Author Topic: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?  (Read 44240 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8941
  • Darwins +1134/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #551 on: January 13, 2012, 12:13:08 PM »
Hence my question as to what you believe intervenes in these physical reactions to produce an outcome that is not determined by physics/chemistry/etc.
Nothing intervenes in it.  I just don't think you can determine the single outcome that will happen in advance.  The possible outcomes are still inherently limited by physics/chemistry/etc, and you can not get an outcome that falls outside of those limits.

Quote from: Azdgari
"Complexity does it" is a pretty poor explanation, Jaim.  The job you've laid on "complexity" is basically that of performing magic.  Do you have an idea of how this could even work?
I don't think it's magic.  I think that you can have multiple outcomes from the same starting parameters in a system that is sufficiently complex.  What I'm not certain of is whether that complexity requires those quantum fluctuations or not.

Quote from: Azdgari
Nobody was talking about advance-prediction in the first place.  Why mention it?
Because it's a necessary component of the save-state universe.  Anything that happens after the state is saved is in the future of that state.  The result of one run-through based off of the state is therefore a prediction as to how other run-throughs based off of it will happen.

But remember - if the SGU, every element is reloaded exactly the same.  So this neurone has this particular charge, that axon is in that particular state....if each one obeys the laws of physics and changes its state from moment to moment according to the (identical, remember) stimuli affecting it.....how do you end up with a different result?

I'm saying that all the jigsaw pieces are the same, and will - can - produce only one picture.  You seem to be saying that - somehow - the same pieces can make 2 or more pictures.  I'm just asking you how.
Imagine you made a save state of someone making a jigsaw puzzle.  Let's say that the state was made before they'd decided on the picture to use for the puzzle.  You're basically saying that, from the point at which things were saved, they'll always pick the same picture and cut the pieces the same way.  I'm saying they might not.  They might have two or three pictures which they like, and have to decide which one to use.  So they might be more likely to pick one over the others, but it's not impossible that they'll choose one of the other two finalists instead.

Now, where you're correct is that at that point, they are going to make a jigsaw puzzle.  Some of the specific details of the puzzle might differ, but it'll be a jigsaw puzzle.  They aren't going to decide to make a coloring book instead.  The probability of a specific outcome becomes more likely as you approach it, but it's never 100% certain until you're past it.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2387
  • Darwins +95/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #552 on: January 13, 2012, 12:16:49 PM »
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 14166
  • Darwins +475/-40
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #553 on: January 13, 2012, 12:38:17 PM »
Nothing intervenes in it.  I just don't think you can determine the single outcome that will happen in advance.  The possible outcomes are still inherently limited by physics/chemistry/etc, and you can not get an outcome that falls outside of those limits.

Sounds pretty deterministic (or stochastic, rather) to me.  Where does objectively-real free will come in?

I don't think it's magic.  I think that you can have multiple outcomes from the same starting parameters in a system that is sufficiently complex.  What I'm not certain of is whether that complexity requires those quantum fluctuations or not.

Certainly, a true random element (like quantum fluctuations) can lead to multiple outcomes arising from the same starting parameters.  I can understand basically how that would work.  And complexity might allow those fluctuations to have a larger macroscopic impact than they would in a simpler system.  Putting those aside for a moment, though, how could complexity alone possibly give rise to multiple possible outcomes from the same starting parameters?  This is your claim.  An explanation is called for.

Because it's a necessary component of the save-state universe.  Anything that happens after the state is saved is in the future of that state.  The result of one run-through based off of the state is therefore a prediction as to how other run-throughs based off of it will happen.

I think you're entirely misunderstanding the thought experiment, Jaumehlers.  The observer of the two (or more) save-state run-throughs is not participating in what's going on in each subsequent run-through.  That would constitute a variation for each time, and violate the whole premise of the thought experiment.  If it helps, imagine it was a set of identical parallel universes that were all progressing at the same time.  Quantum randomness aside, would they progress in exactly the same way to the same point a year later along each one's timeline, or could they be different - as a result of their complexity, say, since you're citing complexity as a means to achieve the difference?

Then again, maybe you do understand the experiment, and are unintentionally suggesting supernatural intervention:
You're basically saying that, from the point at which things were saved, they'll always pick the same picture and cut the pieces the same way.  I'm saying they might not.  They might have two or three pictures which they like, and have to decide which one to use.  So they might be more likely to pick one over the others, but it's not impossible that they'll choose one of the other two finalists instead.

