larger issue the irreducealbity raises the question of consciousness as a basic property of nature. Like electromagnetism, there was a time when scientists tried to explain that in terms of other known phenomena, when they could not do so they concluded that it was a basic property and opened up a branch of science and the electromagnetic spectrum.[6] David Chalmers and others have suggested the same solution for consciousness.


The late Sir John Eccles, a neuroscientist who won the Nobel Prize for medicine in 1963 for his work on brain cell connections (synapses) and was considered by many to be one of the greatest neuroscientists of the twentieth century, was perhaps the most distinguished scientist who argued in favor of such a separation between mind, consciousness and the brain. He argued that the unity of conscious experience was provided by the mind and not by the machinery of the brain. His view was that the mind itself played an active role in selecting and integrating brain cell activity and molded it into a unified whole. He considered it a mistake to think that the brain did everything and that conscious experiences were simply a reflection of brain activities, which he described as a common philosophical view:

'If that were so, our conscious selves would be no more than passive spectators of the performances carried out by the neuronal machinery of the brain. Our beliefs that we can really make decisions and that we have some control over our actions would be nothing but illusions.[7]

Top Down Causation
confirming irreducibility

            Or downward causation, as seen in last chapter: “Top-down causation refers to the effects on components of organized systems that cannot be fully analyzed in terms of component-level behavior but instead requires reference to the higher-level system itself.” [8]




*problem of binding

            There is a problem with understanding what it is that binds together the unity of a conscious experience. We have many different kinds of conscious faculty at work in the process of being conscious, symbolic thinking, literal thinking, sense of temporal, sense of reality, and physical perceptions. Somehow it all gets brought together into one coherent sense of perceptions. How are the individual aspects, such as color, form, the temporal, and united into a coherent whole experience? Unification of experience is not achieved anatomically. There is “no privileged places of structures in the brain where everything comes together…either for the visual system by itself or for sensory system as a whole ” [9] McDougall took it as something that physicalilsm can’t explain.[10] Dennett and Kinsbourne recognize the phenomena marking top down causation and acknowledge it, they spin it as undermining unity.[11] The old approach was to assume there must be an anatomical center for binding. Without finding one the assumption was that it couldn’t be explained. Modern explanations of unity are based upon a functional approach.

The essential concept common to all of them is  that  oscillatory electrical activity in widely distributed neural populations can be rapidly and reversibly synchronized in the gamma band of frequencies (roughly 30-70 Hz) thereby providing a possible mechanism for binding.” (von der Malsburg 1995). A great deal of sophisticated experimental and theoretical work over the past 20 years demonstrates that mechanisms do exist in the nervous system and they work in relation to the normal perceptual synthesis. Indeed Searl’s doctrine of biological naturalism has now crystallized neurophysiologically in the form of a family of global workspace theories, all of which make the central claim that conscious experience occurs specifically and only with large scale patters of gamma band oscillatory activity linking widely separated areas of the brain. [12]


In other words if consciousness was reducible to brain chemistry there should be an anatomical center in the brain that works to produce the binding effect. Yet the evidence indicates that binding mechanisms must be understood as functions of various areas outside either the brain (nervous  system) or  in different parts of the brain which means it can’t be reduced to just a physical apparatus but is systemic and that is indicative of top down causation.

* Projective activity in perceptual process

            Our brains act as a sort of “word generating virtual reality system.”[12] That is the brain is constantly projecting and updating a model of the perceptual environment and our relation to it. Top down cross modal sensory interactions have been recognized as the rule rather than the exception, in perceptions, as several studies indicate (A.K. Engle et al, 2001; Shimojo and Shams 2001). [13] Evidence indicates that the ultimate source of projective activity may originate outside the brain. A great deal of knowledge is put into action for use in understanding language and in writing. Some researchers have advanced the view that the fundamental form of projective activity is dreaming.[14]

*Semantic or intentional content; word meaning and other form of representation.

This has been dealt with traditionally through reductionism. Representations were said to work by resembling things they represent. This was disproved by Goodman and Heil (1981). [15] In cognitive psychology there is a rule of thumb that meanings are not to be conceived as intrinsic to words, they are defined by the functional role they play in a sentence.  The major approach to the problem used now is connectionism, from dynamic systems theory. The meaning of a given response such as settling of a network into one of its attracters or firing of a volley of spikes by a neuron in the visual cortex is identified with the aspect in the environment that produces the response. This account can’t deal with abstract things or non existent things. There’s nothing in the environment to trigger it. Responses do not qualify as representations nor signs as symbols. “That something,” as Searl so effectively argued (in 1992) “is precisely what matters.”[16]


*problem of Intentionality

            Intentionality is the ability of representational forms to be about things, to reflect meaning and to be about events and states of affairs in the world. [17]  The problem of intentionality has plagued both psychologists and philosophers. Intentionality is inherently three ways, involving the user, symbols, and things symbolized. Searl tells us that intentionality of langue is secondary and derives from the intrinsic intentionality of the mind. “Intentionality can’t be obtained from any kind of physical system including brains.”[18]

*The Humunculus Problem

            The Homunculus was a medieval concept about human reproduction. The male was said to have in him little men just like him with all the basic stuff that makes him work that’s how new men get born. In this topic it’s the idea that we need in the mind another mind or brain like structure to make the mind work. The problem is it keeps requiring ever more little structures to make each one before it work; in endless regression of systems. Kelly and Kelly et al site Dennett’s attempt to solve the homunculus problem in the form of less and less smart homunculi until the bottom level corresponding to heard ware level end the recursion so it’s not infinite. (Dennett 1978)[19] Searl (1992) responds that there has to be something outside the bottom level that knows what lower level compositions mean. Cognitive models can’t function without a homunculus because they lack minds, as Kelly tells us.[20]


No homunculus problem, however, is posed by the structure of our conscious experience itself. The efforts of Dennett and others to claim that there is such a problem, and to use that to ridicule any residue of dualism, rely upon the deeply flawed metaphor of the Cartesian theater a place where mental contents get displayed and I pop in separately to view them. Descartes himself, James, Searl and others all have this right: conscious experience comes to us whole and undivided, with the qualitative feels, phenomenological content, unity, and subjective point of view all built in, intrinsic features. I and my experience cannot be separated in this way. [21]

Analysis and Conclusion
When confronted with the challenge to prove that science is the only valid form of knowledge--with scientific data only--of course they responded with philosophical arguments and logic. Naturally they never tried to offer one single piece of evidence from science, and when I put up the post defending religious experience with 300 studies they just poo pooed and said it wasn't science. So science is the only valid knowledge, but you can't prove that with science, and when it supports religion it's not science. Of course the real problem is its impossible to really tell people why we believe in God. No one actually comes to believe because of some fact or argument. It's so ultra foolish to expect scientific proof because belief is a world view, it's not based upon any one fact, but upon thousands of fact, upon the way we look at ourselves and the world. It's important to make God arguments, not to prove the existence of God, but because you can't say "I have reasons, they are supported by lots of things and deal and junk and stuff." God arguments help us to focus on detailed reasons that support belief, but they are not meant to prove anything.

The real problem is, on the one hand, the believer really doesn't have a single cogent provable reason for belief, on the other hand, the atheist doesn't understand the nature of world views. Atheists don't understand their own unbelief. They can't get it that they are touting an ideology. They think all the have to do is say "it's the absence of a belief" and that's suppose to make it real simple and clear it of any ideological connotations. But its' not that simple. Belief is a world view.It's foundational, that is is serves as the basis for everything else you think and the ways you view the world. You can't just take out the centerpiece of a world view and not replace it with something. Its' absurd to say "atheism is just the absence of a belief" there is no such thing. The absence of a belief is the presence of unbelief and that is an ideology. This is what Derrida teaches us: absence is presence and presence is absence. It's easy to be a skeptic all you have to do is just keep doubting things and demeaning that no evidence is of any value until it lines up with the ideology. But they have a very clear ideology to fill in the blank left by God and it is based upon reductionism. Nothing short of absolute scientific proof will do because the absence of the foundation requires the presence of a replacement foundation.

Sources

[1] Bobby Azarian, "Nueroscoence's  new Consciousnesses Theory is Spiritual"" Huff Post b'og (Dec 6,2017)

[2] Ibid.

[3] "Nuroscience of Free will," Wikipedia

[a] Henrik Walter (2001). "Chapter 1: Free will: Challenges, arguments, and theories". Neurophilosophy of free will: From libertarian illusions to a concept of natural autonomy (Cynthia Klohr translation of German 1999 ed.). MIT Press. p. 1. ISBN 9780262265034.
Jump up

[b]7^ John Martin Fischer; Robert Kane; Derk Perebom; Manuel Vargas (2007). "A brief introduction to some terms and concepts". Four Views on Free Will. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1405134866.

[c]^  Smith, Kerri (2011). "Neuroscience vs philosophy: Taking aim at free will". Nature. 477 (7362): 23–5. doi:10.1038/477023a. PMID 21886139.

[d]^ Daniel C. Dennett (2014). "Chapter VIII: Tools for thinking about free will". Intuition Pumps And Other Tools for Thinking. W. W. Norton & Company. p. 355. ISBN 9780393348781.


4] Science Research Foundation, “Science at the horizon of life,” independent charitable organization in UK 2007-2012. On-line resource, UFL:  http://www.horizonresearch.org/main_page.php?cat_id=200  visisted 5/2/12
[5] ibid
[6] ibid
[7] ibid
[8] Mary Anne Meyers, “Top Down Causation, an Integrating Theme…” Templeton Foundation Symposium, Op cit. (no page number listed).
[9] Edward F. Kelley and Emily Williams Kelley, et al, Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century. Boulder, New York, Toronto: Rowman and Littlefield Publishing Inc, 2007/2010, 37.
[10] Ibid. 38, referring to W.McDougall, Proceedings of scientific physical research 25, 11-29. (1911/1961)..
[11] ibid. 38 refers to Dennette and kinsbourne in Consciousness Explained. (op cit) 183-247
[12] ibid, sites C.Von der Malsburg, “Binding In Models of Perception and Brain Function.” Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 5, 520-526. also sited Crick 94; Dehaene and Naccache,  2001; Edelmon and Tononi, 2000; Engle, Fries and Singer 2001; W.J. Freeman 2000, and others.

