Sunday, June 10, 2018

Dialogue on material and immaterial existence



Image result for Metacrock's blog






Joe:
TO believe that only what is material or physical is or can be real can also be the result of circular reasoning. You look only at the object of the belief, ie God, and not at how the belief is formed or maintained.


Skepie
- Let's consider this. Do I believe that "only what is material or physical is or can be real"? No. I do not begin with any such presumption. I am perfectly willing to accept that there could be something other than material reality. But if you want me to believe that there actually IS something other than the material, I need evidence of it. And that evidence not apparent. When I look at what's in my world, I see material things. I don't see immaterial things. Sure, people SAY those things exist, but I don't see them. People make many arguments for them, but as I pointed out, those arguments typically include the unstated presumption of their existence.

Joe:
My fish analogy answers that, if you were a fish and you were skeptical of the stuff humans talk about called "water," you would say "I don't see any water, I see all these physical things around  me but I see no water,"

The very  process through which you observe the world is immaterial. It is the mind that pulls sense data together and forges a coherent view of the world,you assume it;s just a straight line from your eye to your brain but it's not,


Skepie
You can't tell me that believing in the existence of material things is circular.

Joe:
I did not say that,I said your reasoning process in making arguments about it is circular,

Skepie
 It's what we see all the time. You can't tell me that the existence of immaterial tings is evident.
Joe:
It's not because that's the dividing line between domains. But if think not seeing it means it's not real then you lost half of science,

Skepie
We don't see them. Ever. Do I have reason to believe that the material is all that exists? Yes. It's based on the evidence. Do I presume that there could be no immaterial things? No. That's just what the evidence tells me. I do not begin my arguments by making that unstated presumption.
Joe:
That is just reductionist nonsense. as i said your apprehension of the world is viewing the world through the immaterial part of your mind. the sub  atomic particles is immaterial to   us we cant see it we have no direct proof it's there,there is no real  way to prove that the so called physical isn't just analogs to the immaterial in the way matter is related to energy, I;ts entirely possible that all physical existence is just a thought in a mind.

Saturday night 6/9/18

Joe:
you seem to think that it must be empirically verifiable in exactly the same way that material things are verifiable (at least on principle). That is your unstated presumption.


im-skeptical said...
- I disagree. But I do presume that evidence must be objectively knowable. If something is subjective, it isn't knowable to anybody but yourself, and therefore, it isn't evidence to anybody but yourself. It is therefore unreliable. There can (in principle) be evidence of non-material things. That's the basis of Joe's book (Joe calls it the 'trace', but that is indistinguishable from what the rest of us call 'evidence'). So, for example, if you showed me an observable effect of some immaterial entity, I would take that as evidence that such a thing exists.
Joe:
You Seem to be contradicting yourself in a basic way here. You just said "if you showed me an observable effect of some immaterial entity, I would take that as evidence that such a thing exists." I have shown that because argumemt from universal experience [1]shows that. You will never accept it. It fits exactly what you just said you will fight tooth and nail and rationalize until you bleed you will never accept that it could validate religious belief, My guess is you will back peddle and deny that  you just said there are circumstances under which it could be proven.

You say "it isn't knowable to anybody but yourself" so what? If I know it  it's something I know why should I allow someone else to dictate their ignorance to me as fact?
Joe:
You're rigging the game from the outset by assuming that the only type of legitimate evidence is the kind that verifies material things and only material things.


Skepie

- No, I'm not rigging the game. Please note that I don't insist on seeing the thing itself. I just need to see evidence that it exists. 


Joe:
The old atheist ploy, You deny that you insist upon absolute proof but we supply gobs of evidence.I have 52 arguments. Plantiga  has 120, I;'ve seen more.o Every single time you keep boosting the ante  until you really are demanding absolute proof;you say you aren't and it's fine in theory but you really are. The good atheist solider boy will never ever never admit that any evidence might just possibly maybe might prove it. Never.

200 studies in peer reviewed journals making three  different arguments, you have never read a single study  you know almost nothing abouit the  facts your assertions of what they say are just third hand guesses.

Skepie
Show me something that nature can't do. Show me a fruit tree that produces fruits with the Lord's prayer written on the inside of the unopened peels. Show me someone who can reliably predict future events. It doesn't matter what it is - I just need to see evidence. You are rigging the game by insisting that something exists, but I can never see the evidence of it.
Joe:
(1) You are dogmatically trying to raise the bar to a level you know wont be met.

(2) There is no theoretical reason why that's a valid requirement in terms of disproof of Christian belief. It's based upon bucking the Bible but I  don't have to just defend Bible thumping, There are other views of Christianity and non Christian views of God. Any of them being true means atheism is not true.

(3) your contradiction--this is why i say bucking the Bible, You say: "Show me a fruit tree that produces fruits with the Lord's prayer written on the inside of the unopened peels. Show me someone who can reliably predict future events. It doesn't matter what it is - I just need to see evidence." That is based upon countering the Bile rather than just reuting any kind of evidence, But you sweep all possible evidence under that  rug, unless the evidence is that dramatic it's not evidence. That is totally different from just saying as you do "I just need to see evidence." No! You just got throw   demanding evidence at a ridiculous level that you know wont happen; that is a contradiction.

On the overall issue proof of immaterial

You are talking like there is just a straight 1x1 proposition of seeing an object, we see it so it's real, You are glossing over the epistemological problems inherent in being human. This is not a matter of verifying some object. It;s about the nature of reality, There is no reason to expect empirical proof of any epistemic fundamental at the level  of being itself. God is not just an object in nature but he basis of reality,.
There are three aspects of reality that might lead us to believe:

(1) consciousness

(2) Matheatics

(3) Laws of phsyics

These are realities that cannot rationally be denied and yet have no physical basis in the world as we know it, It will be tempting for the physicalist to say they are in the  brain they result of brain chemistry, No they are not, in fact we can only access them through mind, True that we   need the physical apparatus to think about them but that does not reduce them to brain function. They are clearly just concepts that are referenced through brain function, they don't reside in any physical space,

The concept of physical law i s proving problematic is not as simple as merely reducing to description of the universes behavior. If physical law exists as such then there is a non physical reality that bears impact upon physical   reality. If it is just a matter of describing the universe,what is being described is a law-like regularity. [2]

Physics at the most basic level is not able to explain the basis of reality,It may be that the physical is really just another form of the mental the way matter is just another form of energy,[3]


Notes

[1] J.L.Hinman,"Argument from Universal Nature of Mystical Experience." The Religious a priori, no date given
http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2009/01/argument-from-universal-nature-of.html
(accessed 6/10/18)


(1) Religious experience is an individual personal experience

(2) Religious symbols are cultural

(3) scientific knowledge is far from proving a gene for religion

(4) therefore, we should not expect to find that mystical experience is universal

(5) we do find that mystical experiences are universal in the nature of what is experienced.

(6) Therefore, we are rationally warranted in thinking that there is an external stimulus being experienced.

(7)Since universal mystical experience leads people to faith, the content of it is about God, and is life transforming we are warranted in the assumption that this external stimulus experienced is God


[2] J.L.Hinman "Laws of Physics beyond descriptive/prescriptive dichotomy," Metacrock;s blog (Aug 21, 2017) 
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2017/08/laws-of-physics-beyond.html
(accessed 6/10/18)

[3] J.L.Hinman. "can science really prove the basis of modern physics?" Metacrocl's b.og, (April 30, 2017)
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2017/04/can-science-really-prove-basis-of.html
(accessed 6/10/18)

83 comments:

JBsptfn said...

Well done, Joe. Skep is just playing games again like he has done on several other blogs.

im-skeptical said...

Joe,

Let me start with a few general comments about this post.

First, I couldn't help but notice that you have attributed statements made by 7th Stooge to yourself. I take that to mean that you and 7th Stooge are one and the same. Which raises the question - why are you pretending to be different people in in a single conversation? And you have clearly referred to him as if he is a different person. But if you're not the same person, then why would you claim his statements as your own? Either way, there's something dishonest going on.

