Mind/Body Problem...

kelly1

ghouse wrote: »

Can we stay on point pls and stop attacking the OP's opinions.

From the point of view of evolution, the human mind is a difficult road-block. Many of the functions we have that are not mirrored in animals we are apparently closely related to, give some cause for confusion.

Thanks. I don't see too many here who seem to grasp the problem. If apes had the same size brains as us, would they have the same faculties as us? I don't think so.

ghouse wrote: »

Until we have more information on the brain and the development of the thought processes unique to man, we should avoid ascribing the currently inexplicable to the paranormal and equally inexplicable.

An interesting question I just thought of; is the structure of animals brains very different to ours. Do other animals such as the chimpanzee have brains that are very similar to ours? Do their brains differ primarily in size?

kelly1

Wreck wrote: »

A purely physical process based on cause and effect taking place in the matter contained in your skull.

Meaning that the gunman had no choice?

seamus

kelly1 wrote: »

Meaning that the gunman had no choice?

It's as valid a theory as any other - who's to say that we actually do have free will. Everything is about cause and effect and since our universe is a closed system (as far as we know), there's a good argument to say that everything since the big bang has been predetermined and inevitable. Even our actions and our choices.

I prefer not to subscribe to it, but I accept that it's a very valid theory.

In fact, theists should love this theory. The existence of free will means that an "all-knowing" God is an impossibility - if I can make my own choices, how could he possibly know what that outcome will be? In fact, if I have free will, then you're going down the multiple universes road, meaning that there are infinite universes for every possible choice. It would be an impossibility for God to know or guess how things turn out, because they turn out every way imaginable.

The idea of a predetermined universe however implies that there is only one universe and it is possible to know everything about it. Which is kind of crucial for God.

kelly1

Wreck wrote: »

How is the idea that there is a limit to knowledge compatible with the existence of an omniscient god (i.e. a being with infinite knowledge)

I don't see any problem with that. We have a finite spirit while God's is infinite. Our intelligence is finite, God's is not.

Wreck

kelly1 wrote: »

Our intelligence is finite, God's is not.

Ok, fair enough, but that's not actually what you originally said. You're also using the terms knowledge and intelligence interchangeably. I'm not going to go any further into this as I don't want to derail the thread.

kelly1

Wreck wrote: »

Ok so in your analogy the puppeteer makes physical contact with the strings to control the puppet.

How does an immaterial spirit contact or manipulate or connect with the material brain?

Spirit would need to have the ability to influence matter and I believe it does.

pH wrote: »

We know that when we lose consciousness it's not just the the body that falls down limp, you don't continue to think and be self aware whilst you're unconscious.

And not all brain damage purely affects the the ability of the consciousness to control the body, certain types of brain damage can dramatically affect a person's morality, who they love, their ability to solve complex problems etc.

Have a read here.

As I said already, that doesn't prove that the brain is the source of intelligence/consciousness. It could be a conduit between the spirit and the rest of the body.

pH wrote: »

There is absolutely nothing to suggest that part of 'us' is separate from the actual physical brain and immune to physical damage. Everything we observe is entirely consistent with our consciousness, personality and faculties emerging purely from electrical and chemical reactions within the brain.

Matter can only produce matter and chemicals can only produce different chemicals. The point is that ideas are non-physical so how can the physical produce the non-physical?

Xhristy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I have difficulties with this idea. A brain is a material object albeit a complex one. Wouldn't it require something greater than the brain to comprehend the workings of the brain. As the brain grows in understanding of itself, it becomes more complex a thing to understand which in turn makes it more difficult for the brain to comprehend itself (if that makes any sense). I reckon there needs to be some external observer involved. How can an object understand itself, no matter how complex?

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

How can our minds, if they're nothing more than electrochemical processes, produce abstract thoughts about ideas such as justice, freedom, mathematics, metaphysics, encryption, morality etc.