Engle, Fries, Singer cited in Pub Med: See comment in PubMed Commons below
 2001 Oct;2(10):704-16.

Abstract


Classical theories of sensory processing view the brain as a passive, stimulus-driven device. By contrast, more recent approaches emphasize the constructive nature of perception, viewing it as an active and highly selective process. Indeed, there is ample evidence that the processing of stimuli is controlled by top-down influences that strongly shape the intrinsic dynamics of thalamocortical networks and constantly create predictions about forthcoming sensory events. We discuss recent experiments indicating that such predictions might be embodied in the temporal structure of both stimulus-evoked and ongoing activity, and that synchronous oscillations are particularly important in this process. Coherence among subthreshold membrane potential fluctuations could be exploited to express selective functional relationships during states of expectancy or attention, and these dynamic patterns could allow the grouping and selection of distributed neuronal responses for further processing.

[13] ibid
[14] ibid, 40, he sites A.K. Engle et al, 2001; Shimojo and Shams 2001;
[15] ibid,  41-42 sites Rodolfo Llina’s and Pare’ 1996 Llina’s and Ribary, 1994.
[16] Ibid, 42 see Heil 1981
[17] ibid, 43 see Searl 1992
[18] ibid
[19] ibid, see also studies, puccetti 1989; Dupuy 2000 discussion of issue form opposing points of view).
[20] Ibid see Dennett 1978 and Searl 1992)
[21] ibid
[22] ibid, 44











78 comments:

im-skeptical said...

There are, however, empirical data that imply that brain is not necessary to mind. One such datum is the humble amoeba. They swim; they find food they learn, they multiply, all without brains or brain cell connections.
- This assumes an amoeba has a mind. What is your basis for making such a claim? Note that it is possible to build mechanical devices that exhibit extraordinarily complex behavior, but hat lack any kind mental function we would call mind. The behavior you describe does not imply any kind of thinking mind. It is strictly mindless biological function.


Or downward causation, as seen in last chapter: “Top-down causation refers to the effects on components of organized systems that cannot be fully analyzed in terms of component-level behavior but instead requires reference to the higher-level system itself.”
- What some people call "top-down causation" is nothing more than emergent behavior, which is more broadly recognized in science. It doesn't imply some unexplained magical force that comes from "the top", or something that isn't purely physical. Emergent behavior can be difficult to explain in terms of the lower-level interactions between components of a system, but it doesn't imply that there is something else at work, and only an unscientific woo-meister would claim it does. And it certainly doesn't "confirm irreducibility".


Unification of experience is not achieved anatomically. There is “no privileged places of structures in the brain where everything comes together…either for the visual system by itself or for sensory system as a whole ” [9] McDougall took it as something that physicalilsm can’t explain.
- Why should we assume that this "unification of experience" is anything more than an illusion. If you bothered to read Dennett instead of just mining for quotes, you would understand that what we see as a unified experience is really just the set of things among the scattered activity in our brain that we happen to be paying attention to at any given time. And there is no reason anatomically that it must be brought together in a single localized physical structure of the brain. A neural network is inherently a distributed system. This is something that real neuroscientists understand.


Intentionality is the ability of representational forms to be about things, to reflect meaning and to be about events and states of affairs in the world. [17] The problem of intentionality has plagued both psychologists and philosophers. Intentionality is inherently three ways, involving the user, symbols, and things symbolized.
- Intentionality may be a problem for some philosophers, but it is no problem at all for scientists, who understand that "aboutness" is nothing more than physical connections between the physical representations of various concepts that are stored in the brain.


The problem is it keeps requiring ever more little structures to make each one before it work; in endless regression of systems. Kelly and Kelly et al site Dennett’s attempt to solve the homunculus problem in the form of less and less smart homunculi until the bottom level corresponding to heard ware level end the recursion so it’s not infinite.
- This is a gross mis-characterization of Dennett. He does not attempt to "solve the homunculus problem" in any such way. He denies that there is any such problem (and that there is any kind of homunculus at all). That is purely a consequence of that dualist "Cartesian theater" view of mind, but this is just a fantasy, as Dennett explains. If you want to understand his position, you should read his books, instead of just mining for quotes.

JBsptfn said...

IMS- This assumes an amoeba has a mind. What is your basis for making such a claim? Note that it is possible to build mechanical devices that exhibit extraordinarily complex behavior, but hat lack any kind mental function we would call mind. The behavior you describe does not imply any kind of thinking mind. It is strictly mindless biological function.

It was made by some entity with a mind. And, it's a living thing. It isn't like the mechanical devices that you are referring to (that were also designed by a mind).

Joe Hinman said...

I six different arguments as to why we can;t reduce mind to brain, he hangs up on the one little thing about the amoebae, This is an article about the same idea and also includes slime molds. He's shocked that they could have a form of minds but the point is it redefines mind. Yes they have behavior that previously was thought to indicate mind. His only argument i s incredulity,

Jabr, Ferris. "How Brainless slime molds redefine in intelligence," Scientific American, (November 7, 2012)

Here

Joe Hinman said...

Or downward causation, as seen in last chapter: “Top-down causation refers to the effects on components of organized systems that cannot be fully analyzed in terms of component-level behavior but instead requires reference to the higher-level system itself.”
- What some people call "top-down causation" is nothing more than emergent behavior, which is more broadly recognized in science. It doesn't imply some unexplained magical force that comes from "the top", or something that isn't purely physical. Emergent behavior can be difficult to explain in terms of the lower-level interactions between components of a system, but it doesn't imply that there is something else at work, and only an unscientific woo-meister would claim it does. And it certainly doesn't "confirm irreducibility".


You didn't say anything that answers the argument, The argumemt is mind is emergent so it can't be reduced to something further down,


Unification of experience is not achieved anatomically. There is “no privileged places of structures in the brain where everything comes together…either for the visual system by itself or for sensory system as a whole ” [9] McDougall took it as something that physicalilsm can’t explain.
- Why should we assume that this "unification of experience" is anything more than an illusion.

Because we are not all schizophrenic. That's real dumb to deny the obvious coherence in mind we all know we have just to avoid admitting something transcends the physical,


If you bothered to read Dennett instead of just mining for quotes, you would understand that what we see as a unified experience is really just the set of things among the scattered activity in our brain that we happen to be paying attention to at any given time. And there is no reason anatomically that it must be brought together in a single localized physical structure of the brain. A neural network is inherently a distributed system. This is something that real neuroscientists understand.\


I don't think you understand the concept, A mural network is bound, you still have to explain binding.


Joe Hinman said...

Intentionality is the ability of representational forms to be about things, to reflect meaning and to be about events and states of affairs in the world. [17] The problem of intentionality has plagued both psychologists and philosophers. Intentionality is inherently three ways, involving the user, symbols, and things symbolized.
- Intentionality may be a problem for some philosophers, but it is no problem at all for scientists, who understand that "aboutness" is nothing more than physical connections between the physical representations of various concepts that are stored in the brain.

that's answered a priori in the description of the problem. You are just pretending you can sweep it under rug with a simple phrase,


The problem is it keeps requiring ever more little structures to make each one before it work; in endless regression of systems. Kelly and Kelly et al site Dennett’s attempt to solve the homunculus problem in the form of less and less smart homunculi until the bottom level corresponding to heard ware level end the recursion so it’s not infinite.
- This is a gross mis-characterization of Dennett. He does not attempt to "solve the homunculus problem" in any such way. He denies that there is any such problem (and that there is any kind of homunculus at all). That is purely a consequence of that dualist "Cartesian theater" view of mind, but this is just a fantasy, as Dennett explains. If you want to understand his position, you should read his books, instead of just mining for quotes.


the Miller article disproves Dennett, The head of the neuroscience department AT UTD told me when he refereed the article. Dennettt is full of shit

Miller Article

see winder of 98 and spring of 2002

10:46 AM Delete

im-skeptical said...

It was made by some entity with a mind. And, it's a living thing. It isn't like the mechanical devices that you are referring to (that were also designed by a mind).
- Joe's article clearly implies that the amoeba exhibits the behavior of something that HAS a mind. Please try to keep up.

im-skeptical said...

I six different arguments as to why we can;t reduce mind to brain, he hangs up on the one little thing about the amoebae, This is an article about the same idea and also includes slime molds.
- It's a significant point. The point is that an amoeba doesn't have a mind. Nor does a slime mold. If you want to argue that this shows that mind doesn't need a brain, then you have failed. Because these are NOT examples of mind.


You didn't say anything that answers the argument, The argumemt is mind is emergent so it can't be reduced to something further down
- You were speaking of "top-down causation", which is not synonymous with emergence. That's what I addressed. As I pointed out, mergent phenomena are not caused by any agent other than the constituent components of a system.


Because we are not all schizophrenic. That's real dumb to deny the obvious coherence in mind we all know we have just to avoid admitting something transcends the physical
- Free will seems obvious, too. But many think it is an illusion. And you don't have to be crazy to have a more sophisticated understanding of it.


I don't think you understand the concept, A mural network is bound, you still have to explain binding.
- I was commenting YOUR discussion of the supposed coherence of mind (which you describe as the "binding effect"), and the assumed need for an anatomical center for it. And YOU didn't answer my objection. (Actually you didn't answer ANY of them.)


that's answered a priori in the description of the problem. You are just pretending you can sweep it under rug with a simple phrase
- Intentionality (or aboutness) is strictly a philosophical issue, but (like God) it has no bearing on physical reality. I explained that it presents no problem whatsoever for a scientific view. Science gives us a perfectly good explanation for it.


the Miller article disproves Dennett, The head of the neuroscience department AT UTD told me when he refereed the article. Dennettt is full of shit
- Perhaps Dennett is full of shit. But that doesn't change the fact that you have no idea what he is saying in the first place. So you are in NO POSITION to render a judgment.