Second, I wonder why you save up all my comments and then turn it into a whole new post on your blog, rather than just answering them one-by-one in the course of the conversation. It is much more natural to discuss one question at a time, with a two-way dialogue that offers the opportunity to explore each issue fully, rather than trying to address a whole barrage of different questions at once. The latter approach almost guarantees that some of the points raised won't get the treatment they deserve, because attention is focused more on other questions. It resembles something more akin to a formalized debate, where each side prepares a lengthy response that doesn't have the character of a two-way conversation.

WL Craig tries to win debates by swamping his opponents with so many issues at once that they can't possibly respond to all of them when it's their turn. You seem to be doing pretty much the same thing, but in a more nefarious manner. Instead of answering my comments one by one, you save it all up an make a full article out of it, and then I am expected to reply in com-boxes. There's something inherently unbalanced about this. I previously declined to participate in a formalized debate with you mainly because I would rather address issues one at a time, and in a more conversational manner. This is not your college debate club.

Joe Hinman said...

All of those issues came out of your statements, they all relate to the central issue.

It's pretty obvious that you are not up to the talk of intellectually participation at the level to which the log aspires. You are clearly overwhelmed then make silly ass excuses because you can't be honest and just face your problem like an adult. Making stupid accusations like I am really Jim that's stupid and Mike and Kristen know the facts on that, you are just bribing the level of the board down.

I don't see why you insist on positing here when you are not into the kind of thing we want to do. All you had to do was say "I need to focus on this one issue," but what would be the point?

im-skeptical said...

If you are not him, then why do you claim his statements as your own?

7th Stooge said...

We are not, nor have we ever been, the same person. We agree about some things, but if you were paying attention, you'd see that we disagree about some things too. But besides the substantive differences, maybe you might have noticed a wee difference in rhetorical style, spelling, etc?

Joe Hinman said...

this is childish prattle you are distracting us from discussion. I knew it was a mistake to unban you,

get lost don't come back. You can't answer my arguments so like little Donald Trump baby you have to create a problem about nothing, to distract from your egregious stupidity.


btw the comments by Jim were part of the cut and paste I left in because they show context of thew quote,I will not waste any time arguing.

im-skeptical said...

OK. Let's talk about evidence. I notice that you split up my comments so that the main point is completely lost because the context is not preserved. Let's see if we can patch it together again. I was speaking specifically about evidence of the supernatural. You say you have 52 arguments, but arguments are not evidence. Arguments are how you justify your interpretation of the evidence. You say you have 200 studies, but once again, not one single one of those studies shows anything supernatural. I understand that you make a case that there is something supernatural going on, but honestly, it is all fully explainable as natural phenomena. I made the point that if you want me to believe there is something supernatural, I need to see evidence of it. What kind of evidence might that be? Something that wouldn't be explained by natural things behaving in a natural way. You respond with your three denials:

(1) You are dogmatically trying to raise the bar to a level you know wont be met.
- So you don't have any such evidence. Why don't you just admit it instead of lashing out at me for asking?

(2) There is no theoretical reason why that's a valid requirement in terms of disproof of Christian belief. It's based upon bucking the Bible but I don't have to just defend Bible thumping, There are other views of Christianity and non Christian views of God. Any of them being true means atheism is not true.
- I wasn't trying to disprove anything. I was asking you for evidence of what you believe.

(3) your contradiction--this is why i say bucking the Bible, You say: "Show me a fruit tree that produces fruits with the Lord's prayer written on the inside of the unopened peels. Show me someone who can reliably predict future events. It doesn't matter what it is - I just need to see evidence." That is based upon countering the Bile rather than just reuting any kind of evidence, But you sweep all possible evidence under that rug, unless the evidence is that dramatic it's not evidence. That is totally different from just saying as you do "I just need to see evidence." No! You just got throw demanding evidence at a ridiculous level that you know wont happen; that is a contradiction.
- It is not a ridiculous level. It is appropriate for the claims you make. You look at natural phenomena and you interpret that as evidence of the supernatural. I don't buy it. I am simply asking for evidence that actually demonstrates what you claim. And as I pointed out, it doesn't have to be the things I suggested. It could be anything. It just has to clearly indicate that there is something supernatural at work. It's not my fault you can't produce any such evidence. It's your beliefs that are unjustified - not mine.

Eric Sotnak said...

Joe said: "The very process through which you observe the world is immaterial."

Do you mean that it is a process involving non-material things, or that processes are not, themselves, material?

Also, you seem to use "material" and "physical" interchangeably. Many distinguish these (which is why they prefer to call themselves "physicalists" rather than "materialists"). Is this your intention?

Joe Hinman said...

Eric Sotnak said...
Joe said: "The very process through which you observe the world is immaterial."

Do you mean that it is a process involving non-material things, or that processes are not, themselves, material?

the former, sorry I did not make that clear.

Also, you seem to use "material" and "physical" interchangeably. Many distinguish these (which is why they prefer to call themselves "physicalists" rather than "materialists"). Is this your intention?

I'm aware of the distinction,I can't think of anything that we know is matter but is not physical,

Joe Hinman said...

Blogger im-skeptical said...
OK. Let's talk about evidence. I notice that you split up my comments so that the main point is completely lost because the context is not preserved. Let's see if we can patch it together again. I was speaking specifically about evidence of the supernatural.


You don't understand the proper concept of the SN. You are using the bait an switch of the enlightenment hi jack idea,I support the original version of Dionysius the Areopagite


You say you have 52 arguments, but arguments are not evidence. Arguments are how you justify your interpretation of the evidence.

that depends upon the argument, Arguments that are based upon the ontological principle are also evidence, because they form a unique unit of thought that doesn't require empirical backing and issue justify belief. We are not arguing for belief in God but the existence of immaterial things. So an arguments like mathematics is an evidence because it demonstrates the reality of non material things,

You say you have 200 studies, but once again, not one single one of those studies shows anything supernatural.

that is exceedingly foolish it's based upon confusing the two types of SN concept, You are asserting that they do;t prove the hi jack version which is NOT I accept.

Mystical is experience is a prori part of what Dionysius meant by the terms SN.So any study validating the reality of MNE is a priori a proof of the SN.




I understand that you make a case that there is something supernatural going on, but honestly, it is all fully explainable as natural phenomena.

Of course you have not read a single study, my book, or even the articulate I wrote defending the book You have no idea, you are guessing you are stabbing in the dark.My eight tie breakers and arguments against the chemical argument (which by the way are up right now on the cadre blog as part 2 of that Clarice)

Joe Hinman said...

that is supposes to say "article"

I made the point that if you want me to believe there is something supernatural, I need to see evidence of it. What kind of evidence might that be? Something that wouldn't be explained by natural things behaving in a natural way.

No that may have been what you really meant you did not say that., You said "evince of the existence of the immaterial," of course since you don't understand what SN is you just think any religious stuff is SN. So you think your hidden agenda is obvious but it's not, You did not say that's what this was really about,



You respond with your three denials:

(1) You are dogmatically trying to raise the bar to a level you know wont be met.
- So you don't have any such evidence. Why don't you just admit it instead of lashing out at me for asking?

you don't even establish clearly what we are arguing about. You say one thing you really mean another. I'm supposed to take that as init and magically know how to respond of couture

(2) There is no theoretical reason why that's a valid requirement in terms of disproof of Christian belief. It's based upon bucking the Bible but I don't have to just defend Bible thumping, There are other views of Christianity and non Christian views of God. Any of them being true means atheism is not true.

- I wasn't trying to disprove anything. I was asking you for evidence of what you believe.

what utter nonsense you are trying to disprove any reason to believe in God,

quote Me:(3) your contradiction--this is why i say bucking the Bible, You say: "Show me a fruit tree that produces fruits with the Lord's prayer written on the inside of the unopened peels. Show me someone who can reliably predict future events. It doesn't matter what it is - I just need to see evidence." That is based upon countering the Bile rather than just reuting any kind of evidence, But you sweep all possible evidence under that rug, unless the evidence is that dramatic it's not evidence. That is totally different from just saying as you do "I just need to see evidence." No! You just got throw demanding evidence at a ridiculous level that you know wont happen; that is a contradiction. close quote.