You seem to imply from that statement that electrochemical process cannot produce human thought. Why exactly?

kelly1 wrote: »

Ideas are not material. Clearly a notion such as "the self" is not composed of atoms.

Ideas are not material, but everything that processes them are. Books contain ideas but to exist they must be made of atoms. Unless books have spirits too.

kelly1 wrote: »

Another related question is why is man capable of asking philosophical questions and using abstract thought? Why can't animals do this?

Well firstly you assume animals can't do this, which is a bit of a jump.

Secondly humans have evolved big brains, which allows us to ask these types of questions.

kelly1 wrote: »

Why are we the only species capable of these things? It's obviously not determined by brain size because there are animals with bigger brains than ours.

Why do you assume that animals with bigger brains don't do this?

kelly1 wrote: »

Personally, I think the only satisfying answer is spirit.

Well personally I think that is the least satisfying answer since "spirit" is completely undefined and as such explains nothing. You might as well say that "boogallo" is the only satisfying answer.

kelly1 wrote: »

Spirit is a good explanation for how the mind works

Ok, explain how the mind works using "spirit" .. in detail please. What happens when my eyes see, say, my mother and I think of a memory of my childhood.

I imagine your "explanation" of what is happening that includes the "spirit" will be a little lacking .... :rolleyes:

Wreck

kelly1 wrote: »

Wreck wrote:

How does an immaterial spirit contact or manipulate or connect with the material brain?

Spirit would need to have the ability to influence matter and I believe it does.

I asked how is it possible for an immaterial entity to influence or connect with a material or physical object. you respond by saying you believe it does.

kelly1 wrote: »

We know that when we lose consciousness it's not just the the body that falls down limp, you don't continue to think and be self aware whilst you're unconscious.

As I said already, that doesn't prove that the brain is the source of intelligence/consciousness. It could be a conduit between the spirit and the rest of the body.

What is the spirit, which you claim to be the source of our ideas and thoughts, doing while our brain is not functioning? Is it continuing to create ideas and thoughts?

Bottle_of_Smoke

ghouse wrote: »

From the point of view of evolution, the human mind is a difficult road-block. Many of the functions we have that are not mirrored in animals we are apparently closely related to, give some cause for confusion.

Until we have more information on the brain and the development of the thought processes unique to man, we should avoid ascribing the currently inexplicable to the paranormal and equally inexplicable.

Perhaps the animals that did mirror some of those functions are now extinct. Given they would have competed with humans or human like hominids I don't find this idea even a little bit surprising.

Kelly1 wrote:

Why doesn't it? Scientists may not like the idea but that doesn't mean it's wrong. It's wrong of scientists to assume that they will some day have the answer to these questions. Can scientists not accept that everything might not have a natural/physical explanation? Of course if scientists allowed for the possibility of the supernatural, then they would also have to accept that they might never get to the bottom of these questions and that would bring an end to science as we know it.

Eh, sounding a bit American Taliban here. This post shows you really have no clue about how science works. It's like you think all scientists believe the same thing about everything. If a Scientist had any good evidence of the supernatural they'd be doing their level best to show it in action.

So the only possible way forward for science is to deny the possibility of the supernatural, thereby keeping their egos afloat.

Hahaha, as if the idea of the supernatural bears any relevence to the vast majority of sciences.

If you break your leg are you gonna go to the hospital with all the egotistical science flying around or just gonna have a pray?

JC 2K3

kelly1 wrote: »

How can our minds, if they're nothing more than electrochemical processes, produce abstract thoughts about ideas such as justice, freedom, mathematics, metaphysics, encryption, morality etc.

How can't they?

We think, therefore they do.

kelly1 wrote: »

Another related question is why is man capable of asking philosophical questions and using abstract thought? Why can't animals do this?