Joe Hinman said...

im-skeptical said...
I six different arguments as to why we can;t reduce mind to brain, he hangs up on the one little thing about the amoebae, This is an article about the same idea and also includes slime molds.
- It's a significant point. The point is that an amoeba doesn't have a mind. Nor does a slime mold. If you want to argue that this shows that mind doesn't need a brain, then you have failed. Because these are NOT examples of mind.

how do you know it doesn't? You are just assuming it upon the lowly estate of slime, But if consciousness is ground up and it goes all the way down, they could have the equivalent,


You didn't say anything that answers the argument, The argumemt is mind is emergent so it can't be reduced to something further down


- You were speaking of "top-down causation", which is not synonymous with emergence. That's what I addressed. As I pointed out, emergent phenomena are not caused by any agent other than the constituent components of a system.

No I am not top down is synonymous but both are part of holism and are used to counter reductionism. there is a closer relation than that.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3262311/

"The concept of emergence has featured in many branches of science, including physics, complex systems and neuroscience. There is also a large philosophical literature on the topic [1]. I want to discuss emergence, and the closely related topics of hierarchical structure and ‘top-down’ causation, in relation to evolutionary biology. My concern is not with the whole of evolutionary biology, but rather with one particular debate within it—the ongoing discussion over ‘levels of selection’ "



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3262299/

"Top-down causation and emergence: some comments on mechanisms
George F. R. Ellis*
Author information ► Article notes ► Copyright and License information ► Disclaimer
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.
Go to:
ABSTRACT
Both bottom-up and top-down causation occur in the hierarchy of structure and causation. A key feature is multiple realizability of higher level functions, and consequent existence of equivalence classes of lower level variables that correspond to the same higher level state. Five essentially different classes of top-down influence can be identified, and their existence demonstrated by many real-world examples. They are: algorithmic top-down causation; top-down causation via non-adaptive information control, top-down causation via adaptive selection, top-down causation via adaptive information control and intelligent top-down causation (the effect of the human mind on the physical world). Through the mind, abstract entities such as mathematical structures have causal power. The causal slack enabling top-down action to take place lies in the structuring of the system so as to attain higher level functions; in the way the nature of lower level elements is changed by context, and in micro-indeterminism combined with adaptive selection. Understanding top-down causation can have important effects on society. Two cases will be mentioned: medical/healthcare issues, and education—in particular, teaching reading and writing. In both cases, an ongoing battle between bottom-up and top-down approaches has important consequences for society."




Joe Hinman said...

Because we are not all schizophrenic. That's real dumb to deny the obvious coherence in mind we all know we have just to avoid admitting something transcends the physical
- Free will seems obvious, too. But many think it is an illusion. And you don't have to be crazy to have a more sophisticated understanding of it.

that discussion is too invoked,I think internists are making a huge mistake. There's no no way to prove determinism, totally a matter of ideology,


I don't think you understand the concept, A nural network is bound, you still have to explain binding.
- I was commenting YOUR discussion of the supposed coherence of mind (which you describe as the "binding effect"), and the assumed need for an anatomical center for it. And YOU didn't answer my objection. (Actually you didn't answer ANY of them.)

coherence is an effect of binding not binding itself,

your objection misses the point about binding,


that's answered a priori in the description of the problem. You are just pretending you can sweep it under rug with a simple phrase
- Intentionality (or aboutness) is strictly a philosophical issue, but (like God) it has no bearing on physical reality. I explained that it presents no problem whatsoever for a scientific view. Science gives us a perfectly good explanation for it.


that is nothing more than an ideological statement, You are still not facing up to the point of the binding issue,it not philosophical it's pragmatic.

There is a problem with understanding what it is that binds together the unity of a conscious experience. We have many different kinds of conscious faculty at work in the process of being conscious, symbolic thinking, literal thinking, sense of temporal, sense of reality, and physical perceptions. Somehow it all gets brought together into one coherent sense of perceptions. How are the individual aspects, such as color, form, the temporal, and united into a coherent whole experience?...In other words if consciousness was reducible to brain chemistry there should be an anatomical center in the brain that works to produce the binding effect. Yet the evidence indicates that binding mechanisms must be understood as functions of various areas outside either the brain (nervous system) or in different parts of the brain which means it can’t be reduced to just a physical apparatus but is systemic and that is indicative of top down causation.





the Miller article disproves Dennett, The head of the neuroscience department AT UTD told me when he refereed the article. Dennettt is full of shit
- Perhaps Dennett is full of shit. But that doesn't change the fact that you have no idea what he is saying in the first place. So you are in NO POSITION to render a judgment.

I sure as hell do,better than you do,Miller explained it to me,



3:40 PM

im-skeptical said...

how do you know it doesn't? You are just assuming it upon the lowly estate of slime, But if consciousness is ground up and it goes all the way down, they could have the equivalent
- My question for you is: what makes you suppose that an amoeba has a mind? Just because it exhibits certain behaviors that seem complex to you? Then you should assume that a tree has a mind because it reaches toward the light. You should assume that computers have minds, too, because they can do some pretty complex things. Any kind of behavior more complex than a rock falling down a hillside - that's mind (by your estimation).


No I am not top down is synonymous but both are part of holism and are used to counter reductionism. there is a closer relation than that.
- You are wrong about that. In scientific parlance, (including the papers you cite here without knowing what they say), top-down causation is regarded as part of emergent phenomena - something that arises from the complex interactions of the constituent components. It is absolutely NOT a counter to reductionism. It is fully compatible with reductionism. It would not be possible without the lower-level components. There are no mysterious external or "holistic" forces acting upon systems. All the laws of physics still apply. It's just a different level of analysis. Read this: Emergence, hierarchy and top-down causation in evolutionary biology. Even the abstract that you quoted tells you that, but you have to be intelligent enough to understand what it says (which you clearly don't).


coherence is an effect of binding not binding itself
- That's what I said. But you still didn't address my objection.


your objection misses the point about binding
- Do tell. What point have I missed about it, and why can't you just address the objection that I made?


that is nothing more than an ideological statement, You are still not facing up to the point of the binding issue,it not philosophical it's pragmatic.
- Now you are confusing two different issues one being the coherence of experience, and the other being intentionality. You do understand that those two things are different, don't you? And the proposition that science has an explanation for intentionality is not an ideological statement. It's just scientific understanding of how the brain works.


In other words if consciousness was reducible to brain chemistry there should be an anatomical center in the brain that works to produce the binding effect. Yet the evidence indicates that binding mechanisms must be understood as functions of various areas outside either the brain (nervous system) or in different parts of the brain which means it can’t be reduced to just a physical apparatus but is systemic and that is indicative of top down causation.
- Who says there should be an anatomical center for "binding"? I addressed this already. Your concept of how the brain should work is sheer fantasy. You need to learn some real cognitive science.


I sure as hell do,better than you do,Miller explained it to me
- Then why do you insist that Dennett has this homuncular notion of mind? He doesn't. I know because I read his books. And that's not what he says. In fact, he argues strongly against that. So whatever this Miller character explained to you - either HE is full of shit, or you completely fail to understand it.

im-skeptical said...

Correction: I provided the wrong link on top-down causation. This is what I meant for you to see: Top-down causation without top-down causes. This provides a scientific understanding of what is meant when actual scientists (not woo-meisters) use the term "top-down causation".

7th Stooge said...

But don't you have to differentiate between someone who simply lacks a belief in something and someone else who lacks that same belief and adds "If I were to come to believe that thing, it would have to be verifiable through scientific process"? The first person is open to different ways of coming to know something; the second person isn't. But the first person would (technically) be an atheist, but I have trouble seeing how that would be as ideological as the second person's.

Joe Hinman said...


skepie:

My question for you is: what makes you suppose that an amoeba has a mind? Just because it exhibits certain behaviors that seem complex to you? Then you should assume that a tree has a mind because it reaches toward the light.

trees don;t hunt


You should assume that computers have minds, too, because they can do some pretty complex things.

they are artificial ,sli,e molds are not Besides maybe computers have

Any kind of behavior more complex than a rock falling down a hillside - that's mind (by your estimation).



Scientific A,merican

"Something scientists have come to understand is that slime molds are much smarter than they look. One species in particular, the SpongeBob SquarePants–yellow Physarum polycephalum, can solve mazes, mimic the layout of man-made transportation networks and choose the healthiest food from a diverse menu—and all this without a brain or nervous system. "Slime molds are redefining what you need to have to qualify as intelligent," Reid says."

7th Stooge said...

My comment was directed at Joe's post, the last paragraph in particular. Sorry for not making that clear.

im-skeptical said...

Something scientists have come to understand is that slime molds are much smarter than they look
- One thing you have not come to understand is what this article is telling us. An individual organism of slime mold is not intelligent, and certainly does not have a mind. But when you have a lot of them acting together, they begin to exhibit emergent behaviors that we associate with intelligence. GUESS WHAT? That's exactly what we see with neurons. This doesn't point to some outside entity directing their activities. It demonstrates how intelligence can emerge from a collection of simple elements. This is exactly the opposite of what you suppose. It is a CONFIRMATION of reductionism, not a refutation of it.

Joe Hinman said...

No I am not top down is synonymous but both are part of holism and are used to counter reductionism. there is a closer relation than that.
- You are wrong about that. In scientific parlance, (including the papers you cite here without knowing what they say), top-down causation is regarded as part of emergent phenomena - something that arises from the complex interactions of the constituent components.

I said the two are not synonymous which is what you said, I said they are related, which does not contradict what you aid, You are totally out to lunch trying to pretend that you are correcting me where there is no divergence in the two histamines. But you are totally assassin to say that they not counters to reductionism because they sure as hell are. The source I quote are expert you are not an expert; you flap your gums all you want to you are not a an expert, I document it and yuo did not!



It is absolutely NOT a counter to reductionism. It is fully compatible with reductionism.

the experts say it is,what do you know? you can't even quote an expert.


It would not be possible without the lower-level components. There are no mysterious external or "holistic" forces acting upon systems. All the laws of physics still apply. It's just a different level of analysis. Read this: Emergence, hierarchy and top-down causation in evolutionary biology. Even the abstract that you quoted tells you that, but you have to be intelligent enough to understand what it says (which you clearly don't).


You show your true ignorance. you are misinformed and badly read, holism is naturalistic theory, it has nothing to do with mysterious forces

coherence is an effect of binding not binding itself
- That's what I said. But you still didn't address my objection.