- It is not a ridiculous level. It is appropriate for the claims you make.

BullShit!!! You actually want a piece of fruit to naturally grow with a message in English growing as part of it. not written by human hand, No religious person in harlotry ever argued any thing on a par with that kind of stupidity. No skeptic in history has ever murder such obviously assigning requirement.You are obviously just trying set the bar so high no evidence could ever be found. Of course you can't deny the simple logical evidence I do offer.

You can't cope with the things that make people believe,You can;'t answer the questions that lead to belief. I don't think you even understand the concept of why that matters. You want to deny every vestige of religious thought to the extent no one should ever even ask a question that might lead to belief.



Joe Hinman said...

You look at natural phenomena and you interpret that as evidence of the supernatural.

Sense you don't understand the concept of SN you can't know what natural is either,


I don't buy it. I am simply asking for evidence that actually demonstrates what you claim.

but you want it with no concern for I actually claim but by your own idea of what religious people should claim. Which is straw man argument,


And as I pointed out, it doesn't have to be the things I suggested. It could be anything. It just has to clearly indicate that there is something supernatural at work.

you have to know what supernatural is,you equate that with not being tangible, that's silly,

It's not my fault you can't produce any such evidence. It's your beliefs that are unjustified - not mine.

I just sis genius you are carping because it's not what you are able to answer,

Eric Sotnak said...

Joe said: "The very process through which you observe the world is immaterial."

Me: Do you mean that it is a process involving non-material things, or that processes are not, themselves, material?

Joe: the former, sorry I did not make that clear.



Ok. So it seems to me that this is just begging the question. I would say that we do not have sufficient evidence to assert that any non-material things exist, and so we cannot say with any confidence that thought processes involve (much less crucially so) any non-material things.

7th Stooge said...

But if there are independent reasons to think that there are non-material things, like thoughts, reasons and experiences, why would it be begging the question? I think we can say it with some confidence, though not with certainty.

im-skeptical said...

You don't understand the proper concept of the SN. You are using the bait an switch of the enlightenment hi jack idea,I support the original version of Dionysius the Areopagite

Joe, one of the big problems here is that you refuse to use the same language that the rest of the world uses. When I speak of 'supernatural' you can look in the dictionary to get a pretty good understanding what the word means as I use it. Now, I realize that you have your own private definition that NOBODY else uses. We have discussed this before. OK I get it. But that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about something that should be easy enough to understand, because it is widely used in our language. If you insist on having your own definition, fine. I don't care. But don't try to tell me that I can't use a common word in the STANDARD way that everyone understands.

Just to be clear about it, by using the word 'supernatural', I was referring to things that are not natural. Things that supposedly exist or function in a way that is not consistent with the laws of nature. That would include things like 'souls', or immaterial minds. So now you understand what I'm saying when I use the word - you don't need to lecture me for not using it in the same way you do. There's no law that says everybody must use language in the same way Hinman does.

Eric Sotnak said...

7th Stooge wrote: "if there are independent reasons to think that there are non-material things, like thoughts, reasons and experiences, why would it be begging the question?"

But Joe's comment was not expressed as a hypothetical, but as an assertion. I would say that we have very good inductive reasons to prefer physicalist to non-physicalist explanations by this point in the game. I know there are arguments in favor of the existence of immaterial things. But I don't think any of those are successful. So from my standpoint, any position whose defense begins by asserting the existence of immaterial things is going to be a non-starter.

im-skeptical said...

that depends upon the argument, Arguments that are based upon the ontological principle are also evidence, because they form a unique unit of thought that doesn't require empirical backing and issue justify belief. We are not arguing for belief in God but the existence of immaterial things. So an arguments like mathematics is an evidence because it demonstrates the reality of non material things
- Same problem again. I use 'evidence' in a manner that is consistent with the dictionary. A key part of the definition is that it consists of a body of facts. Ontological arguments, while they may be regarded as a prioti, are not based on facts, but on assumptions. They certainly don't demonstrate anything you haven't already assumed. And by the way, logic and mathematics are based on observation of the physical world.

Mystical is experience is a prori part of what Dionysius meant by the terms SN.So any study validating the reality of MNE is a priori a proof of the SN.
- You seem to suffer from the delusion that you can declare an argument to be a priori, and it is proven beyond any dispute. I don't buy it because I don't buy your a priori assumptions.

Of course you have not read a single study, my book, or even the articulate I wrote defending the book You have no idea, you are guessing you are stabbing in the dark.
You have posted numerous chapters (if not the whole thing) of your book in your blog. Furthermore, you have listed your sources, and I have read every one that I could find. In other cases, I have read the abstracts, only to find that some of them have little or no relevance to the topic. But in the more relevant ones, I have pointed out to you that those reports themselves contain statements that flatly disagree with the conclusions you have drawn from them. You are a master at cherry-picking your 'facts'.

No that may have been what you really meant you did not say that., You said "evince of the existence of the immaterial," of course since you don't understand what SN is you just think any religious stuff is SN. So you think your hidden agenda is obvious but it's not, You did not say that's what this was really about
- I know what I said, despite your attempts to twist it into something different.

what utter nonsense you are trying to disprove any reason to believe in God
- Joe, anyone can read what I said. I was asking for evidence that would justify belief. It is not an attempt to disprove anything, and I don't think you can cite a single thing in my words that can reasonably be construed as an attempt to disprove your beliefs.

You actually want a piece of fruit to naturally grow with a message in English growing as part of it. not written by human hand, No religious person in harlotry ever argued any thing on a par with that kind of stupidity. No skeptic in history has ever murder such obviously assigning requirement.You are obviously just trying set the bar so high no evidence could ever be found. Of course you can't deny the simple logical evidence I do offer.
- No. I want EVIDENCE for what you want me to believe, not just your presumption-laden arguments. The only reason you feel it is unreasonable is because you know deep down that there is no such evidence. And it there were, wou would be shouting it from the mountain-tops. On the other hand, if such evidence actually existed, I would see it too, as we all would.

Joe Hinman said...

Ok. So it seems to me that this is just begging the question. I would say that we do not have sufficient evidence to assert that any non-material things exist, and so we cannot say with any confidence that thought processes involve (much less crucially so) any non-material things.

why begging question? the process of understanding the world comes to us from Mind and that is not material our minds are not material are things in our minds are not material, even through mind is supported by material processes,

Joe Hinman said...

But Joe's comment was not expressed as a hypothetical, but as an assertion. I would say that we have very good inductive reasons to prefer physicalist to non-physicalist explanations by this point in the game. I know there are arguments in favor of the existence of immaterial things. But I don't think any of those are successful. So from my standpoint, any position whose defense begins by asserting the existence of immaterial things is going to be a non-starter.

mind is real and not material,I* don;t see how anyone can deny that,

Joe Hinman said...

There is No Empirical Data that proves reducibility





Both sciences and the general public have come to accept the idea that the mind is dependent upon the brain and that we can reduce mental activity to some specific aspect of the brain upon which it is dependent and by which it is produced. Within this assumption neuroimaging studies are given special credence. These kinds of studies are given special credence probably because the tangibility of their subject matter and the empirical data produced creates the illusion of “proof.”[1] Yet EEG and MRI both have resolution problems and can’t really pin point exactly where neural activity is located.” In short, neuroimaging studies may not be as objective as some would like to think. There are still large gaps between observation and interpretation – gaps that are ‘filled’ by theoretical or methodological assumptions.”[2] Learning is not hard wired but is the result of “Plasticity.” This plasticity is what allows us the flexibility to learn in new situations. This means that most of our neocortex is involved in higher level psychological processes such as learning from experiences.[3] Our brains are developed by new experiences including skills acquisition.[4] Exercise and mediation can change the brain.[5]

Classical psychological reductionism assumes the mind is essentially the brain. Mental behaviors are explained totally in terms of brain function. Mental states are merely reduced to brain states.