This only works if the decision is not a physical process.  Descartes would have suggested that the decision is made by the non-corporeal mind, and transmitted to the body via one's pineal gland.  What is your explanation?
I always say what I mean. But sometimes I'm a sarcastic prick whose tone can't be properly communicated via text.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #554 on: January 13, 2012, 02:15:29 PM »
So by your logic you can intuit how hungry I am at this point, since your intuition does not come from any internal evidence.  How hungry am I?

I do think it comes from internal evidence.  Intuition to me, is something I 'just know', sense, without having to formulate any formal proof.   As far as it applying to other people and external things, it's not always applicable.

Rubbish.  If your "intuition" is in no way affected by any process or evidence from within your own body, then there is NO difference between your intuiting your own hunger, or someone else's.  Whether you are aweare of a conscious process in immaterial - and I would agree, we are extremely rarely aware of the actual thought processes that inform our "decisions".

But your point is that your intuition is in no way affected or influenced by what your particular body "tells" you - and so (if intuition as a separate thing really exists) you will "just know" how hungry I am.

But you can't.  WHY can't you, Gill?

I never claimed that I thought intuition was in no way affected by things happening in the body.   It can be a source of objective knowledge, that doesn't require reason or formal proofs, or even experimentation.

Hunger sense is telling you a truth about reality, would you not say?   Well then why say the sense of agency is not?  They're both senses which come to people independent of any formal reasoning or experiments....

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #555 on: January 13, 2012, 02:25:01 PM »
Sure, the brain can be damaged.   But since the mind is immaterial, and indefinite, you haven't damaged the mind.  You've just damaged the brain's ability to transmit mind.
The mind is only immaterial in the way a (really, really) complex software program is immaterial.  And it is certainly not indefinite; how quickly can you do a math problem in your head?  That's a limit, which you can push back by doing lots of math problems and getting better at them, but the limit still exists.  The fact that we can't tell where those limits are does not mean they don't exist, just the same as the fact that we couldn't see stars that were too dim didn't mean those stars didn't actually exist.  And I take it you've never had a head injury, or you'd understand just how nonsensical it is to say that you only damage the brain's ability to transmit the mind, instead of directly affecting the mind.

Also, you need to stop trying to equate the mind to the body, because that is a patently ridiculous strawman.  We're talking about the brain, not the body, so you sound like you're repeating a poorly-memorized catechism when you keep saying "the mind is not the body", despite the fact that nobody here has actually argued that it is.  The brain is not the whole body, so stop trying to equate the two.

You can look at limits in the context of different aspects of the consciousness, but as a whole, I think it's indefinite.   One can try to measure it ,and try to define it.  But then, to be complete you've have to measure the measurement,  then measure the measurement of the measurement, etc. to infinity....   

Quote from: Gill
I don't really feel the need to have evidence for my belief, it's just based on rational.    For instance, if my mind is my body, then how can I imagine having no body?  Should not my mind then disappear to?  But it doesn't.
Quote from: jaimehlers
The fact that you can imagine something doesn't make it real.  Doesn't matter how rational you think it is, doesn't matter how convincing you are...if it doesn't actually work that way, you can't make it work that way simply by believing it does.  You have to deal with the way things really work, and if you try to break the rules, you end up paying the price.

As for imagining having no body, you've got it completely wrong; the worst part is that you don't even realize how fundamentally irrational your position is because you're not willing to consider that you might be wrong in what you believe.  "I don't need evidence, because I believe my belief is rational."  But you can't prove that it is rational, no matter how much you want to, without evidence that you can show.  And certainly not when dealing with non-credulous people like myself and others here.

I just did rationally proved it.   If my mind is my brain,  then how can I imagine having no brain?  My brain would disappear out of existence if my brain was my mind.   This may not be sufficient proof for you,  but it is for me.


« Last Edit: January 13, 2012, 02:30:11 PM by Gill »

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8941
  • Darwins +1134/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #556 on: January 13, 2012, 02:36:59 PM »
Sounds pretty deterministic (or stochastic, rather) to me.  Where does objectively-real free will come in?
I'm not arguing for objectively free will, though.  I think it all follows the laws of physics.  It might be better to think of what I'm talking about as free agency - the ability to choose between outcomes that are possible based on the interactions between the different parts of the brain and the mind - instead of objectively free will.