U addressed it by saying you got the concept backyards, the nural net is not a counter to binding it is bound, You did not answer that, your arguments are just like Trump you make up the shit you wish was true and then assert it as though it as your own little world


your objection misses the point about binding
- Do tell. What point have I missed about it, and why can't you just address the objection that I made?

got the concept wrong. you have not answered a single thing I said about it,

Joe Hinman said...

- Now you are confusing two different issues one being the coherence of experience, and the other being intentionality. You do understand that those two things are different, don't you? And the proposition that science has an explanation for intentionality is not an ideological statement. It's just scientific understanding of how the brain works.

You don't even understand the concept of the argument,here is what I said in the original argent,

_____________quote____

?There is a problem with understanding what it is that binds together the unity of a conscious experience. We have many different kinds of conscious faculty at work in the process of being conscious, symbolic thinking, literal thinking, sense of temporal, sense of reality, and physical perceptions. Somehow it all gets brought together into one coherent sense of perceptions. How are the individual aspects, such as color, form, the temporal, and united into a coherent whole experience? Unification of experience is not achieved anatomically. There is “no privileged places of structures in the brain where everything comes together…either for the visual system by itself or for sensory system as a whole ” [17] McDougall took it as something that physicalilsm can’t explain.[18] Dennett and Kinsbourne recognize the phenomena marking top down causation and acknowledge it, they spin it as undermining unity.[19] The old approach was to assume there must be an anatomical center for binding. Without finding one the assumption was that it couldn’t be explained. Modern explanations of unity are based upon a functional approach.
________close________

you have not answered a single one of those, look where it puts intentionality and and cohernece. It's call about coherence that;s what is produced by binding, your assertion that i don;t know the difference is inane since I demarcate intensionaloty as one thing under coherence,They are aspects of coherence, it;s holding them all tighter that produces understanding and coherence that's what binding is about/

just saying they understand intenionality is not an answer there,



Me:
In other words if consciousness was reducible to brain chemistry there should be an anatomical center in the brain that works to produce the binding effect. Yet the evidence indicates that binding mechanisms must be understood as functions of various areas outside either the brain (nervous system) or in different parts of the brain which means it can’t be reduced to just a physical apparatus but is systemic and that is indicative of top down causation.

you
- Who says there should be an anatomical center for "binding"? I addressed this already. Your concept of how the brain should work is sheer fantasy. You need to learn some real cognitive science.

you didn;t address it at all. It;s the experts in the field who said it, It;s the people you whose view you defend that;s who said it, you have not experimental coherence apart assertimg it is not evidence you offer no evidence,


I sure as hell do,better than you do,Miller explained it to me
- Then why do you insist that Dennett has this homuncular notion of mind? He doesn't. I know because I read his books. And that's not what he says. In fact, he argues strongly against that. So whatever this Miller character explained to you - either HE is full of shit, or you completely fail to understand it.

the people I quote say he does, they are experts yuo are not, you have no counter evidenced atall, you do not know, you are wrong

"The problem is it keeps requiring ever more little structures to make each one before it work; in endless regression of systems. Kelly and Kelly et al site Dennett’s attempt to solve the homunculus problem in the form of less and less smart homunculi until the bottom level corresponding to heard ware level end the recursion so it’s not infinite. (Dennett 1978)[28]
Engle, Fries, Singer cited in Pub Med: See comment in PubMed Commons below

Nat Rev Neurosci. 2001 Oct;2(10):704-16.

im-skeptical said...

Your problem is that you always have to rely on other people's interpretations of any kind of scientific material, because you are not capable of understanding it yourself. You quoted an idiot who doesn't represent accurately what Dennett actually says. Now quote where Dennett says it.

Joe Hinman said...

Something scientists have come to understand is that slime molds are much smarter than they look
- One thing you have not come to understand is what this article is telling us. An individual organism of slime mold is not intelligent, and certainly does not have a mind. But when you have a lot of them acting together, they begin to exhibit emergent behaviors that we associate with intelligence. GUESS WHAT? That's exactly what we see with neurons. This doesn't point to some outside entity directing their activities. It demonstrates how intelligence can emerge from a collection of simple elements. This is exactly the opposite of what you suppose. It is a CONFIRMATION of reductionism, not a refutation of it.

your interpretation of the article is just loony tone,s you contradict what the article says about itself: "slime molds redefine intelligence."


I have no idea where you got the notion that I think there is,as you say,"some outside entity directing their activities." I have no idea where you got that but it just points up the fact that you have no idea what I/m talking about and you can't follow a simple argumemt.

These simple creates have the most basic form of mind, just a pinch of mind, with no brain. Baht must be a reason to suspect that mind is not replaceable to brin

Joe Hinman said...


Blogger 7th Stooge said...
But don't you have to differentiate between someone who simply lacks a belief in something and someone else who lacks that same belief and adds "If I were to come to believe that thing, it would have to be verifiable through scientific process"? The first person is open to different ways of coming to know something; the second person isn't. But the first person would (technically) be an atheist, but I have trouble seeing how that would be as ideological as the second person's.

Skep is the first person because he does not allow any evidence to come between him and his faith. Niter logic nor empirical data, nor Ph.D's can dissuade him form his party line,

Ryan M said...

You ought to be VERY careful with your language. Consider the following assertion you made:

"there is no empirical evidence proving reduction from mind to brain"

What does the above mean? Does the above mean that there exists no known empirical data such that the reduction of minds to brains can be soundly derived from the existence of the data? If so, then you set the bar too high. If the assertion doesn't mean what I've interpreted it here as meaning, then greater care ought to be taken in forming your assertions.

The amoeba comment also ought to be clarified. Consider the following argument:

1. If Physicalism is true, then minds are reducible to brains.
2. If amoeba minds exist without brains, then it is not the case that minds are reducible to brains.
3. Amoeba minds exist without brains.
4. Therefore, it is not the case that minds are reducible to brains.
5. Therefore, it is not the case that physicalism is true.

The above is surely an argument you have in mind when mentioning amoebas. Is there a problem with it? Yes, there is a problem. For instance, the physicalist would want to be very specific with what they mean by "Mind". With more specificity, "Minds" in premise 1 would not mean the same thing was "Minds" in the antecedent of premise 2, so physicalists would have good reason to reject premise 2 even if they thought premise 3 is true. A more specific argument would be more like this:

1. If physicalism is true, then all minds of a class C are reducible to brains.
2. It is the case that amoeba minds exist without a brain.
3. It is the case that amoeba minds are of a class C.
4. At least one amoeba mind exists.
5. Therefore, there exists some mind of a class C that is not reducible to a brain.
6. Therefore, it is not the case that all minds of a class C are reducible to brains.
7. Therefore, it is not the case that physicalism is true.

See the difference in the arguments? The second one is more specific than the first argument. While the first argument says "Minds are reducible to brains", the second argument makes the more specific claim that a specific class of minds are reducible to brains.

Without being near painfully accurate, your arguments won't go far.

Ryan M said...

I wouldn't call atheism an "ideology". You seem to think atheism being a belief is sufficient for atheism to be an ideology. This certainly betrays the common use of the term "Ideology". "Atheism" on its own is only the negation of theism. As a consequence, it says nothing about political discourse, morality, metaphysics, epistemology, or whatever else, other than that theistic claims about such things are false claims. Due to this, atheism on its own cannot be an ideology, and it cannot be a worldview. Atheism can be part of an ideology, and it can be part of a worldview.

Similarly, theism on its own is neither an ideology nor a worldview. More specific theistic views, such as Catholicism, can be an ideology/worldview, but theism on its own asserts too little.

Also note that not all atheists are reductionists. Chalmers is an atheist and not a reductionist. Tallis, your current favorite source of the month, is an atheist and not a reductionist.

Joe Hinman said...

Ryan,

I did not make the claim that the amoeba disproves Physicalism. The claim I made is here:

____________Quote_________
Nevertheless, the amoeba is a mystery in terms of how it works with no brain cells. That leads to the recognition of a larger issue the irreducealbity raises the question of consciousness as a basic property of nature. Like electromagnetism, there was a time when scientists tried to explain that in terms of other known phenomena, when they could not do so they concluded that it was a basic property and opened up a branch of science and the electromagnetic spectrum...
_____________

It depends upon how far you want to push the term "Physical?" If you want to apply it narrowly to the philosophy of mind then I suppose it has to get it's toes stepped on by my argument. If you understand it as a general ontology for atheists then it doesn't necessarily require that we understand mind as tangible. Thus understood as a non-tangible field of consciousness but produced by the tangible and physical process of brain function, the physicialist in that sense could accept my thesis about mind and brain without contradiction.

In any case I was careful not to make such a claim because I am too aware of the possibly of an amoeba of the gaps argument. some physical explanation might be found for its behavior.I don't think the whole subject can rest on just the humble amoeba. It should give one pause.

you say:
_____________Quote_____
"there is no empirical evidence proving reduction from mind to brain"

What does the above mean? Does the above mean that there exists no known empirical data such that the reduction of minds to brains can be soundly derived from the existence of the data?
___________

It means it's not proven.It does not mean there's no evidence to consider for your view there is a lot,but it's not proven. Proof is not easy, It;s not such a big claim.

Joe Hinman said...

BTw in terms of the amoeba argumet if it did take out physicalism it still would not takeout materials or naturalism.


Ryan M said...
I wouldn't call atheism an "ideology". You seem to think atheism being a belief is sufficient for atheism to be an ideology.

No. First I was speaking of Skeptical not of all atheists. There is an ideological New atheism to which he belongs, It is also part of scientism.

This certainly betrays the common use of the term "Ideology". "Atheism" on its own is only the negation of theism. As a consequence, it says nothing about political discourse, morality, metaphysics, epistemology, or whatever else, other than that theistic claims about such things are false claims. Due to this, atheism on its own cannot be an ideology, and it cannot be a worldview. Atheism can be part of an ideology, and it can be part of a worldview.

Don;'t forget I was a communist (a "Trot") so I use the term "ideology" woth a certain it of percussion. I know an ideology when I see one,

Similarly, theism on its own is neither an ideology nor a worldview. More specific theistic views, such as Catholicism, can be an ideology/worldview, but theism on its own asserts too little.

True I did not say there aren't theistic ideologies, There are.Not all world views are ideological. But christian is a worldview. it is not just adding a thing to the universe it's a totally different world.