How do you know they can't?

kelly1 wrote: »

Personally, I think the only satisfying answer is spirit. I believe it is a spirit which gives us intelligence and the ability to love. I know spirit is unsatisfactory to atheists because spirit is mostly undetectable. I find atheists a stubborn in this regard. Spirit is a good explanation for how the mind works and I also think infinite spirit (God) is a good explanation for what kicked off the big bang, the point at which something came out of nothing and the reason why physics breaks down. But now I'm digressing. Back to mind matters....

What's a spirit?

kelly1 wrote: »

There has to be a reason for everything.

Why?

kelly1 wrote: »

How does a material object come up with concepts such as infinity. How can matter produce something which is totally unrelated to matter e.g the concept of justice? Justice isn't physical, it's not composed of atoms so what produced it?

kelly1 wrote: »

Really? How does matter produce ideas (non-matter)?

How do computers, material objects, store and process "immaterial" data, perform immaterial concepts like mathematics etc. Do computers have "spirits"? Personally I don't think so, I recognise that computers act the way they do due to the arrangement of the atoms inside them.

Try this: The arrangement of atoms in the human brain makes humans generally act in a certain way, which tends to reflect the concept of "justice". The arrangement of these atoms can be altered by a number of facotrs in life, which makes some humans act in ways that adhere more or less to the concept of justice.

kelly1

DaveMcG wrote: »

Don't be f*cking ridiculous........

Really nice. Can you not debate something without lowering yourself to crude insults? How did you get to be a mod?

DaveMcG wrote: »

How about this for a satisfying answer: I DO NOT KNOW

There's a crazy phrase you don't often hear coming from theists' mouths! It's usually translated into the following: GOD DID IT :rolleyes:

It's a bit like the response we often hear from the scientific world - we don't know yet, but we're working on it! There seems to be a blind faith among scientists that they will someday have the answers to everything.

Dades

kelly1 wrote: »

So the only possible way forward for science is to deny the possibility of the supernatural, thereby keeping their egos afloat.

Are you for real?! Man's most worthwhile pursuit reduced to an ego trip?

The only parties in this debate with an agenda are the ones who don't care what the suggestion is as long as it doesn't contradict their religion.

Akrasia

kelly1 wrote: »

I really do think we're approaching a limit of knowledge. The particle accelerators are getting bigger and bigger and the particles being produced are getting shorter lived. Intuitively speaking, I'd say physicists are running out of ideas.

Um, scientists are adding to human knowledge at a rate unprecedented in the history of human civilisation.

Compare this with the middle ages when the church crushed all attempts at scientific enquiry that contradicted religion..

Akrasia

Wreck wrote: »

Ok so in your analogy the puppeteer makes physical contact with the strings to control the puppet.

How does an immaterial spirit contact or manipulate or connect with the material brain?

through the pineal gland, duh

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

It's a bit like the response we often hear from the scientific world - we don't know yet, but we're working on it! There seems to be a blind faith among scientists that they will someday have the answers to everything.

As opposed to what, religion just making the answers up ... I think I will stick with science

Wreck

Akrasia wrote: »

through the pineal gland, duh

Oh yeah, I forgot about that

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

You seem to imply from that statement that electrochemical process cannot produce human thought. Why exactly?

Because a thought is non-physical and the brain is physical. How can something material produce something which has nothing in common with itself. We know of nothing in this world that can produce anything non-physical so why should the brain be an exception just because of its complexity.

Wicknight wrote: »

Ideas are not material, but everything that processes them are.

I don't think anyone has proved that the brain is the ultimate source of our thoughts. The activity that we see in the brain could be in response to thought produced by spirit.

Wicknight wrote: »

Books contain ideas but to exist they must be made of atoms. Unless books have spirits too.

Books contain paper and ink. The combination of symbols that are used in books are only made possible by thought producing an agreed code.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well firstly you assume animals can't do this, which is a bit of a jump.

Have we any reason to believe that animals are capable of philosophical or abstract thought? If they are capable of it, they're hiding it very well unless you're thinking of a Dr. Doolittle situation.

Wicknight wrote: »

Secondly humans have evolved big brains, which allows us to ask these types of questions.