Quote from: Azdgari
Certainly, a true random element (like quantum fluctuations) can lead to multiple outcomes arising from the same starting parameters.  I can understand basically how that would work.  And complexity might allow those fluctuations to have a larger macroscopic impact than they would in a simpler system.  Putting those aside for a moment, though, how could complexity alone possibly give rise to multiple possible outcomes from the same starting parameters?  This is your claim.  An explanation is called for.
That I am much less certain of now that I've thought about it some.  It occurred to me that I might have been making a similar mistake as Gill of disregarding the necessary parts that allow the system to work in the way that we're familiar with.  Missing the trees for the forest, in a way.  It's a little bit like how electromagnetism gives us the feeling of touch - so basic that we don't even notice it., but if it were somehow gone then life as we know it would be impossible.

Quote from: Azdgari
I think you're entirely misunderstanding the thought experiment, Jaumehlers.  The observer of the two (or more) save-state run-throughs is not participating in what's going on in each subsequent run-through.  That would constitute a variation for each time, and violate the whole premise of the thought experiment.  If it helps, imagine it was a set of identical parallel universes that were all progressing at the same time.  Quantum randomness aside, would they progress in exactly the same way to the same point a year later along each one's timeline, or could they be different - as a result of their complexity, say, since you're citing complexity as a means to achieve the difference?

Then again, maybe you do understand the experiment, and are unintentionally suggesting supernatural intervention:
I'm not suggesting intervention, because you're right that it would defeat the purpose of the experiment in the first place.  I think if you could somehow observe these parallel universes without interfering with them, that you could end up with differences that weren't caused by quantum fluctuations.  But it's entirely possible that a universe which didn't have quantum fluctuations would be so alien that it wouldn't work anything like we could conceive of.

Quote from: Azdgari
This only works if the decision is not a physical process.  Descartes would have suggested that the decision is made by the non-corporeal mind, and transmitted to the body via one's pineal gland.  What is your explanation?
I think that the processes that let us make decisions can interact in such a way that they will not automatically come up with the same decision, based on the same starting data.  Of course, I could be wrong about that, and quantum fluctuations could be an essential component for coming up with a different decision despite the same starting data.  Computers are an example of a system that works irrespective of quantum fluctuations; it will always do the same thing the same way, barring instructions to the contrary.  But for that reason, they aren't a good model of how a human would act given a saved state.  We'd need a computer that could at least approximate the human brain, and the way it works, to be able to have a better idea.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline naemhni

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4377
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #557 on: January 13, 2012, 02:50:40 PM »
If my mind is my brain,  then how can I imagine having no brain?  My brain would disappear out of existence if my brain was my mind.

Please be kidding.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #558 on: January 13, 2012, 02:54:00 PM »
If my mind is my brain,  then how can I imagine having no brain?  My brain would disappear out of existence if my brain was my mind.

Please be kidding.

???  What don't you understand?

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8941
  • Darwins +1134/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #559 on: January 13, 2012, 02:56:19 PM »
You can look at limits in the context of different aspects of the consciousness, but as a whole, I think it's indefinite.   One can try to measure it ,and try to define it.  But then, to be complete you've have to measure the measurement,  then measure the measurement of the measurement, etc. to infinity....
Why?  It's silly to expect someone to measure a measurement an infinite number of times to be absolutely sure that it stays the same.  What you do is you measure it several times, and you have your buddies measure it several times, and you have your colleagues measure it several times, and so on..  If they all come out the same, within the error imposed by the accuracy of whatever you're measuring with, then you can conclude that it's correct enough to work with.  If at some later point, you measure it with a more accurate instrument and discover that it isn't the same, then you revise your explanation to account for the discrepancy.

Quote from: Gill
I just did rationally proved it.   If my mind is my brain,  then how can I imagine having no brain?  My brain would disappear out of existence if my brain was my mind.   This may not be sufficient proof for you,  but it is for me.
You didn't prove it at all (no evidence, therefore it is not proved), and your conclusion is irrational, as I said.  You are assuming that the mind has a separate existence from the brain, and then presenting an example to "prove" it of the brain being a product of the mind.  As you cannot will your brain out of existence, you therefore conclude that the mind is not the brain.  However, this completely ignores the alternative of the mind being a product of the brain - which practically everyone here has been telling you, and that you have consistently misunderstood - which would produce the same result of the mind being unable to imagine the brain vanishing and have it become reality.