Also note that not all atheists are reductionists. Chalmers is an atheist and not a reductionist. Tallis, your current favorite source of the month, is an atheist and not a reductionist.

I know that I've pointed it out myself any times, but as it so happens Skepie has an ideology,

im-skeptical said...

your interpretation of the article is just loony tone,s you contradict what the article says about itself: "slime molds redefine intelligence
- There is no contradiction is what I say. Intelligent behavior arises from a complex collection relatively simple physical components. That's what this article shows, and it is 100% consistent with with physicalism, but it destroys your argument that mind cannot reduce to matter. You don't even understand the implication of this. You think it supports your argument. It doesn't.

I have no idea where you got the notion that I think there is,as you say,"some outside entity directing their activities." I have no idea where you got that but it just points up the fact that you have no idea what I/m talking about and you can't follow a simple argumemt.
- Pay attention. This is your argument, not mine. If mind is not caused by some physical mechanism (a brain) then it must be caused by something else (unless you want to deny causality). In this case, you claim there is no physical mechanism. What is that something else? In your own ideology, mind, intelligence, and rationality come from God. Do you deny that? I've seen you make that argument, and it's what virtually all Christians believe. You can't just ignore the implications of your own argument. I haven't. For the one-dimensional religionist, EVERYTHING reduces to God. (And you label me a reductionist.)

These simple creates have the most basic form of mind, just a pinch of mind, with no brain. Baht must be a reason to suspect that mind is not replaceable to brin
- Of course, as both Ryan and I pointed out, you haven't defined what you mean by 'mind'. You seem to be equating ordinary biological activity (like "swimming") as examples of mind. Needless to say, that's not what most people think. We tend to equate mind with conscious awareness and rational thought. On the other hand, if you call the amoeba's activities a "basic form of mind", then once again, you are admitting that mind is manifested as simple biological activity. And this is an argument FOR physicalism.

Skep is the first person because he does not allow any evidence to come between him and his faith. Niter logic nor empirical data, nor Ph.D's can dissuade him form his party line
- Projection much? Joe, you have no idea how much your own ideology permeates every argument you make.

7th Stooge said...

Skep - there appears to be extremely complex, sensitive, nearly instantaneous, mutually cooperative adaptive behavior even at the one-cell level. This is exactly what we'd expect to find if the mental or proto-mental were a basic property. Not saying that this disproves physicalism but it at least poses a problem for it. Please note: THIS IS NOT AN ARGUMENT FOR GOD.

im-skeptical said...

If this poses a problem for physicalism, what is the problem, Then what is the problem. You must be making the conclusion that this behavior is NOT the result of physical biological activity. OK. Then what is it? Something that is not physical is ... what? What is this mysterious immaterial force that makes the ameoba do what it does? And are you seriously trying to tell me that Joe thinks it isn't God?

Mike Gerow said...

Something that is not physical is ... what?

Non-definition doesn't make a thing nonexistent. Things do exist before we can define them and even despite our inability to define them.... some things are just hard to define. But if there's evidence that some phenomena can't be described within the limits of a certain paradigm, the lack of definition within other paradigms too isn't a strike against it.

Joe Hinman said...

im-skeptical said...
your interpretation of the article is just loony tone,s you contradict what the article says about itself: "slime molds redefine intelligence
- There is no contradiction is what I say. Intelligent behavior arises from a complex collection relatively simple physical components. That's what this article shows, and it is 100% consistent with with physicalism,

not for organisms without brains genius.you are acting as though that means intelligent behavior is well known to be manifest by things without brains and that is missing the entire point.


but it destroys your argument that mind cannot reduce to matter. You don't even understand the implication of this. You think it supports your argument. It doesn't.

such idiocy, that contradicts your entire position.


I have no idea where you got the notion that I think there is,as you say,"some outside entity directing their activities." I have no idea where you got that but it just points up the fact that you have no idea what I/m talking about and you can't follow a simple argumemt.
- Pay attention. This is your argument, not mine. If mind is not caused by some physical mechanism (a brain) then it must be caused by something else (unless you want to deny causality). In this case, you claim there is no physical mechanism. What is that something else? In your own ideology, mind, intelligence, and rationality come from God. Do you deny that? I've seen you make that argument, and it's what virtually all Christians believe. You can't just ignore the implications of your own argument. I haven't. For the one-dimensional religionist, EVERYTHING reduces to God. (And you label me a reductionist.)


ok now eat your oatmeal. now some fish, put on your little foil hat, now screw up your brain and strain real hard, thiiiiiiink thinnnnnnnk!

First, Mind is caused by physical mechanism,the brain. I never saidotheriwse when we say mind does not reduce to brain it means mind is not just brain by itself.

No one thinks that mind is being caused by some magical force outside the body. Of course we think God created the universe but that would be true even if we didn't have minds. God created the brain too.


Joe Hinman said...

These simple creatures have the most basic form of mind, just a pinch of mind, with no brain. Baht must be a reason to suspect that mind is not reduceable to brain
- Of course, as both Ryan and I pointed out, you haven't defined what you mean by 'mind'.

I don't remember him saying that. it's absurdly stood for you to say it because we have had so many little harangues over this topic, you know damn well what I say,


You seem to be equating ordinary biological activity (like "swimming") as examples of mind. Needless to say, that's not what most people think.

speaking of brainless creatures, yes swimming is connected to having a brain. If you don't have a brain brain you don't swim; things that don't have brains don't swim; Rocks, trees, Vegetables, refrigerators, they don't swim; Frogs do swim and they have brains,

We tend to equate mind with conscious awareness and rational thought. On the other hand, if you call the amoeba's activities a "basic form of mind", then once again, you are admitting that mind is manifested as simple biological activity. And this is an argument FOR physicalism.

that's even stupider than what you said above,because it still means mind does have to be connected to brain.

Skep is the first person because he does not allow any evidence to come between him and his faith. Niter logic nor empirical data, nor Ph.D's can dissuade him form his party line
- Projection much? Joe, you have no idea how much your own ideology permeates every argument you make.

yes I do. I've said this before lots.It may not be possible to be 100% ideology free so the trick is to be aware of it and honest about it,you are not.

8:14 AM

im-skeptical said...

not for organisms without brains genius.you are acting as though that means intelligent behavior is well known to be manifest by things without brains and that is missing the entire point.
- WOW. Talk about contradicting yourself. You talked about amoebas and slime mold as examples of intelligent behavior without a brain. You used that to argue that mind doesn't "reduce to" brain. Now you're telling me that there is no intelligent behavior without a brain (genius). Why don't you make up your mind? Which is it? Pick one and stick to it. Otherwise your argument is utterly incoherent. And by the way, there are plenty examples of things like this - intelligent behavior without a brain. Look it up.

such idiocy, that contradicts your entire position
- You don't listen. My position is that intelligent behavior is often exhibited by a collection of simple mechanisms acting together. Like slime mold. Or a colony of insects. Or a BRAIN, which is a collection of neurons. I challenge you to show where I have contradicted my own position.

First, Mind is caused by physical mechanism,the brain. I never saidotheriwse when we say mind does not reduce to brain it means mind is not just brain by itself. ... No one thinks that mind is being caused by some magical force outside the body.
- First, you are contradicting yourself. YOU SAID: "There are, however, empirical data that imply that brain is not necessary to mind. One such datum is the humble amoeba." It's no surprise that you don't understand what I say. You don't understand what YOU say. Second, yes, people do think that mind is the product of a force from outside the body. Christians believe it. It part of their dogma. God is the source of logic and rational mind. That's not what I think. That's what Christians think. See this article, for example, which makes the argument much more coherently than you do. It says "we think and view the world the way we do because God has created us separate from the world and given us a rational soul with the capacity to make judgments about the world." It is this rational soul that is the external force (not part of - and separable from - the physical body) to which I refer. And now you seem to be denying it. You really need to get your own story straight.

I don't remember him saying that. it's absurdly stood for you to say it because we have had so many little harangues over this topic, you know damn well what I say
- I quote Ryan "The above is surely an argument you have in mind when mentioning amoebas. Is there a problem with it? Yes, there is a problem. For instance, the physicalist would want to be very specific with what they mean by "Mind"." He's telling you that it is not clearly defined, and so did I.

yes swimming is connected to having a brain
- No, it isn't. Amoebas swim (as you said), and they don't have brains. It is a simple biological function that doesn't require a brain.

it still means mind does have to be connected to brain.
- That contradicts what you said about amoebas.

Joe Hinman said...

im-skeptical said...
not for organisms without brains genius.you are acting as though that means intelligent behavior is well known to be manifest by things without brains and that is missing the entire point.
- WOW. Talk about contradicting yourself. You talked about amoebas and slime mold as examples of intelligent behavior without a brain. You used that to argue that mind doesn't "reduce to" brain. Now you're telling me that there is no intelligent behavior without a brain (genius).

You are totally confused. You really have reading compression problems.I did not say amoebas are not brainless things and act intelligently I said "you are acting as though that means intelligent behavior is well known to be manifest by things without brains " WELL KNOWN! Most people including you tequila brain with intelligent and they don;'t know that amoebas manifest intelligent seeming behavior.



Why don't you make up your mind? Which is it? Pick one and stick to it. Otherwise your argument is utterly incoherent. And by the way, there are plenty examples of things like this - intelligent behavior without a brain. Look it up.

Learn to read,

Joe Hinman said...

such idiocy, that contradicts your entire position
- You don't listen. My position is that intelligent behavior is often exhibited by a collection of simple mechanisms acting together. Like slime mold. Or a colony of insects. Or a BRAIN, which is a collection of neurons. I challenge you to show where I have contradicted my own position.

Are you actual trying to say that you have always viewed intelligent behaviors inducement of brain? why then do you believe mind is reducible to ran? what are e arguing about?

First, Mind is caused by physical mechanism,the brain.

I thought you just said you accept certain forms of brainless mind? unless you mean skimmed is caused by brain in higher intelligent organisms

MeI never saidotheriwse when we say mind does not reduce to brain it means mind is not just brain by itself. ... No one thinks that mind is being caused by some magical force outside the body.
- First, you are contradicting yourself. YOU SAID: "There are, however, empirical data that imply that brain is not necessary to mind. One such datum is the humble amoeba." It's no surprise that you don't understand what I say. You don't understand what YOU say.