I think we've already established that the size of our brain is not the key factor. Whales have much bigger brains than us.

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok, explain how the mind works using "spirit" .. in detail please. What happens when my eyes see, say, my mother and I think of a memory of my childhood.

I can't explain how spirit works except to say that every spirit is created by God and is endowed with intelligence and has the ability to affect the brain.

Wicknight wrote: »

I imagine your "explanation" of what is happening that includes the "spirit" will be a little lacking .... :rolleyes:

Yes, it is lacking but so is the scientific "explanation".

Ciaran500

kelly1 wrote: »

Because a thought is non-physical and the brain is physical. How can something material produce something which has nothing in common with itself. We know of nothing in this world that can produce anything non-physical so why should the brain be an exception just because of its complexity.

Why is a thought "non-physical"? Sure its just a sequence of impulses in the brain

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't think anyone has proved that the brain is the ultimate source of our thoughts. The activity that we see in the brain could be in response to thought produced by spirit.

What? Has anyone presented anything to the contrary?

kelly1

JC 2K3 wrote: »

How do computers, material objects, store and process "immaterial" data, perform immaterial concepts like mathematics etc. Do computers have "spirits"? Personally I don't think so, I recognise that computers act the way they do due to the arrangement of the atoms inside them.

A computer has no understanding of the data that it stores in memory or on a hard disk. At the end of the day it's just 1s and 0s, nothing more. These 1s and 0s are grouped together into bytes which represent numbers which are codes for symbols etc.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Try this: The arrangement of atoms in the human brain makes humans generally act in a certain way, which tends to reflect the concept of "justice". The arrangement of these atoms can be altered by a number of facotrs in life, which makes some humans act in ways that adhere more or less to the concept of justice.

Sorry, I don't buy this. How does an arrangement of atoms or firing synapses (or whatever it is that goes on in the brain) represent justice or produce love for another person or God?

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

Because a thought is non-physical and the brain is physical. How can something material produce something which has nothing in common with itself.

A thought is a conceptual model, in the same way that a millimetre is a conceptual measurement of a distance in reality. A computer can "produce" a millimetre in the same way that a brain can produce a thought.

kelly1 wrote: »

We know of nothing in this world that can produce anything non-physical so why should the brain be an exception just because of its complexity.

Computers can produce non-physical things. Books can store them. Again the idea that non-physical things, such as ideas, cannot exist in a material fashion doesn't hold.

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't think anyone has proved that the brain is the ultimate source of our thoughts.

We aren't going to have another discussion about science and "proof" are we

kelly1 wrote: »

The activity that we see in the brain could be in response to thought produced by spirit.

I could be, but I see little reason to believe it is. By your own definition spirit cannot interact with material world, as such I fail to see how it could ever actually do anything

kelly1 wrote: »

Books contain paper and ink. The combination of symbols that are used in books are only made possible by thought producing an agreed code.

Certainly. And brains use atoms and electricity. The "agreed code" is determined by evolution.

kelly1 wrote: »

Have we any reason to believe that animals are capable of philosophical or abstract thought?

Well they have brains don't they. Some have brains the same size as ours, others have brains that we have discovered similar parts to ours.

kelly1 wrote: »

If they are capable of it, they're hiding it very well unless you're thinking of a Dr. Doolittle situation.

Well that is a rather egotistical position to take. If they do have conscious thought what makes you think they are the least bit interested in demonstrating that to you?

kelly1 wrote: »

I think we've already established that the size of our brain is not the key factor. Whales have much bigger brains than us.

True, but then whales have very advanced brains, on some levels more advanced that the other non-human apes. If there are in fact other species that possess consciousness I wouldn't be at all surprised if they included whales. Elephants, who also have large brains, also appear to have advanced almost human like brains.

kelly1 wrote: »

I can't explain how spirit works except to say that every spirit is created by God and is endowed with intelligence and has the ability to affect the brain.Y es, it is lacking but so is the scientific "explanation"

Wow, that explains so much :rolleyes:

What is the point of an "answer" that doesn't actually answer anything? I knew just as much about how the human brains works before your explanation of the "spirit" as I knew afterwards.