In fact, the mind being produced by the brain explains the existing situation better, because if the mind were separate from the brain, the mind could cut itself off from the brain.  While the brain wouldn't vanish, all of the brain activity "transmitted" from the mind would.  Furthermore, this could be proved experimentally by people deliberately (and temporarily) cutting the transmissions from their minds off.  In that case, there would be a consistent amount of brain activity that would vanish, and could be experimentally verified.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #560 on: January 13, 2012, 03:03:13 PM »
Quote from: Gill
I just did rationally proved it.   If my mind is my brain,  then how can I imagine having no brain?  My brain would disappear out of existence if my brain was my mind.   This may not be sufficient proof for you,  but it is for me.
You didn't prove it at all (no evidence, therefore it is not proved), and your conclusion is irrational, as I said.  You are assuming that the mind has a separate existence from the brain, and then presenting an example to "prove" it of the brain being a product of the mind.  As you cannot will your brain out of existence, you therefore conclude that the mind is not the brain.  However, this completely ignores the alternative of the mind being a product of the brain - which practically everyone here has been telling you, and that you have consistently misunderstood - which would produce the same result of the mind being unable to imagine the brain vanishing and have it become reality.

It's not irrational at all.   

If my brain is my mind, then how again can my brain contemplate its own non-existence yet still exist?  There has to be something which still exists to do the contemplation.   That thing is 'the mind', and is clearly not the brain.  (although obviously interacts with it)
« Last Edit: January 13, 2012, 03:11:04 PM by Gill »

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #561 on: January 13, 2012, 03:05:37 PM »
You can look at limits in the context of different aspects of the consciousness, but as a whole, I think it's indefinite.   One can try to measure it ,and try to define it.  But then, to be complete you've have to measure the measurement,  then measure the measurement of the measurement, etc. to infinity....
Why?  It's silly to expect someone to measure a measurement an infinite number of times to be absolutely sure that it stays the same.  What you do is you measure it several times, and you have your buddies measure it several times, and you have your colleagues measure it several times, and so on..  If they all come out the same, within the error imposed by the accuracy of whatever you're measuring with, then you can conclude that it's correct enough to work with.  If at some later point, you measure it with a more accurate instrument and discover that it isn't the same, then you revise your explanation to account for the discrepancy.

You miss my whole point.  One can never account for the whole of the consciousness because they would have to include the account of the consciousness itself,  and then the account of the account and so on to infinity,  which is why consciousness is indefinite.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15326
  • Darwins +1178/-40
  • Gender: Male
  • We stand on the shoulders of giants
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #562 on: January 13, 2012, 03:33:05 PM »
If my mind is my brain,  then how can I imagine having no brain?  My brain would disappear out of existence if my brain was my mind.

Please be kidding.

???  What don't you understand?

It's not what he doesn't understand, you dolt.  It is what you don't understand: that your imagination is not reality.  Otherwise, science could be propelled a thousand times faster by people imagining experiments.  O, the time and money it would save!

The experiment you are looking for is one where you remove your brain from your head.  If you still had a mind attached to your body, then our premise would be falsified.  I would be happy to help you conduct this experiment.  Just let me know.
What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 18390
  • Darwins +446/-25
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #563 on: January 13, 2012, 03:34:47 PM »
It's not irrational at all.   

If my brain is my mind, then how again can my brain contemplate its own non-existence yet still exist?  There has to be something which still exists to do the contemplation.   That thing is 'the mind', and is clearly not the brain.  (although obviously interacts with it)

how can our brains contemplate *anything* that doesn't exist?  By our imaginations, which is created by the physical actions of our brains.  It's rather amusing to watch you run around the mulberry bush with this nonsense.  You keep creating more and more ridiculous exceptions for your nonsense.  What a example of how humans hate to be shown to be wrong. They'll do all sorts of ridiculous things.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #564 on: January 13, 2012, 03:41:56 PM »
If my mind is my brain,  then how can I imagine having no brain?  My brain would disappear out of existence if my brain was my mind.

Please be kidding.

???  What don't you understand?

It's not what he doesn't understand, you dolt.  It is what you don't understand: that your imagination is not reality.  Otherwise, science could be propelled a thousand times faster by people imagining experiments.  O, the time and money it would save!

The experiment you are looking for is one where you remove your brain from your head.  If you still had a mind attached to your body, then our premise would be falsified.  I would be happy to help you conduct this experiment.  Just let me know.

Did I ever say imagining something was real? No.  And I also never claimed that the mind was completely separate from the brain.   