______quote_____
But while it may be true that certain psychological processes are contingent on some neurophysiological activity, we cannot necessarily say that psychological processes reduce to ‘nothing but’ that activity. Why not? – Because much of the time we are not dealing with cause and effect, as many neuroscientists seem to think, but rather two different and non-equivalent kinds of description. One describes mechanism, the other contains meaning. Understanding the physical mechanisms of a clock, for example, tells us nothing about the culturally constructed meaning of time. In a similar vein, understanding the physiological mechanisms underlying the human blink, tells us nothing about the meaning inherent in a human wink (Gergen, 2010). Human meaning often transcends its underlying mechanisms. But how does it do this?[6]
____close quote_______


Reducing mind to brain confuses mechanism with meaning.[7]

Joe Hinman said...

Raymond Tallis was a professor of Geriatric medicine at University of Manchester, and researcher, who retired in 2006 to devote himself to philosophy and writing. Tallis denounces what he calls “neurohype,” “the claims made on behalf of neuroscience in areas outside those in which it has any kind of explanatory power….”[8]


_____quote____
The fundamental assumption is that we are our brains and this, I will argue presently, is not true. But this is not the only reason why neuroscience does not tell us what human beings “really” are: it does not even tell us how the brain works, how bits of the brain work, or (even if you accept the dubious assumption that human living could be parcelled up into a number of discrete functions) which bit of the brain is responsible for which function. The rationale for thinking of the kind – “This bit of the brain houses that bit of us...” – is mind-numbingly simplistic.[9]
______close______


Specifically Tallis has refernce to experiments where the brain is scanned while the subject does some activity and the differences are attributed to some structure in that part of the brain. Tallis is highly skeptical of this method.






[1] Brad Peters, Modern Psychologist, “the Mind Does not Reduce to the Brain.” On line resource, blog, 2/4/12

URL: http://modernpsychologist.ca/the-mind-does-not-reduce-to-the-brain/ visited 5/3/12

Brad Peters, M.Sc. Psychologist (Cand. Reg.) • Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

[2] Ibid.

[3] ibid

[4]Schore, A. N. Affect regulation and the origin of the self: The neurobiology of emotional development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (1994).

See also: Siegel, D. J. The developing mind: How relationships and the brain interact to shape who we are. New York, NY: Guilford Press. (1999).

[5] Peters, ibid.

[6] ibid.

[7] K. Gergen, The accultured brain. Theory & Psychology, 20(6), (2010). 795-816.

[8] Raymond Tallis New Haumanist.org.uk Ideas for Godless People (blog—online researche) volume 124 Issue 6 (Nov/Dec 2009) URL: http://newhumanist.org.uk/2172/neurotrash visited 5/9/12

[9] ibid

Eric Sotnak said...

"mind is real and not material,I* don;t see how anyone can deny that,"

This is why I asked my 1st question. My view is that very likely mind is a function of a material system. A function is not a non-material THING (for the purposes of determining basic ontology).

Joe Hinman said...

I can envision a whole city in my head, is there a phsyiucakl city in my head No I don't think it would fit. Those are immaterial ideas in my mind.

How about those laws of physics,they are not kept anywhere, they are not thinks you can o look at. I know they are just descriptions, but of course they back peddle on that and speak of it as a creative force when they need to as Hawking in grand design,

im-skeptical said...

I can envision a whole city in my head, is there a phsyiucakl city in my head
- There is a PHYSICAL representation of it in your head.

How about those laws of physics,they are not kept anywhere
- They are embodied in the PHYSICAL world.

Joe Hinman said...

im-skeptical said...
I can envision a whole city in my head, is there a phsyiucakl city in my head
- There is a PHYSICAL representation of it in your head.

no it;snot, the representation of the city i snot physical in any way It's like saying the picture on your computer screen is physical, it's just an illusion created out of pixels,the pixels are physical the picture is not, only the picture in my head is even less so because i;ts not available outside my head,

How about those laws of physics,they are not kept anywhere
- They are embodied in the PHYSICAL world.

No they are not,where do you find then then,? what part of the physical world? can you dig them out of the ground? you think because the effects are tangible that the laws themselves are embodied,that's nuts,

11:22 AM

im-skeptical said...

no it;snot, the representation of the city i snot physical in any way It's like saying the picture on your computer screen is physical, it's just an illusion created out of pixels,the pixels are physical the picture is not, only the picture in my head is even less so because i;ts not available outside my head
- A picture on a computer screen is a PHYSICAL representation of an image. When you see it, there is now a physical representation of that image in your brain. The mental image you have is simply a physical manifestation of that image due to physical brain processes acting upon the physical state of the neurons in your brain.

No they are not,where do you find then then,? what part of the physical world?
- We observe the physical world. We observe how it behaves. From our observation, we distill what we call the "laws" of nature. It is merely a recognition of the physical reality.

Joe Hinman said...

Joe:You don't understand the proper concept of the SN. You are using the bait an switch of the enlightenment hi jack idea,I support the original version of Dionysius the Areopagite

Joe, one of the big problems here is that you refuse to use the same language that the rest of the world uses. When I speak of 'supernatural' you can look in the dictionary to get a pretty good understanding what the word means as I use it.


the problem with that idea is we are not talking about what the world believes we are talking about what I believe.



Now, I realize that you have your own private definition that NOBODY else uses. We have discussed this before. OK I get it. But that's not what I was talking about.

this is why I don;t want you posting here. Because you can't approach a topic without making it a morally play between the good guys and bad guys.

trying to do this little stigma of unpopularity thing: no one else accepts your view, no one except the three Major sociologists and four major theologians that I quote to back it up.

You can't understand the concept of specialized knowledge, you would take funck and wagenl's definition of a technical legal term over black's law dictionary because you don't understand scholarship




im-skeptical said...

the problem with that idea is we are not talking about what the world believes we are talking about what I believe.
- Yes, Joe. It IS what we were talking about. Until I made the fatal mistake of using a word that you define as something different. Here is what YOU said:

"On the overall issue proof of immaterial ...
(1) consciousness
(2) Matheatics
(3) Laws of phsyics "

That's what I was addressing. It wasn't about your unusual use of the term "supernatural". You are the one changing the subject. I merely used the word in the normal way that most people understand - and that's what set you off.

Joe Hinman said...

I was talking about something that should be easy enough to understand, because it is widely used in our language. If you insist on having your own definition, fine. I don't care. But don't try to tell me that I can't use a common word in the STANDARD way that everyone understands.

you can't say christian theology is wrong but you are really talking about the atheist party line,

Just to be clear about it, by using the word 'supernatural', I was referring to things that are not natural. Things that supposedly exist or function in a way that is not consistent with the laws of nature.

you were equating that with being immaterial that need not be

That would include things like 'souls', or immaterial minds.

chatty is really stupid,what you really mean by SN is that witch cannot be true,Look how you sneak mind in with SN, Mind is totally natural.


So now you understand what I'm saying when I use the word - you don't need to lecture me for not using it in the same way you do. There's no law that says everybody must use language in the same way Hinman does.


no I don't because you just created confusion by confusing it with natural things you don't believe in such as mind, and immaterial vs material, so not only is what you really mean in doubt but the reason for thinking it;s not true is also mysterious,

Joe Hinman said...

skep you started out saying you just want to see some evidence not only can you not accept any kind of evidence but you can't even accept me having my own view,

Joe Hinman said...

Mystical is experience is a prori part of what Dionysius meant by the terms SN.So any study validating the reality of MNE is a priori a proof of the SN.
- You seem to suffer from the delusion that you can declare an argument to be a priori, and it is proven beyond any dispute. I don't buy it because I don't buy your a priori assumptions.

that's what he meant by the term. that is a prori. genius! true by definition,

Joe Hinman said...

It is not a ridiculous level. It is appropriate for the claims you make.

No you think since God does;t exist that;s a foregone conclusion it;s permissible to make the bar unassailable. there is no valid reason to make such impossible bull shit are the requirement only barbecue you hate religion..


You look at natural phenomena and you interpret that as evidence of the supernatural.

that's exactly what Mallow did., the reason you don't accept it is because you think there has to be a similarity between God not being real and evidence being possible, you cant reason in a straight line you can't reason without begging the question.

there is no logical reason why natural things can't point to SN, but you define SN as"that which cannot be,'



I don't buy it. I am simply asking for evidence that actually demonstrates what you claim.

you obviously don't mean that because you wont let me claim what I claim.