It's pretty obvious that the higher life form clause should be in lace there. If you weren't so hyper concerned with getting even and showing you are smarter than me you would know that.



Second, yes, people do think that mind is the product of a force from outside the body. Christians believe it.

No we don't not as a general rule.


It part of their dogma. God is the source of logic and rational mind. That's not what I think. That's what Christians think. See this article, for example, which makes the argument much more coherently than you do. It says "we think and view the world the way we do because God has created us separate from the world and given us a rational soul with the capacity to make judgments about the world." It is this rational soul that is the external force (not part of - and separable from - the physical body) to which I refer. And now you seem to be denying it. You really need to get your own story straight.

ludicrous,...the vast majority of Christians understand the mind as the product of the brain and the brain as natural organ we are born with,there is no outside force operating to make the mind work. It is ultimately the end result of Creation which was the result of God's creative act.but that does not mean God just actively working on the person every moment.There are exceptions such as some Christians who accept panpsychism, they are a real minority a tiny minority,

I don't remember him saying that. it's absurdly stood for you to say it because we have had so many little harangues over this topic, you know damn well what I say
- I quote Ryan "The above is surely an argument you have in mind when mentioning amoebas. Is there a problem with it? Yes, there is a problem. For instance, the physicalist would want to be very specific with what they mean by "Mind"." He's telling you that it is not clearly defined, and so did I.

then he should have clearly asked me to delineate

yes swimming is connected to having a brain
- No, it isn't. Amoebas swim (as you said), and they don't have brains. It is a simple biological function that doesn't require a brain.

amoebas live in a medium of liquid. they are not really swimming, I was thinking of the Australian crawl.

it still means mind does have to be connected to brain.
- That contradicts what you said about amoebas.

please learn to use reading comprehension,

im-skeptical said...

You are totally confused.
- That's right. Because you are saying contradictory things, and I can't figure out what you mean.

I did not say amoebas are not brainless things and act intelligently
- But you did say amoeabs are an example of mind without brain.

I said "you are acting as though that means intelligent behavior is well known to be manifest by things without brains"
- It is well known (at least by cognitive scientists and other parts of the scientific community) that seemingly intelligent behavior is exhibited by various things without a brain. If it isn't known to YOU, that's your problem.

Learn to read
- You need to learn to write clearly, and use logic. When you contradict yourself, reasonable people can't make sense of what you're trying to say.

Are you actual trying to say that you have always viewed intelligent behaviors inducement of brain? why then do you believe mind is reducible to ran? what are e arguing about?
- I don't know what you think, because your writing is BAD, but I'm saying several things: 1 - What you call intelligent behavior is what I call logical behavior, which doesn't necessarily require any conscious intelligence at all, because logic is just the reality of how physical things work. 2 - Amoebas and slime molds are not intelligent, and they certainly do not have minds. They simply perform physical tasks that are consistent with physical logic, but they don't do it consciously. 3 - Collections of simple things acting together can exhibit increasingly complex behavior. This is common in nature, as scientists are well aware, and in fact brains are just that - collections of simple things (called neurons). 4 - If the collection is sufficiently large, and the behavioral interactions sufficiently complex, we see the emergence of mind, which is basically conscious awareness. Mind does require a brain, or something of equivalent complexity. 5 - In nature, brains are the only things that have the necessary level of complexity to produce mind, but that doesn't imply that there could not be an artificial thing that also exhibits mental function. 6 - NONE OF THIS NON-PHISICAL OR IMMATERIAL, AND GOD HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

I thought you just said you accept certain forms of brainless mind? unless you mean skimmed is caused by brain in higher intelligent organisms
- What you think and what I said are two different things.

It's pretty obvious that the higher life form clause should be in lace there. If you weren't so hyper concerned with getting even and showing you are smarter than me you would know that.
- Don't flatter yourself. I'm not concerned about "getting even".

No we don't not as a general rule.
- Christians believe in a soul as the seat of intelligence. That is not the physical body. It is something that believe can exist completely separate from the body.

ludicrous,...the vast majority of Christians understand the mind as the product of the brain and the brain as natural organ we are born with,there is no outside force operating to make the mind work.
- You should read some Christian literature. Start with the article I cited. Listen to Reppert. THIS IS WHAT CHRISTIANS BELIEVE.

then he should have clearly asked me to delineate
- He did. You are too dim to hear it.

amoebas live in a medium of liquid. they are not really swimming, I was thinking of the Australian crawl.
- YOU said they swim, and that requires a mind. I beg to differ.

please learn to use reading comprehension
- Please stop contradicting yourself. I showed where you were saying contradictory things. Only in your feeble mind does it make any sense.

7th Stooge said...

Non-definition doesn't make a thing nonexistent. Things do exist before we can define them and even despite our inability to define them.... some things are just hard to define. But if there's evidence that some phenomena can't be described within the limits of a certain paradigm, the lack of definition within other paradigms too isn't a strike against it.

Right. To assume that all of reality must conform to a single epistemic paradigm of one species seems pretty arrogant.

im-skeptical said...

To assume that all of reality must conform to a single epistemic paradigm of one species seems pretty arrogant.
- It was a rhetorical question. Far be it from Christians to try to force fit nature into their own theistic paradigm.

Joe Hinman said...

im-skeptical said...
To assume that all of reality must conform to a single epistemic paradigm of one species seems pretty arrogant.
- It was a rhetorical question. Far be it from Christians to try to force fit nature into their own theistic paradigm.

4:03 PM Delete

Most Christians understand the way nature works in the same way that any scientific thinker does.The differences are ontological and metaphysical not physical.

Joe Hinman said...

Skepie you dogmatically deiced I contradicted myself because you chose to understand my statement in the most idiotic and materialistic way, that is true stupidity!

Here is the crucial exchange upon which the whole "contradictory? nonsense turns"

I said
not for organisms without brains genius.you are acting as though that means intelligent behavior is well known to be manifest by things without brains and that is missing the entire point.

you said
- WOW. Talk about contradicting yourself. You talked about amoebas and slime mold as examples of intelligent behavior without a brain. You used that to argue that mind doesn't "reduce to" brain. Now you're telling me that there is no intelligent behavior without a brain (genius).

I said
You are totally confused. You really have reading compression problems.I did not say amoebas are not brainless things and act intelligently I said "you are acting as though that means intelligent behavior is well known to be manifest by things without brains " WELL KNOWN! Most people including you tequila brain with intelligent and they don;'t know that amoebas manifest intelligent seeming behavior.


Obviously I was talking about what most people think about amoebas and slime molds not about what I think based upon that evidence, you went running down the road with your misconception and your inaccurate assumption because it suited your position. I think that's the way you treat all facts and all evidence.

Your charge of contradiction is based upon a misapprehension that could easily be corrected if you cared about truth,

Joe Hinman said...

First, you are contradicting yourself. YOU SAID: "There are, however, empirical data that imply that brain is not necessary to mind. One such datum is the humble amoeba." It's no surprise that you don't understand what I say. You don't understand what YOU say.

how the hell is that a contradiction? Its what I've said from the outset. I said most people don't see them that way but I do. Brain is the basis of mind, except (what "However" means in that sentence)there may be evidence against this [Brain/mind] in the from of single ell creatures but in terms of human being I assume brain is connected to mind. That is not a contradiction it's a complex positivism

Second, yes, people do think that mind is the product of a force from outside the body. Christians believe it.It part of their dogma.

bull shit, We believe all reality traces Back to God as first cause that doesn't meant hat all minds are being acted upon at every moment directly by God.


God is the source of logic and rational mind.

the distal source not the proximate source


That's not what I think. That's what Christians think. See this article, for example, which makes the argument much more coherently than you do. It says "we think and view the world the way we do because God has created us separate from the world and given us a rational soul with the capacity to make judgments about the world." It is this rational soul that is the external force (not part of - and separable from - the physical body)

There is a new modern theory to that effect but the vast majority of Christians don;t believe that..It's major stupidity not to know that. That just shows how truly unread you are. That is only held by a handful of people. Yes God is the source of Thought, God is the source everything. But not in a direct moment by moment way,he;s not beaming rational thought into us at each moment. God created the universe in such a way so as to produce rational creatures.


to which I refer. And now you seem to be denying it. You really need to get your own story straight.

you need to Finnish school.

im-skeptical said...

how the hell is that a contradiction?
- The reading comprehension problem is entirely yours, Joe. You misconstrue what I have said.

let me recap. You made these statements:
1. Amoebas and slime molds are examples of mind without brain.
2. Intelligent behavior does not occur in organisms without brains.

The articles you cited were about "intelligence" in creatures without brains. They dodn't say anything at all about consciousness. Neither amoebas nor slime molds are conscious. So in these examples, you are equating mind with their behavior (which has been described as intelligent), not with consciousness. But later, you argue that there is no intelligent behavior without a brain. That is a blatant, obvious contradiction. That's not mu failure to understand. It's your own failure to make a coherent statement.


Obviously I was talking about what most people think about amoebas and slime molds not about what I think based upon that evidence
- Joe, you're so occupied with trying to score points in the moment, that you change your position from one moment to the next, not even realizing that you said something entirely different in the previous moment. JUST LIKE TRUMP DOES.


There is a new modern theory to that effect but the vast majority of Christians don;t believe that
- Joe, if that's what YOU think, you are in a very tiny minority. Christians believe that the soul is the seat of intelligence. You are suffering from the delusion that because I am not a Christian, I don't know anything about Christianity. I was raised as a Christian. I went to Catholic school, and catechism classes. I know what ordinary Christians believe. Here is the Merriam-Webster definition of 'ghost': 1: the seat of life or intelligence : soul. That is consistent with most Christians' beliefs. It's what Victor Reppert argues incessantly. Even you argue that mind is not reducible to brain. But I really don't know what your point is, because you contradict yourself. YOU are incoherent.