But it's a contradiction claiming that your brain can exist, yet imagine it's own non-existence.   Therefore, the mind and brain are not the same thing.


Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #565 on: January 13, 2012, 03:51:44 PM »
It's not irrational at all.   

If my brain is my mind, then how again can my brain contemplate its own non-existence yet still exist?  There has to be something which still exists to do the contemplation.   That thing is 'the mind', and is clearly not the brain.  (although obviously interacts with it)

how can our brains contemplate *anything* that doesn't exist?  By our imaginations, which is created by the physical actions of our brains.  It's rather amusing to watch you run around the mulberry bush with this nonsense.  You keep creating more and more ridiculous exceptions for your nonsense.  What a example of how humans hate to be shown to be wrong. They'll do all sorts of ridiculous things.

 What's amusing to me is trying to apply materialism to the mind.

Ok, so atoms can imagine their own non-existence?  What then is existing to do this imagining?  Atoms?   So then something which exists can contemplate it's own non-existence.... ok then.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2012, 03:53:45 PM by Gill »

Offline Babdah

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 265
  • Darwins +4/-3
  • “We live in an age disturbed, confused, bewildered
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #566 on: January 13, 2012, 03:57:01 PM »

But it's a contradiction claiming that your brain can exist, yet imagine it's own non-existence.   Therefore, the mind and brain are not the same thing.

Are your trying to bring up Mind/Body dualism? A
“We live in an age disturbed, confused, bewildered, afraid of its own forces, in search not merely of its road but even of its direction

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #567 on: January 13, 2012, 03:59:36 PM »

But it's a contradiction claiming that your brain can exist, yet imagine it's own non-existence.   Therefore, the mind and brain are not the same thing.

Are your trying to bring up Mind/Body dualism? A

Yes, I'm referring to dualism.

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2387
  • Darwins +95/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #568 on: January 13, 2012, 03:59:49 PM »
But it's a contradiction claiming that your brain can exist, yet imagine it's own non-existence.   Therefore, the mind and brain are not the same thing.

Cmon, man! Use that coconut!

Can you, or can you not, imagine your own non-existence? Not just your brain, but your whole being. Can you imagine being dead? Do you remember what it was like before you were born? Imagine that.

If you cannot, I'd contend that your imagination is severely limited in scope (which may explain some of your posts...)
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline Babdah

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 265
  • Darwins +4/-3
  • “We live in an age disturbed, confused, bewildered
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #569 on: January 13, 2012, 04:02:22 PM »

But it's a contradiction claiming that your brain can exist, yet imagine it's own non-existence.   Therefore, the mind and brain are not the same thing.

Are your trying to bring up Mind/Body dualism? A

Yes, I'm referring to dualism.

Ok. Then how can we even exists before birth and after death
“We live in an age disturbed, confused, bewildered, afraid of its own forces, in search not merely of its road but even of its direction

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #570 on: January 13, 2012, 04:03:26 PM »
But it's a contradiction claiming that your brain can exist, yet imagine it's own non-existence.   Therefore, the mind and brain are not the same thing.

Cmon, man! Use that coconut!

Can you, or can you not, imagine your own non-existence? Not just your brain, but your whole being. Can you imagine being dead? Do you remember what it was like before you were born? Imagine that.

If you cannot, I'd contend that your imagination is severely limited in scope (which may explain some of your posts...)

You're just making my point for me,  which is that you can imagine every body part not existing,  yet one can't imagine the mind not existing, therefore the mind is not the body.   

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #571 on: January 13, 2012, 04:09:35 PM »

But it's a contradiction claiming that your brain can exist, yet imagine it's own non-existence.   Therefore, the mind and brain are not the same thing.

Are your trying to bring up Mind/Body dualism? A

Yes, I'm referring to dualism.

Ok. Then how can we even exists before birth and after death

Not sure I understand the question.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8941
  • Darwins +1134/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #572 on: January 13, 2012, 04:10:45 PM »
It's not irrational at all.   

If my brain is my mind, then how again can my brain contemplate its own non-existence yet still exist?  There has to be something which still exists to do the contemplation.   That thing is 'the mind', and is clearly not the brain.  (although obviously interacts with it)
It is completely irrational to imagine that you can cause your brain to stop existing merely by contemplating it being nonexistent.  You can contemplate that for as long as you want, but your brain will not stop existing no matter how much you contemplate it doing so.  You do not need to imagine that your mind is separate from your brain in order to come up with a reason why your brain still exists, because your mind never vanished to begin with.