Part of what I claim is that Natural can point to SN you can't have that because you think God can';t can't exist so evidence can;t be posssilbe.



im-skeptical said...

you can't say christian theology is wrong but you are really talking about the atheist party line
- I didn't say Christian theology is wrong. I didn't say anything about "the atheist party line". I was simply using the word 'supernatural' the way it is defined in the dictionary. And that's the way 99.9% of Christians use it, too.

you were equating that with being immaterial that need not be ... chatty is really stupid,what you really mean by SN is that witch cannot be true,Look how you sneak mind in with SN, Mind is totally natural.
- I equate it with anything that is outside the realm the laws of nature. That would include immaterial minds, because such a thing would defy the laws of physics. Yes, minds are natural. And they are physical.

no I don't because you just created confusion by confusing it with natural things you don't believe in such as mind, and immaterial vs material, so not only is what you really mean in doubt but the reason for thinking it;s not true is also mysterious
- Show me evidence if a mind that isn't physical. Until you do, I'll stick with a more scientific understanding.

skep you started out saying you just want to see some evidence not only can you not accept any kind of evidence but you can't even accept me having my own view
- I accept you having your own view. I just don't buy it.

that's what he meant by the term. that is a prori. genius! true by definition
- An priori argument is no more true than the presumptions behind it.

No you think since God does;t exist that;s a foregone conclusion it;s permissible to make the bar unassailable. there is no valid reason to make such impossible bull shit are the requirement only barbecue you hate religion.
- My belief is based on the evidence. I don't believe in the things you do because I haven't seen the evidence that would substantiate that belief.

that's exactly what Mallow did., the reason you don't accept it is because you think there has to be a similarity between God not being real and evidence being possible, you cant reason in a straight line you can't reason without begging the question.
- If God is real, show me real evidence of it.

there is no logical reason why natural things can't point to SN ...
- I agree completely, and I said so.

... but you define SN as"that which cannot be
I told you how I define it. You just don't listen.

Part of what I claim is that Natural can point to SN you can't have that because you think God can';t can't exist so evidence can;t be posssilbe.
- Once again there can be evidence. Now show it to me. That doesn't mean you can make claims like "mind is immaterial", or "God causes mystical experiences" and expect me to buy it just because you say so. Show me real evidence.

7th Stooge said...

This is why I asked my 1st question. My view is that very likely mind is a function of a material system. A function is not a non-material THING (for the purposes of determining basic ontology).

I wouldn't say that this is very likely, especially considering that, arguably, there's no theoretical framework for explaining how this could be the case.

7th Stooge said...

I would say that Joe's rhetorical style is much bolder than mine or that of most people. He might say that years of bitter disputes on the internet have worn the niceties away from his style. But at least his assertion that mind is immaterial isn't merely stipulation or ad hoc. there are arguments supporting it, even if you don;t find them persuasive.

im-skeptical said...

Lots of arguments. Evidence, science, and reason don't agree with those arguments. How would a non-material thing of any kind control a physical body? There in so much about this that makes absolutely no sense.

Joe Hinman said...

there is no logical reason why natural things can't point to SN ...

- I agree completely, and I said so.

Liar,

Joe Hinman said...

bye skepie. yoy have been weighed in the balance and found wanting

Joe Hinman said...

Lots of arguments. Evidence, science, and reason don't agree with those arguments. How would a non-material thing of any kind control a physical body? There in so much about this that makes absolutely no sense.

(1) that is wrong. there is no evidence for mind being physical,none, I already documented that with experts,

(2) It doesn't matter if there is because there is as much counter evidence

(3) y0u have no basis in the assumption that one can;t control the other, Moreover, if relativity is based upon thought then its obvious how thought can control psychical,

($) Just because we don;'t know one thing doesn't mean no basis for belief

im-skeptical said...

Liar

Joe, you quoted me right in the main post: There can (in principle) be evidence of non-material things. That's the basis of Joe's book (Joe calls it the 'trace', but that is indistinguishable from what the rest of us call 'evidence'). So, for example, if you showed me an observable effect of some immaterial entity, I would take that as evidence that such a thing exists.

Now, the question is: do you not understand what I said, or do you simply deny it because of your dogmatic rejection of every single thing I say?

im-skeptical said...

(1) that is wrong. there is no evidence for mind being physical,none, I already documented that with experts
- Document it all you like. Practically every neuroscientist on the planet will vehemently disagree with you.

(2) It doesn't matter if there is because there is as much counter evidence
- I have been asking that you show me this evidence. All you have is arguments, and those arguments are based on your theistic presumptions.

(3) y0u have no basis in the assumption that one can;t control the other, Moreover, if relativity is based upon thought then its obvious how thought can control psychical
- I didn't make the claim that one can't control the other. I asked how it works. And that something that you have no way to explain. Moreover, relativity is NOT based upon thought, and I don't know where you get such a ridiculous idea. Relativity is a theory in physics that explains some aspect of how the physical world works. It has nothing to do with thought, and it says absolutely nothing about "how thought can control psychical".

($) Just because we don;'t know one thing doesn't mean no basis for belief
- Ignorance of reality is not a basis for belief.

Joe Hinman said...

here is the original context

there is no logical reason why natural things can't point to SN ...

- I agree completely, and I said so.

Liar,

then he changes the issue: "Joe, you quoted me right in the main post: There can (in principle) be evidence of non-material things. That's the basis of Joe's book (Joe calls it the 'trace', but that is indistinguishable from what the rest of us call 'evidence'). So, for example, if you showed me an observable effect of some immaterial entity, I would take that as evidence that such a thing exists."

more than once youabo e intimated taught saying natural things can be evidence of SN is just realy made mistaken and I should know better,

now you change it to just evidence of non material things,that was not the context it was naturalistic evidence of SN. you clearly were against it, you say " It is not a ridiculous level. It is appropriate for the claims you make. You look at natural phenomena and you interpret that as evidence of the supernatural. I don't buy it."

difference:

first you say

You look at natural phenomena and you interpret that as evidence of the supernatural. I don't buy it."

then you say
--there is no logical reason why natural things can't point to SN ...

- I agree completely, and I said so.

no you did not, you said the opposite that's why you lied.

Joe Hinman said...

1) that is wrong. there is no evidence for mind being physical,none, I already documented that with experts

- Document it all you like. Practically every neuroscientist on the planet will vehemently disagree with you.

you are full of shit, neurosciences do not make the kind of jackass claims atheists apologists do,I happen to have quoted two or three major nero researcher you have no answer,you did not disputed it you have no counter, let;s see you quote one saying what you claim.

(2) It doesn't matter if there is because there is as much counter evidence
- I have been asking that you show me this evidence. All you have is arguments, and those arguments are based on your theistic presumptions.


I already did try reading what I put up. go back and read my posits,

(3) y0u have no basis in the assumption that one can;t control the other, Moreover, if relativity is based upon thought then its obvious how thought can control psychical
- I didn't make the claim that one can't control the other. I asked how it works.


I said like a mind thinking a thought


And that something that you have no way to explain.


I justdid

Moreover, relativity is NOT based upon thought, and I don't know where you get such a ridiculous idea. Relativity is a theory in physics that explains some aspect of how the physical world works. It has nothing to do with thought, and it says absolutely nothing about "how thought can control psychical".

that was supposed to say "reality." Auto correct again,they should change that name to auto sabotage,

($) Just because we don;'t know one thing doesn't mean no basis for belief
- Ignorance of reality is not a basis for belief.

that's ludicrous stupid to say that not knowing one thing means total ignorance of the whole.

im-skeptical said...

no you did not, you said the opposite that's why you lied.
- OK. So in answer to my question, you apparently don't understand what I said. There is no contradiction. You just have to take my words at face value. Is there a logical reason why natural things can't point to the supernatural? No. I agree with that statement you made. If something supernatural could have an observable effect on the natural world, then that effect would be evidence of the supernatural thing. [And before you go off on another rant about the meaning of 'supernatural', I am using the word here in the sense that is defined in the dictionary. - Just so you understand what I'm talking about.]