Joe Hinman said...

im-skeptical said...
how the hell is that a contradiction?
- The reading comprehension problem is entirely yours, Joe. You misconstrue what I have said.

let me recap. You made these statements:
1. Amoebas and slime molds are examples of mind without brain.
2. Intelligent behavior does not occur in organisms without brains.

you are misquoting me you liar,you are doing it on knowingly. Stamen 2 is a toat lie. I did not say that you know it dumbass,

The articles you cited were about "intelligence" in creatures without brains. They dodn't say anything at all about consciousness.

that's real stupid. it is not at all an unfair assumption to link intelligence with consciousness,



you got the shit kicked out of you in argument so you are desperate to win some point you are willing to lie and distort issues to do it I don't have time for these childish games, Knock it off or I will ban you for good,

7th Stooge said...

- It was a rhetorical question. Far be it from Christians to try to force fit nature into their own theistic paradigm.

Except that this position is not endemic to Christianity per se. It is endemic to physicalism. Some Christians do this but it's not essential to the tradition. That's why the ideas of mystery and apophaticism are central to it. I'm not aware of anything analogous in physicalism.

im-skeptical said...

Stamen 2 is a toat lie. I did not say that you know it dumbass,
- me (1:17 PM): "Intelligent behavior arises from a complex collection relatively simple physical components."
- you (1:27 PM): "not for organisms without brains genius."
THIS is a direct quote. You are saying that intelligent behavior does not arise in creatures without brains. And of course, it comes after you presented your article on slime mold that describes "intelligent" behavior in these organisms. I basically agreed with that, and you can't help but argue against everything I say - even if it means contradicting yourself, which is exactly what you did.

you are misquoting me you liar,you are doing it on knowingly.
- I (accurately) summarized what you said. There are no quote marks on it. It was not a "misquote". Not like last week when you actually put quote marks on something you made up that I didn't say.

im-skeptical said...

Except that this position is not endemic to Christianity per se.
- Whether or not it's "per se", it is ubiquitous. All the Christians I know of believe that nature is God's creation, and explain at least parts of it in theistic and/or supernatural terms. Furthermore, they tend to be highly critical of naturalists who see no need to include non-natural (or non-physical) elements in their view of reality.

Joe Hinman said...

you (1:27 PM): "not for organisms without brains genius."
THIS is a direct quote. You are saying that intelligent behavior does not arise in creatures without brains. And of course, it comes after you presented your article on slime mold that describes "intelligent" behavior in these organisms. I basically agreed with that, and you can't help but argue against everything I say - even if it means contradicting yourself, which is exactly what you did.

you are misquoting me you liar,you are doing it on knowingly.
- I (accurately) summarized what you said. There are no quote marks on it. It was not a "misquote". Not like last week when you actually put quote marks on something you made up that I didn't say.



Blogger Joe Hinman said...
Skepie you dogmatically deiced I contradicted myself because you chose to understand my statement in the most idiotic and materialistic way, that is true stupidity!

Here is the crucial exchange upon which the whole "contradictory? nonsense turns"

I said
not for organisms without brains genius.you are acting as though that means intelligent behavior is well known to be manifest by things without brains and that is missing the entire point.

you said
- WOW. Talk about contradicting yourself. You talked about amoebas and slime mold as examples of intelligent behavior without a brain. You used that to argue that mind doesn't "reduce to" brain. Now you're telling me that there is no intelligent behavior without a brain (genius).

I said
You are totally confused. You really have reading compression problems.I did not say amoebas are not brainless things and act intelligently I said "you are acting as though that means intelligent behavior is well known to be manifest by things without brains " WELL KNOWN! Most people including you tequila brain with intelligent and they don;'t know that amoebas manifest intelligent seeming behavior.


Obviously I was talking about what most people think about amoebas and slime molds not about what I think based upon that evidence, you went running down the road with your misconception and your inaccurate assumption because it suited your position. I think that's the way you treat all facts and all evidence.

Your charge of contradiction is based upon a misapprehension that could easily be corrected if you cared about truth,

Joe Hinman said...

Whether or not it's "per se", it is ubiquitous. All the Christians I know of believe that nature is God's creation, and explain at least parts of it in theistic and/or supernatural terms. Furthermore, they tend to be highly critical of naturalists who see no need to include non-natural (or non-physical) elements in their view of reality.


Your original lie was that Christians beloved in an external force giving them mind from moment to moment, this is totally different

im-skeptical said...

you are acting as though that means intelligent behavior is well known to be manifest by things without brains ... Obviously I was talking about what most people think about amoebas and slime molds not about what I think based upon that evidence
- You asserted one thing, and then you asserted the opposite of that. It is a contradiction, regardless of what most people think. I don't care what most people think. I wasn't talking about what most people think. That is strictly your own reading comprehension problem. I was talking about you saying one thing and then the opposite of that. You can try to spin it to sound as if I am the one who's confused, but I am simply pointing out your contradiction.


Your charge of contradiction is based upon a misapprehension that could easily be corrected if you cared about truth
- It is based on what you said. I pointed it out to you numerous times now, and you keep trying to spin it.


Your original lie was that Christians beloved in an external force giving them mind from moment to moment, this is totally different
- It's the same thing. The "external force" is a non-material thing that is not part of the physical body. It is supernatural - not explainable by natural laws. It exists outside of the realm of physical reality. This thing is the soul, and sometimes, various other supernatural forces.

7th Stooge said...

- Whether or not it's "per se", it is ubiquitous. All the Christians I know of believe that nature is God's creation, and explain at least parts of it in theistic and/or supernatural terms. Furthermore, they tend to be highly critical of naturalists who see no need to include non-natural (or non-physical) elements in their view of reality.

"All the Christians you know" is anecdotal at best. And if you asked these Christians if God exceeds our understanding, even in principle, I'd be willing to bet that most of them would agree. Physicalists, on the other hand, are saying that one type of understanding is the one and only way to understand everything there is.

im-skeptical said...

And if you asked these Christians if God exceeds our understanding, even in principle, I'd be willing to bet that most of them would agree. Physicalists, on the other hand, are saying that one type of understanding is the one and only way to understand everything there is.
- I think that's disingenuous at best. Christians have their world view and naturalists have theirs. You are telling me that you have multiple ways of understanding reality, and I have only one way. I see it as the exact opposite of that. As I see it, the Christian view is boxed-in by theistic beliefs, but I see much more than that. A scientific view doesn't make us blind to your understanding of things. It opens us up to a broader understanding of reality.

Joe Hinman said...

I think that's disingenuous at best. Christians have their world view and naturalists have theirs. You are telling me that you have multiple ways of understanding reality, and I have only one way. I see it as the exact opposite of that. As I see it, the Christian view is boxed-in by theistic beliefs, but I see much more than that. A scientific view doesn't make us blind to your understanding of things. It opens us up to a broader understanding of reality.

But know nothing about theology, There;s a great variety of diverse view points among theologians. You think belief in God limits it, there area few doctrines that are universal to Christianity but they all fan out into more diverse view s poimts of thew world.

That's why we have theologians as vastly different as Carl C.F. Henry and Tilhard De Chardin.Or Etinne Giloson, and Paul Tillich. Conservative evangelicals vs. process new ager, conservative Catholic neo Thomist socialist existentialists

im-skeptical said...

But know nothing about theology
- Actually, I'm not an expert, but I have studied more about Christian theology in the past decade than the vast majority of Christians do in their entire lives.

There;s a great variety of diverse view points among theologians.
- Your idea of a diversity of viewpoints is the whole variety of Christian theological perspectives. I don't see anything there about any other kinds of knowledge. And I am told I have only one way to understand things. Do you see what I mean by being boxed in by your religious beliefs?

That's why we have theologians as vastly different as Carl C.F. Henry and Tilhard De Chardin.Or Etinne Giloson, and Paul Tillich. Conservative evangelicals vs. process new ager, conservative Catholic neo Thomist socialist existentialists
- It's interesting that you consider this to be a diversity of knowledge. Why are their views so different? Could it be that they each make up their own take on reality? Why is there no consensus? Whose views are closer to the truth? You can pick the ones you like - the ones who tell a story that is more appealing to you. Others will disagree with you. There is a diversity of ideas in science, too. But they eventually converge on the ones that most accurately reflect reality, as revealed by repeated cycles of testing, verification, and refinement. It isn't based on personality cults, or how appealing those ideas are.

JBsptfn said...

Skep, I don't buy your story that you have studied more theology than most Christians. And, I sense a condesending tone there. Deep down, you think that all Christians are morons and hayseeds who deny your holy science.

Joe Hinman said...

But know nothing about theology
- Actually, I'm not an expert, but I have studied more about Christian theology in the past decade than the vast majority of Christians do in their entire lives.

Unfortunately that's not saying much. But I do take back my statement becasue I have seen you talk about Thomism you do know some things.

There;s a great variety of diverse view points among theologians.
- Your idea of a diversity of viewpoints is the whole variety of Christian theological perspectives. I don't see anything there about any other kinds of knowledge. And I am told I have only one way to understand things. Do you see what I mean by being boxed in by your religious beliefs?

the methods of knowing are not that difference neither are they in scinece. You accept only science that's not diverse. The perspectives between theologies are very different,

That's why we have theologians as vastly different as Carl C.F. Henry and Tilhard De Chardin.Or Etinne Giloson, and Paul Tillich. Conservative evangelicals vs. process new ager, conservative Catholic neo Thomist socialist existentialists
- It's interesting that you consider this to be a diversity of knowledge. Why are their views so different? Could it be that they each make up their own take on reality?

first of all you don't know any thing about them, You don't underst and how vastly different they are. Secondly you arenot thinking honsltyabouthten yoiu arejusttalkinganoppornity to takea swipe attheenemy,whiule knowingnoting aboutit,


I laugh my head off when I think about how you probably imagine theology to be, I bet you think Tillich is like Pat Robertson. Your childish prattle about how they make it all up that's says it all. You only accept one form of knowledge, but even then it has to be laced with your ideology.the truth ia you are unscientific, and ideological



Why is there no consensus? Whose views are closer to the truth? You can pick the ones you like - the ones who tell a story that is more appealing to you. Others will disagree with you. There is a diversity of ideas in science, too. But they eventually converge on the ones that most accurately reflect reality, as revealed by repeated cycles of testing, verification, and refinement. It isn't based on personality cults, or how appealing those ideas are.


you are trying to have it both ways,you to pretend you value diversity and you want everyone to march in lock step to your rlekigoius ideology.you really resent that people have other faiths than yours,it really is the clash of religious intolerance. you are a religious zealot,for scientism

im-skeptical said...

the methods of knowing are not that difference neither are they in scinece. You accept only science that's not diverse. The perspectives between theologies are very different
- In science, there actually IS a method of knowing. In religious philosophy, it's whatever pleases you.

first of all you don't know any thing about them, You don't underst and how vastly different they are. Secondly you arenot thinking honsltyabouthten yoiu arejusttalkinganoppornity to takea swipe attheenemy,whiule knowingnoting aboutit
- There is a difference between knowing about something and accepting it. You apparently assume that if I don't accept your favorite religious philosophers' take on reality, it's because I don't know about them. How wrong you are. In truth, I reject what I do know about them. While i haven't studied all Christian theologians, I have learned quite a lot about many of them. At the bottom level, all brands of Christian theism are inconsistent with reality, as I understand it.