You miss my whole point.  One can never account for the whole of the consciousness because they would have to include the account of the consciousness itself,  and then the account of the account and so on to infinity,  which is why consciousness is indefinite.
How is this different from expecting someone to measure the measurement of the measurement of the measurement...of the consciousness, on to infinity?  The answer is that it isn't.  Whether you call it measuring the consciousness, or accounting the consciousness, or whatever other term you come up with to try to justify this to yourself, the fact is that it's not how things actually work.  So no, you don't have to measure to infinity, or account to infinity, or do anything to infinity.  You do it enough to make sure your results are consistent, and you work from there.  Your point, that you can't get an accurate idea of the limits of the consciousness because you have to measure each measurement, or account for each account, is nonsensical and patently ridiculous.

And what makes you think a person can't imagine their mind not existing?  It's not like them imagining their mind not existing keeps their actual mind from existing.  They don't have to do it to infinity either.  So you're simply wrong in saying that a person cannot imagine their mind not existing, because their body still exists too no matter how much they imagine otherwise.  So what's to stop them from imagining their mind not existing in the imaginary space inside their mind?  Nothing, that's what.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2387
  • Darwins +95/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #573 on: January 13, 2012, 04:12:47 PM »
But it's a contradiction claiming that your brain can exist, yet imagine it's own non-existence.   Therefore, the mind and brain are not the same thing.

Cmon, man! Use that coconut!

Can you, or can you not, imagine your own non-existence? Not just your brain, but your whole being. Can you imagine being dead? Do you remember what it was like before you were born? Imagine that.

If you cannot, I'd contend that your imagination is severely limited in scope (which may explain some of your posts...)

You're just making my point for me,  which is that you can imagine every body part not existing,  yet one can't imagine the mind not existing, therefore the mind is not the body.

Nope, I'm not.

Babdah will be showing you why momentarily.
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline Babdah

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 265
  • Darwins +4/-3
  • “We live in an age disturbed, confused, bewildered
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #574 on: January 13, 2012, 04:15:50 PM »
Gill,

If you truly arguing Mind/Body Dualism, then answer my question,  How can the mind stay constant over time and even exists before birth and after death 
“We live in an age disturbed, confused, bewildered, afraid of its own forces, in search not merely of its road but even of its direction

Offline Babdah

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 265
  • Darwins +4/-3
  • “We live in an age disturbed, confused, bewildered
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #575 on: January 13, 2012, 04:17:50 PM »
To argue dualism to half to acknowledge that the mind existed before birth and continues after death, much like a "soul", with out the body your mind does not exist.
“We live in an age disturbed, confused, bewildered, afraid of its own forces, in search not merely of its road but even of its direction

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 18390
  • Darwins +446/-25
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #576 on: January 13, 2012, 04:24:51 PM »
What's amusing to me is trying to apply materialism to the mind.
so you're willing for me to remove your brain so you can prove that the mind isn't the brain?  IF you believe that the mind is immaterial, it shouldn't make any difference to you.  *Are you willing?*  YOu can be just like these poor things (and this links is GRAPHIC): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly

Quote
Ok, so atoms can imagine their own non-existence?  What then is existing to do this imagining?  Atoms?   So then something which exists can contemplate it's own non-existence.... ok then.
Wow, you are desperate aren't you.  Gill, I'll say it slowwwly.  Atoms aren't brains.  Atoms don't imagine anything.  Only things with consciousness, produced by the brain (no we don't know how yet and that doesn't mean your idiotic claims are true), can imagine as far as we know.  Things with consciousness have atoms in them and the interation of those atoms is what allows us to have minds.   If you have no brain, you have no mind.  You have been repeatedly asked to show that there is a mind independent of the brain but you haven't and it seems you can't.  You only retreat by saying that it can't be studied, how convenient for you and how pathetic.   
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #577 on: January 13, 2012, 04:26:45 PM »
To argue dualism to half to acknowledge that the mind existed before birth and continues after death, much like a "soul", with out the body your mind does not exist.

That's a specific type of dualism,  substance dualism, which I do believe.  But, even without showing the mind/soul exists after death,  I think it's clear that my argument applies to property dualism,  which can be said the mind emerges from the brain, and is distinct from it, although needed the brain to emerge.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #578 on: January 13, 2012, 04:34:27 PM »
It's not irrational at all.   