I did say "You look at natural phenomena and you interpret that as evidence of the supernatural. I don't buy it." This points to a difference in what we regard as 'evidence'. Because the things you see in the world are the very same things I see. But you draw very different conclusions from them. Those conclusions are based on arguments that you construct to explain what you observe. And I do the same thing. The evidence we have is the same. The arguments we make are different. In this case, you see mind as being immaterial (which I have equated with 'supernatural'). I see mind as being fully consistent with the laws of physics - in other words, it is a phenomenon that arises from purely physical causes - there is nothing immaterial about it. I understand that you disagree. But getting back to the point of the matter, we both see the same evidence. We see that there is a phenomenon we call mind. We interpret the evidence differently.

The reason I don't think mind is evidence of the supernatural (or that mind is immaterial) is because I don't see anything about it that violates physics, as long as it is understood as a physical phenomenon. Of course, if you believe that mind is immaterial, then there is a violation of physics. You have the physical body being controlled by something that has no substance, and therefore has no way to cause anything to happen in the physical world. You have an effect without a cause. Something moves without anything applying a physical force to it. That doesn't happen in nature. Therefore, it is supernatural. But I must emphasize that no matter how closely we look, there is ALWAYS something physical causing things to happen in the body (and anywhere else we look).

I made the comment that this is something you have no way to explain. And I still abide by that, despite your simple-minded hand-waving explanation: "like a mind thinking a thought". Sorry, Joe, but that doesn't explain anything. It doesn't tell us how an immaterial thing exerts physical force on a material thing. And you still have no way to explain it.

Mike Gerow said...

It's subtle, the difference between "things move" and "things move with intention," that's the point. Things move anyways, but if they move according to some subjective intention, that needs explaining, and physicalist explanations at this point are convoluted at best. Much easier to just say that there is some "intentional" element than try to explain away intentionality (which is seemingly, subjectivly when we experience it, as much a primary force as gravity) by making it a manifestation of the same kind of forces that sometimes make rocks move or whatever.

Ryan M said...

"- Document it all you like. Practically every neuroscientist on the planet will vehemently disagree with you."

Indeed. If we followed Joe's standards, then we 'd need to accept that there is no evidence for human made climate change since there exists some 'experts' who disagree that such evidence exists. According to the old Philpapers survey of philosophers, among philosophers of mind we find that 61% of respondents accept physicalism and 59% accept naturalism. Or consider the philosophers of cognitive science where we find 76% of respondents accept physicalism and 85% accept naturalism.

Are such people 'experts'? I think so, so we have plenty of experts disagreeing with Joe. If we left philosophy and headed over to the sciences, then I'd bet we find a greater consensus among relevant experts that physicalism about the mental is true. Sure, Joe can cite people who claim such people are wrong, but this doesn't justify rejecting the majority.

Playing a citation game is boring and useless.

im-skeptical said...

Things move anyways, but if they move according to some subjective intention, that needs explaining, and physicalist explanations at this point are convoluted at best.
- Science is very clear on this. Things move when they are subjected to a (physical) force. There's nothing "convoluted" about it. No physical force, no movement.

"Intention" is simply a manifestation of the nervous system. It is produced by a biological phenomenon that drives a creature to seek what it needs to live, or in the case of more advanced nervous systems, to seek what is desired to live better.

im-skeptical said...

Playing a citation game is boring and useless.
- Unfortunately, Joe seems to feel that by merely citing a paper or two that agree with his position (or that he thinks agree with it), then the matter is settled for all time, and and can't be questioned.

Joe Hinman said...

Ryan M said...
"- Document it all you like. Practically every neuroscientist on the planet will vehemently disagree with you."

Indeed. If we followed Joe's standards, then we 'd need to accept that there is no evidence for human made climate change since there exists some 'experts' who disagree that such evidence exists.


How exactly do you work it out that being required to back your assertions with documentation is somehow going to quash factual claims? Should we infer from your statement that you don't actually believe climate change is happening or that man is contributing heavily to it because it's backed by data but only because some group you admire says so?

my standard is that one must prove one's claims in argument with best evidence so a unsupported claim vs a supported claim must lose.This is a debate. You have to back your claims in a debate, undocumented point is not proven. Otherwise I can just assert no 90% of thinking people and scientists agree with me, now prove they don't. is that what you want? A paint by numbers opp oration where one makes claims to to have the majority and does not have to support anything?




According to the old Philpapers survey of philosophers, among philosophers of mind we find that 61% of respondents accept physicalism and 59% accept naturalism. Or consider the philosophers of cognitive science where we find 76% of respondents accept physicalism and 85% accept naturalism.



Are such people 'experts'? I think so, so we have plenty of experts disagreeing with Joe.

I've told you many times my model is college debate. Of course such experts need to be challenged we (the methodology needs to be understood) need to ask the reasons for Thieu view and not all questions are decided by expertise. There are no experts in the existence of God. In logic and in argument and in the conventional God arguments but no expert knows if God is real or not.

My statement was not that I'm right because two guys agree with me,my point was that Skep will not back up his clinicians with facts or with printed material.
Climate change did pass my standard because I researched it i found the methodology of those claims as valid. My support is not based upon the word of an elite i wish to impress.


If we left philosophy and headed over to the sciences, then I'd bet we find a greater consensus among relevant experts that physicalism about the mental is true. Sure, Joe can cite people who claim such people are wrong, but this doesn't justify rejecting the majority.

the content of thought is really irrelevant isn't it? Just so the majority of tenure todies agree that's what matters. Your atheism is based upon being cool with a circle of tenured in-group minions. why do you do the pretense of discussion? the connect of an argument is irreverent,all that mattes what the majorly of the in group tells you to think.

If 81% of Phil paper readers said Trump is a great president would you accept that he is?

If that's what has become of American philosophy i can just remove Philosophy from my list of concerns,


Playing a citation game is boring and useless.

that's all scholarship is to you?

Joe Hinman said...


Ryan do you not get the difference in regurgitating pinon of a majority and documenting a factual claimant delving into the methodology that lead them to support the claim? that is what I am asking skepie to do.

That also means conning to terms with the specifics in the quotations I used.

Joe Hinman said...

m-skeptical said...
Playing a citation game is boring and useless.
- Unfortunately, Joe seems to feel that by merely citing a paper or two that agree with his position (or that he thinks agree with it), then the matter is settled for all time, and and can't be questioned


That is a little Trump-like excuse,it;s the same as calling it fake news and dismissing it, Now you think you don't have to prove that experts agree with you,show they do ,then show what's wrong with the stuff I quoted. All of that is done away because you say so. Becuse some claim is made to a majority that you refuse to document,

Joe Hinman said...

another thing that escaped your attention Ryan. Skepy claimed that "every single nuero scientist agrees with him"<i said I quoted three that don/t. you want to evoke majority appeal to popularity. But the fact is his claim is disprove, not every one. that is why it is necessary to document.

Joe Hinman said...



(2) It doesn't matter if there is because there is as much counter evidence

- I have been asking that you show me this evidence. All you have is arguments, and those arguments are based on your theistic presumptions.

that is a stupid lie because I did how it I not only linked to it I actually quoted in this page a couple of the researchers such as Taslis, he says the claims atheists make about neuroscience are just propaganda he is not supporting belief he is just being honest,

all you are capable of considering is beat the enemy,that;s all you can handle...

Joe Hinman said...

Joe
Skepy claimed that "every single nuero scientist agrees with him"

-skep Now who's the liar? You put quotes on something I didn't say, and claimed I said it. That is blatant dishonesty.

Joelook at the tell tale dash:

- Document it all you like. Practically every neuroscientist on the planet will vehemently disagree with you.

that was the begiingofRayn';s post, Ididnot typeit imerely copeiditRayn typedit,heseemedtobe quotingyoiu:

________________Quote______________
Ryan M said...
"- Document it all you like. Practically every neuroscientist on the planet will vehemently disagree with you."