I laugh my head off when I think about how you probably imagine theology to be, I bet you think Tillich is like Pat Robertson. Your childish prattle about how they make it all up that's says it all.
- When they don't agree with each other, someone is wrong. Where do you think these theologies come from if they don't make it up? For the record, scientists postulate different ideas, too. The ones that prove to be inconsistent with reality are rejected. That's not true of religious philosophy. They just disagree with one another.

you are trying to have it both ways,you to pretend you value diversity and you want everyone to march in lock step to your rlekigoius ideology.you really resent that people have other faiths than yours,it really is the clash of religious intolerance. you are a religious zealot,for scientism
- Oh dear. Here we go with the projection again. I don't care what you choose to believe. What I resent is your constant stream of lies about what I believe.

7th Stooge said...

- I think that's disingenuous at best. Christians have their world view and naturalists have theirs. You are telling me that you have multiple ways of understanding reality, and I have only one way. I see it as the exact opposite of that. As I see it, the Christian view is boxed-in by theistic beliefs, but I see much more than that. A scientific view doesn't make us blind to your understanding of things. It opens us up to a broader understanding of reality.

Yes, I'm afraid I am saying that. The theistic view isn't incompatible with a "scientific view." In fact it makes the most sense out of a scientific view of things. It answers the "why" questions. Science can answer the "how" questions. They exist at different logical levels. You're conflating a "scientific view" which I subscribe to, with "physicalism." which says that all of reality is this one thing, that one thing being pretty hard to define!

im-skeptical said...

The theistic view isn't incompatible with a "scientific view." In fact it makes the most sense out of a scientific view of things.
- Unless you think that things like immaterial souls and movement without causation are unscientific.

Joe Hinman said...

Christians don't believe in movement without causation but you do. You believe in universes coming to be without causation.

immaterial souls the soul is a symbol for life so all symbols are immaterial. You have no bassos for proving that gravitational field is material; the notion of matter at the quantum level is mealiness because it;s what matter is made of.

Your phobia about immaterial existence is just a psychological trick to keep God off your back,

Joe Hinman said...

I have a new post up you know

im-skeptical said...

If you believe in free will, then you are denying Aquinas' Argument From Motion.

Joe Hinman said...

Joe Hinman said...
I have a new post up you know

9:54 PM Delete
Blogger im-skeptical said...
If you believe in free will, then you are denying Aquinas' Argument From Motion.

false, Erasmus used Thomistic arguments against Luther in defending Free will.

im-skeptical said...

Erasmus used Thomistic arguments against Luther in defending Free will.
- So he is just as illogical as most Christians. I have heard other defenses of it as well. It's not surprising. They have to find some way to justify irrational beliefs. The only alternative is to give up those irrational beliefs, and no amount of logic will ever convince them to do that. For the record, free will is by definition motion without a cause.

7th Stooge said...

- Unless you think that things like immaterial souls and movement without causation are unscientific.

Where do you get "movement without causation"?

My point was that a "scientific view" is compatible with different non-competing explanatory levels.

7th Stooge said...

- For the record, free will is by definition motion without a cause.

That's flat out wrong. there are many different versions of free will and most of them I'm aware of do not accept this.

im-skeptical said...

Most Christians believe in libertarian free will, which is non-deterministic. See this. In other words, not determined by or subject to any kind of causal factors. You are free to make one choice or another, in accordance with nothing but your own free will. This is a philosophical position held by many, but it violates physics, and the principle that things do not happen without a cause.

Joe Hinman said...

Most Christians believe in libertarian free will, which is non-deterministic. See this. In other words, not determined by or subject to any kind of causal factors. You are free to make one choice or another, in accordance with nothing but your own free will. This is a philosophical position held by many, but it violates physics, and the principle that things do not happen without a cause.

No it odes not violate physics, no law in physios says the will is not free,I don;t know that sinecure recognizes the will,I think that was previously counted as beyond scientific domain It;s your ideological reading that says physics says the wll is not free,

im-skeptical said...

Joe, free will makes things move. You decide to pick up a ball. There is physical force exerted on the ball by your hand. Your hand is moved by the muscles in your arm. The muscles are moved by electro-chemical stimulation from the nerves. The nerves are stimulated by the brain. The electrical impulses in brain must themselves be stimulated by something, or there IS a violation of physics. This is not ideological. It is reality. And even Aquinas recognized it. Nothing is moved unless it is moved by another. That's what he said. Free will is a violation of that principle.

And This (among other things) is why religion conflicts with science.

Joe Hinman said...

Joe, free will makes things move. You decide to pick up a ball. There is physical force exerted on the ball by your hand. Your hand is moved by the muscles in your arm. The muscles are moved by electro-chemical stimulation from the nerves. The nerves are stimulated by the brain. The electrical impulses in brain must themselves be stimulated by something, or there IS a violation of physics. This is not ideological. It is reality. And even Aquinas recognized it. Nothing is moved unless it is moved by another. That's what he said. Free will is a violation of that principle.

And This (among other things) is why religion conflicts with science.


that account assumes consciousness is phenomenal and reduced to brain function.I have sucessfully rebuffed all arguments on that consciousnessloo.,

in your reading whereyou leave of: "The electrical impulses in brain must themselves be stimulated by something," there is no scientific proof of what that something is.I say it's the will which is part of consciousness is not redueable to the physical parts. Your attempt to extend what we know to mantel what we don't know is where the ideology replaces understanding,

im-skeptical said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
im-skeptical said...

there is no scientific proof of what that something is.I say it's the will which is part of consciousness is not redueable to the physical parts. Your attempt to extend what we know to mantel what we don't know is where the ideology replaces understanding
- OK. So a scientific view would tell us that SOMETHING causes the movement, and your view is that NOTHING causes it. It's just free will, which doesn't even have God as the originating cause (because that wouldn't be free will, would it?)

Ryan M said...

"It means it's not proven. It does not mean there's no evidence to consider for your view there is a lot,but it's not proven. Proof is not easy, It;s not such a big claim."

OK, so the standard is too great. We don't have proofs for any empirical matter. We use proofs in mathematics/logic, but for any empirical matter, the conclusion we arrive at is never formally proven. That is, the conclusion is never guaranteed given the inputs we use to arrive at it (there is always some degree of uncertainty, no matter how small).

Don't expect a standard of evidence from physicalists that you wouldn't expect from physicists, biologists, chemists or other scientists when talking about propositions within the scope of their respective domains.

Joe Hinman said...

Don't expect a standard of evidence from physicalists that you wouldn't expect from physicists, biologists, chemists or other scientists when talking about propositions within the scope of their respective domains.

I don't bit doesn't mean that everything is in the domain of their knowledge or even that all things in that domain are easily accessible to them

Joe Hinman said...

there is no scientific proof of what that something is.I say it's the will which is part of consciousness is not redueable to the physical parts. Your attempt to extend what we know to mantel what we don't know is where the ideology replaces understanding

- OK. So a scientific view would tell us that SOMETHING causes the movement, and your view is that NOTHING causes it. It's just free will, which doesn't even have God as the originating cause (because that wouldn't be free will, would it?)

need to work on that comprehension thing,


"and your view is that NOTHING causes it"

what that something is.I say it's the will which is part of consciousness is not redueable to the physical parts.

where did I say the will is nothing?

7th Stooge said...

Most Christians believe in libertarian free will, which is non-deterministic. See this. In other words, not determined by or subject to any kind of causal factors. You are free to make one choice or another, in accordance with nothing but your own free will. This is a philosophical position held by many, but it violates physics, and the principle that things do not happen without a cause.

WHich version of libertarian free will are you referring to? Causal indeterminism says that the two things are not mutually exclusive. And agent causation says taht there is a cause to the agent's actions, namely the agent him or herself.

im-skeptical said...

need to work on that comprehension thing
- Actually, I think you do. I'm not even arguing about physical causes. In the case of free will, there is NO cause at all for what moves the will. You might say "There is a cause to the agent's actions, namely the agent him or herself", but that ignores the issue. According to Aquinas, nothing moves itself. And HE wasn't talking about strictly physical causes, was he? Free will is a contradiction of that principle.

Joe Hinman said...

Actually, I think you do. I'm not even arguing about physical causes. In the case of free will, there is NO cause at all for what moves the will. You might say "There is a cause to the agent's actions, namely the agent him or herself", but that ignores the issue. According to Aquinas, nothing moves itself. And HE wasn't talking about strictly physical causes, was he? Free will is a contradiction of that principle.

Yes will stems from the consciousness its not physical. Just because we don;t know the rules that govern it doesn't mean there are none. But being non physics it trammed physical causes and our understanding,

OK it's time we close this section.

7th Stooge said...

Actually, I think you do. I'm not even arguing about physical causes. In the case of free will, there is NO cause at all for what moves the will. You might say "There is a cause to the agent's actions, namely the agent him or herself", but that ignores the issue. According to Aquinas, nothing moves itself. And HE wasn't talking about strictly physical causes, was he? Free will is a contradiction of that principle.

So you're a Thomist when it suits your position? You might want to read up on this topic beyond Wikipedia articles.

Joe Hinman said...

And HE wasn't talking about strictly physical causes, was he? Free will is a contradiction of that principle.

the will is not physical so doesn't need physical cause,
I told you this was closed, next time zap

im-skeptical said...

No response to the argument. Just delete it, and pretend you won.