If my brain is my mind, then how again can my brain contemplate its own non-existence yet still exist?  There has to be something which still exists to do the contemplation.   That thing is 'the mind', and is clearly not the brain.  (although obviously interacts with it)
It is completely irrational to imagine that you can cause your brain to stop existing merely by contemplating it being nonexistent.  You can contemplate that for as long as you want, but your brain will not stop existing no matter how much you contemplate it doing so.  You do not need to imagine that your mind is separate from your brain in order to come up with a reason why your brain still exists, because your mind never vanished to begin with.


I didn't say I caused my brain to stop existing by contemplating that.   I'm saying,  how can something which exists, contemplate non-existence?  I can easily contemplate my legs not existing, because,  as you'd probably say, my brain is not my legs.   But, how can my brain itself contemplate it's own non-existence?  That's a contradiction to me.   There must be something which is distinct from the brain that remains to do so, the mind.

You miss my whole point.  One can never account for the whole of the consciousness because they would have to include the account of the consciousness itself,  and then the account of the account and so on to infinity,  which is why consciousness is indefinite.
Quote from: jaimehlers
How is this different from expecting someone to measure the measurement of the measurement of the measurement...of the consciousness, on to infinity?  The answer is that it isn't.  Whether you call it measuring the consciousness, or accounting the consciousness, or whatever other term you come up with to try to justify this to yourself, the fact is that it's not how things actually work.  So no, you don't have to measure to infinity, or account to infinity, or do anything to infinity.  You do it enough to make sure your results are consistent, and you work from there.  Your point, that you can't get an accurate idea of the limits of the consciousness because you have to measure each measurement, or account for each account, is nonsensical and patently ridiculous.

And what makes you think a person can't imagine their mind not existing?  It's not like them imagining their mind not existing keeps their actual mind from existing.  They don't have to do it to infinity either.  So you're simply wrong in saying that a person cannot imagine their mind not existing, because their body still exists too no matter how much they imagine otherwise.  So what's to stop them from imagining their mind not existing in the imaginary space inside their mind?  Nothing, that's what.

No, you can't measure the whole of consciousness.   What you just wrote would be included in the whole of it.  So whatever measurement or definition you made before would not be complete.    And since what people do , say, think,  experience,  just keeps continuing,  it is an indefinite process,  you can't define it wholly.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15326
  • Darwins +1178/-40
  • Gender: Male
  • We stand on the shoulders of giants
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #579 on: January 13, 2012, 04:39:40 PM »
But it's a contradiction claiming that your brain can exist, yet imagine it's own non-existence.   Therefore, the mind and brain are not the same thing.

^This is where you go off the rails.  In what way is it a contradiction for the the brain to imagine its own non-existence?  Go ahead, layout the argument.  You know, if A, then B, etc.  Because what you are saying just sounds preposterously stupid to me.


It is hypothesized that one of the reasons people like you have a dualistic view is because people cannot actually contemplate their own non-existence.  And by that I do not mean, the non-existence of the body or brain, but of the self.  The mind cannot comprehend not existing.  Just as you have a difficult time wrapping your head around "what it was like" before you were born, you similarly have a hard time conceiving what it will be like after you are dead.  And because of that, they think the mind must be some separate thing, that goes on after the body and brain are obliterated.[1][2]

But that is primitive thinking, Gill.  It is allowing emotions and the limitations of imagination to make decisions for you.  You need to override those primitive urges and allow rational thinking and evidence make them.  For one thing, you will never experience your own non-existence.  It is impossible.  Your brain will be dead, and so the experience will be lost on you.  For another, you have a hard time imagining it because in the imagining, you are observing your own non-existence.  It is an oxymoron.

If the mind is the product of the brain - and only a product of the brain - then change to the brain will also affect changes to the mind.  This has been demonstrated to you already, I believe. 
You have [wiki]Phineas Gage[/wiki], brain trauma[3], and Alzheimers.  Yet you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge reality.  Why?
 1. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=never-say-die have to buy a subscription
 2. or read the copy of it here: http://www.monstrous.com/Religions_and_beliefs/Never_Say_Die_Why_We_Can_t_Imagine_Death.html
 3. http://www.brainandspinalcord.org/recovery-traumatic-brain-injury/personality-changes-tbi/index.html
http://www.caregiver.org/jsp/content_node.jsp?nodeid=396
What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.