Indeed. If we followed Joe's standards, then we 'd need to accept that there is no evidence for human made climate change since there exists some 'experts' who disagree that such evidence exists. According to the old Philpapers survey of philosophers, among philosophers of mind we find that 61% of respondents accept physicalism and 59% accept naturalism. Or consider the philosophers of cognitive science where we find 76% of respondents accept physicalism and 85% accept naturalism.
______close quote_____________

you are the only one uses that dash to separate your stamens form you poppets, Rayn does not start his sentiments that way,


im-skeptical said...

Ryan quoted me correctly. YOU didn't. You distorted what I said.

Joe Hinman said...

Blogger im-skeptical said...
Ryan quoted me correctly. YOU didn't. You distorted what I said.

I did you lying piece of shit, I did not type that Rayn;s thing eining quoting it, go look up there you fuck wad





Joeyou want to evoke majority appeal to popularity.

skep- NO. It's an appeal to science, not popularity.

Joe how is it an appeal to science when ye;s talking about phil papers It's an appeal to philosophy, his whole point was the numbers. Pretty obvious.

skep I don't need to cite a paper to "prove my point" that the earth orbits the sun, because it is well established in science. Still, there are some who disagree, and I could even show you papers by pseudoscientists making that claim. But it doesn't matter. I don't have to produce papers to dispute them. They are not using valid science. Likewise with your minority opinions on the immaterial mind. It's unscientific bullshit.

so because the earth orbits the sun consciousnesses is reduce able to brain chemistry? wow What Kind of reasoning is that,you really do have trouble reasoning,
Now Mar Trump you want to assert that you can just make statements that you don;t have to prove I;m supposed to accept that. I;m sorry I will not,accept that.

anyone can asset things,I say 90% of scientists agree with me,and 98% of philosophers they do.I say it,I don't have to show an article proving it,


Joethat is a stupid lie because I did how it I not only linked to it I actually quoted in this page a couple of the researchers such as Taslis, he says the claims atheists make about neuroscience are just propaganda he is not supporting belief he is just being honest


akep- UNSCIENTIFIC BULLSHIT !!!


you are dogmatically asserting an ideological slogan over the word of a priest in your religion,the preist of knowledge a scientist.

get this, My view is scientific? science science O say I say. O science,noble scene, thank i you science! all hail science,

now I;m right,


7th Stooge said...

"Intention" is simply a manifestation of the nervous system. It is produced by a biological phenomenon that drives a creature to seek what it needs to live, or in the case of more advanced nervous systems, to seek what is desired to live better.

If everything is due to physical causes, could we know that this is true? Not that what you're saying isn't true, but it would be nice to see you say for once that it might be more complicated than what it appears to be at first from a scientific perspective.

7th Stooge said...

Indeed. If we followed Joe's standards, then we 'd need to accept that there is no evidence for human made climate change since there exists some 'experts' who disagree that such evidence exists. According to the old Philpapers survey of philosophers, among philosophers of mind we find that 61% of respondents accept physicalism and 59% accept naturalism. Or consider the philosophers of cognitive science where we find 76% of respondents accept physicalism and 85% accept naturalism.

I'm jumping on late here. You'd have a point if all Joe is doing is relying on the authority of the source(s) he cites to bolster his position. But if he's arguing from the reasons expressed in the citation, then that's a different matter.

im-skeptical said...

so because the earth orbits the sun consciousnesses is reduce able to brain chemistry? wow What Kind of reasoning is that,you really do have trouble reasoning
- That is not my reasoning.

get this, My view is scientific? science science O say I say. O science,noble scene, thank i you science! all hail science
- It's a shame that you have so little understanding of nature. You rely on religion to tell you what to believe. And then you project your religious attitude on me (and at the same time, imply that religious belief is bad - as long as the same logic isn't applied to yourself). I don't do that. I am not like you. Don't try to drag me down to your level.

im-skeptical said...

If everything is due to physical causes, could we know that this is true? Not that what you're saying isn't true, but it would be nice to see you say for once that it might be more complicated than what it appears to be at first from a scientific perspective.
- It really is simple. Whenever we observe a cause, it is a physical cause. We NEVER observe any causes that aren't. We have plenty of religious people claiming that there are (or there must be) non-physical causes, and that stupid people like me are simply denying reality. So be it. I still say that 100% of the causes we observe are physical, and exactly 0% of the causes we observe are not physical.

Joe Hinman said...

I'm jumping on late here. You'd have a point if all Joe is doing is relying on the authority of the source(s) he cites to bolster his position. But if he's arguing from the reasons expressed in the citation, then that's a different matter.

In debate you have to prove what you say, you can use logic but for empirical matters you have to use studies. So if you have no source it;s just hearsay.A statement based up on hearsay vs one documented loses to the documented argument.now if he comes and questions the source then methodology becomes an issue then you have to defend the methodology. pirma facie the issue of documentation vs no documentation it;s a no brainier.

Joe Hinman said...

m-skeptical said...
so because the earth orbits the sun consciousnesses is reduce able to brain chemistry? wow What Kind of reasoning is that,you really do have trouble reasoning

- That is not my reasoning.

you have not dealt with reasons,

get this, My view is scientific? science science O say I say. O science,noble scene, thank i you science! all hail science



- It's a shame that you have so little understanding of nature. You rely on religion to tell you what to believe. And then you project your religious attitude on me (and at the same time, imply that religious belief is bad - as long as the same logic isn't applied to yourself). I don't do that. I am not like you. Don't try to drag me down to your level.

you think its just a priori the case that consciousness is reducible you have to accept because it;s just science science says so fisht it's stupid, that is not thinking it;s not reason it;s not scholarship ist;s not science just truth by stipulation, ideologue it;s party line.

you don't know shit about science to you science is party line spouting slogans e




11:39 AM Delete

Joe Hinman said...

Sep you are pulling down the quality of discussion It's regressive to keep fighting the same battle and we never go anywhere,

Joe Hinman said...

It really is simple. Whenever we observe a cause, it is a physical cause. We NEVER observe any causes that aren't. We have plenty of religious people claiming that there are (or there must be) non-physical causes, and that stupid people like me are simply denying reality. So be it. I still say that 100% of the causes we observe are physical, and exactly 0% of the causes we observe are not physical.

you really need to read Hume, you don't know the basics of philosophy of science. We don't observe causes, your statement is just semantic, Like saying we only observe things that are viable I wonder why that is? There are many causes of which o do not even see effects, such any thing to do with Quantum level. But in Nederland we don;t see any causes we see their effects and we surmise the cause,

of the things I named that immaterial we have to assume they have material causes either directly or indirectly but being immaterial we don;t see the effects either,

Mike Gerow said...

"Intention" is simply a manifestation of the nervous system. It is produced by a biological phenomenon that drives a creature to seek what it needs to live, or in the case of more advanced nervous systems, to seek what is desired to live better.

.... but the tricky bit is where you have to justify intentionality emerging by pure accident from an intentionless universe, which seems a cumbersome attempt at an explanation.

im-skeptical said...

you don't know shit about science to you science is party line spouting slogans e
...
Sep you are pulling down the quality of discussion It's regressive to keep fighting the same battle and we never go anywhere

- There is one person here who usually insists on dragging down the discussion with personal attacks. And it isn't me.

you really need to read Hume, you don't know the basics of philosophy of science. We don't observe causes, your statement is just semantic ...
- I have read Hume. And I am absolutely certain that my position is much more aligned with him than yours will ever be. Hume rejects your non-materialist notions of reality. The thing that you don't understand about causation is that modern science has a practical way of dealing with the problem of inferring causality. We understand that causality can't be established without a causal mechanism. So when I speak of "observing a cause", you shouldn't taker that literally, but you should understand it in a more scientific sense. It means establishing causality in a scientific manner. That's something that Hume would not object to.

im-skeptical said...

.... but the tricky bit is where you have to justify intentionality emerging by pure accident from an intentionless universe, which seems a cumbersome attempt at an explanation.
- But it isn't "pure accident". It is a survival mechanism. A product of evolution.

Joe Hinman said...

you don't know shit about science to you science is party line spouting slogans e
...
Sep you are pulling down the quality of discussion It's regressive to keep fighting the same battle and we never go anywhere

- There is one person here who usually insists on dragging down the discussion with personal attacks. And it isn't me.

yes it is you

you really need to read Hume, you don't know the basics of philosophy of science. We don't observe causes, your statement is just semantic ...


- I have read Hume. And I am absolutely certain that my position is much more aligned with him than yours will ever be. Hume rejects your non-materialist notions of reality.

that would be the happenstance of his pinon. The systematic nature of his thought requires that we don't see causation. You think you see causes because the priesthood of of knowledge tells you they are causes, Hume would say we only see one billiard ball stop and the other one start,you are only conjecturing cause.

so your argument that we see causation all around us and it's only connected to material stuff is just wrongheaded a priori


The thing that you don't understand about causation is that modern science has a practical way of dealing with the problem of inferring causality. We understand that causality can't be established without a causal mechanism. So when I speak of "observing a cause", you shouldn't taker that literally, but you should understand it in a more scientific sense. It means establishing causality in a scientific manner. That's something that Hume would not object to.


that is neither here nor there because the issue is not that we might be wrong about causation, any given cause might be misconstrued or it might well understood. The point is your argument about seeing causes is showroom. To work your argument has to assume that we see causes and we don't. It's not strange or telling that we only see causes connected with materiel things because we are not seeing causes,

Joe Hinman said...

... but the tricky bit is where you have to justify intentionality emerging by pure accident from an intentionless universe, which seems a cumbersome attempt at an explanation.


- But it isn't "pure accident". It is a survival mechanism. A product of evolution.

which is pure accident, The universe has no survival instinct, Evolution has no telos,

Joe Hinman said...

OK last call. Each make one last closing statement on this

im-skeptical said...

that is neither here nor there because the issue is not that we might be wrong about causation, any given cause might be misconstrued or it might well understood. The point is your argument about seeing causes is showroom. To work your argument has to assume that we see causes and we don't. It's not strange or telling that we only see causes connected with materiel things because we are not seeing causes
- Interesting you make a statement like that. Because we don't see any gods, either.


which is pure accident, The universe has no survival instinct, Evolution has no telos
- That is quite correct. There is no telos in the universe. And why would you think there is? But there certainly is a survival instinct in evolved creatures. Mutations are random, but natural selection produces a result that is anything but random. A long time ago, there were single-celled critters that moved about without any direction. Then, along cam a mutation (quite accidental), that caused movement toward the source of food. Guess what happened. That little critter survived while others died, and passed the mutation to its offspring. And THAT was the beginning of what you call telos.

Joe Hinman said...

hat is neither here nor there because the issue is not that we might be wrong about causation, any given cause might be misconstrued or it might well understood. The point is your argument about seeing causes is showroom. To work your argument has to assume that we see causes and we don't. It's not strange or telling that we only see causes connected with materiel things because we are not seeing causes
- Interesting you make a statement like that. Because we don't see any gods, either.

w don't see oxygen but we know when it's missing. The point was we don't see causation we also don't see all causes. It's crass and childish to equate cause with sight, because that would rule out oxygen,atoms, and a lot o things.


which is pure accident, The universe has no survival instinct, Evolution has no telos

- That is quite correct. There is no telos in the universe. And why would you think there is?

because it's obvious there is,but I mean not according to evolutionary theory,that;s why evolution is incomplete,


But there certainly is a survival instinct in evolved creatures. Mutations are random, but natural selection produces a result that is anything but random. A long time ago, there were single-celled critters that moved about without any direction.

That has nothing to do with the existence of the universe,


Then, along cam a mutation (quite accidental), that caused movement toward the source of food. Guess what happened. That little critter survived while others died, and passed the mutation to its offspring. And THAT was the beginning of what you call telos.

where did it all the previous stiff? where did the physical laws come from that make it happen.

tHis WAS YOUR LAST COMMENT AND MINE ON THIS SECTION,


7:58 AM

7th Stooge said...

It really is simple. Whenever we observe a cause, it is a physical cause. We NEVER observe any causes that aren't. We have plenty of religious people claiming that there are (or there must be) non-physical causes, and that stupid people like me are simply denying reality. So be it. I still say that 100% of the causes we observe are physical, and exactly 0% of the causes we observe are not physical.

The problem is that you think it really is that simple. When things are observed scientifically, then of course all that will be observed are efficient causes (prior antecedent necesary and sufficient conditions). The problem is that we humans at least appear to act for purposes, to fulfill intentions. I observe myself doing this right now as I type these words. maybe this is a 'user illusion' but it's not a simple matter deciding whether it is or not.

If you're right, and if there's nothing other than physical causes, I ask again how we could know that this is true. If you're right, all there is is physical conditons causing other physical conditions, and any representations we associate with these interactions, any universal truths, would have to be illusions.

7th Stooge said...

And then how could we know that it's an illusion?

Mike Gerow said...

I still say that 100% of the causes we observe are physical, and exactly 0% of the causes we observe are not physical.

... except for the arising of new material things themselves (ie quantum particles) which happens spontaneously according to you?

Anyway, applying notions that pertain to the things we observe inside the universe to the fact that we actually have observations in the first place could easily be a category error. There's no reason to expect the rules found inside a system to continue to apply to whatever conditions exist outside that system and out of which it arises.

At best, physicalism is a guess, based on "what we know about" (within certain limited ways of "knowing").

Ryan M said...

"... except for the arising of new material things themselves (ie quantum particles) which happens spontaneously according to you?"

His position wouldn't be contradicted on the assumption that he says such particles come into existence WITHOUT a cause (So, rather than having a non physical cause, there simply is no cause at all).

im-skeptical said...

If you're right, and if there's nothing other than physical causes, I ask again how we could know that this is true. If you're right, all there is is physical conditons causing other physical conditions, and any representations we associate with these interactions, any universal truths, would have to be illusions.
- We don't really know anything for certain. You certainly don't KNOW there's a God. The best we can do is observe, and trust that our senses give us some knowledge of the world outside our own mind. And we have good reason to place trust in our senses, because if we couldn't trust them, we wouldn't survive.

Joe Hinman said...

We don't really know anything for certain. You certainly don't KNOW there's a God. The best we can do is observe, and trust that our senses give us some knowledge of the world outside our own mind. And we have good reason to place trust in our senses, because if we couldn't trust them, we wouldn't survive.

that same criteria that gives us that trust also gives us reason to believe in God because RE fits the reiterate, that of epistemic judgement,

7th Stooge said...

We don't really know anything for certain. You certainly don't KNOW there's a God. The best we can do is observe, and trust that our senses give us some knowledge of the world outside our own mind. And we have good reason to place trust in our senses, because if we couldn't trust them, we wouldn't survive.

Of course. That's a given. But still the words 'know' and 'knowledge' have some meaning. What I'm wondering is this: Would knowing that "All X's are Y's" require that that statement be at a level of abstraction greater than any X or Y would be? It would require a reasonable ground, not a physical ground. To represent something as being true, especially universally or generally true, would need a level of abstraction greater, or at least different, than the thing being represented.

im-skeptical said...

Would knowing that "All X's are Y's" require that that statement be at a level of abstraction greater than any X or Y would be? It would require a reasonable ground, not a physical ground.
- Actually, logic is physical. It is one aspect of how things work in our world, on a par with physical laws. We acquire an intuitive understanding of logic by observing our world, and observing that things follow certain "rules" without exception. And that's the real basis for abstraction. By the time you go to first grade, you already have a pretty good basic understanding of these rules.

Joe Hinman said...

Actually, logic is physical. It is one aspect of how things work in our world, on a par with physical laws. We acquire an intuitive understanding of logic by observing our world, and observing that things follow certain "rules" without exception. And that's the real basis for abstraction. By the time you go to first grade, you already have a pretty good basic understanding of these rules.

Being intuitive does not make it physical. moreover what you are calling "logic" is not logic. You can go for life time and never guess the law of excused middle, Logic is ruels and you don;t stumble on to them by intuition,

You did not answer Jim you totally dogged his argument, just quoting some of it doesn;t mean you are answering it,

Joe Hinman said...

this is closed, Il et you have a last testament you went over it, im letting Jim have a last statement and if post anything more I;ll zap it,

7th Stooge said...

Yeah, skpe's comment was non-responsive.