The scientific explanation at least attempts (sets out) to explain how the brain works. It does this far more than your spirit explanation, which explains exactly nothing.

Like a lot of religious mumbo jumbo its purpose is to not actually explain anything (which it can't and doesn't do), it is simply to get you to stop asking the question in the first place.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

A computer has no understanding of the data that it stores in memory or on a hard disk. At the end of the day it's just 1s and 0s, nothing more. These 1s and 0s are grouped together into bytes which represent numbers which are codes for symbols etc.

That doesn't really matter. While having no idea of what it is storing you can't deny that it does actually store it. The "idea" exists independently of any conscious mind. I could write a book, kill myself and pass the idea on to a new human who had never seen the idea before. The "idea" (a non-physical thing) exists independently of myself and can be passed around.

kelly1 wrote: »

Sorry, I don't buy this. How does an arrangement of atoms or firing synapses (or whatever it is that goes on in the brain) represent justice or produce love for another person or God?

Through the neural network of the human brain.

(you may notice you haven't explained how the spirit produces these things)

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

As opposed to what, religion just making the answers up ... I think I will stick with science

I don't accept that every religion is made up. I believe my own faith is directly revlealed from God in which absolute truth is paramount.

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Why is a thought "non-physical"? Sure its just a sequence of impulses in the brain

An idea isn't physical is it?

Dave!

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't accept that every religion is made up. I believe my own faith is directly revlealed from God in which absolute truth is paramount.

Irrelevent what you believe really. You just plucked from the air/bible the idea of a 'soul' and put it into the space.

Are you uncomfortable not having answers, or something?

Forget about the "faith in science", scientists trying to get the answer, and so on.

Right now, we do not know the answer to the questions you posed.

So where does the notion of a 'soul' come from? And how could we actually find an answer?

Tim_Murphy

I don't accept that every religion is made up.

"every religion is true for a given value of true."

Coming back to this thread two pages on and Kelly1 still doesn't seem to get the idea that his explanation ('spirit') explains precisely nothing. This seems something that is lost on religious folk very very often, they seem to honestly not get it.

JC 2K3

kelly1 wrote: »

Yes, it is lacking but so is the scientific "explanation".

There is no concrete scientific explanation. It's not lacking anything because it's non-existant.

Personally I find admitting that we don't know something for sure much more preferable than believing something made up.

kelly1 wrote: »

A computer has no understanding of the data that it stores in memory or on a hard disk.

Define "understanding".

kelly1 wrote: »

Sorry, I don't buy this. How does an arrangement of atoms or firing synapses (or whatever it is that goes on in the brain) represent justice or produce love for another person or God?

The same way a certain sequence of electrical signals(ie. 1s and 0s) in a computer represent certain values, a certain sequence of electrical signals in the brain could represent feelings of love and justice.

As an aside, do you believe that the Matrix could be technically possible?

Dades

Noel, you have a problem with how matter can come up with intangible things like "justice" - but have no problem with an intangible spirit manipulating the matter in our brains - why? Because one doesn't fit with your religion and the other does.

Everything points to the brain as the only source of our consciousness. Nothing points to there being an invisible spirit controlling the matter in our brains. The reason you refuse to accept this is because it contradicts your religious beliefs.

Which is exactly what creationists do, btw.

Tim Robbins

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

The word 'spirit' ...

Hey we got another Tim, Welcome!

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't accept that every religion is made up. I believe my own faith is directly revlealed from God in which absolute truth is paramount.

Yeah, but you are wrong. And as such such an "answer" is useless.

Or to put it another way, when has "knowledge" revealed from God ever actually been used to do anything useful? Or for that matter anything at all? The obvious example using this thread is "spirit", which ultimately means nothing and explains nothing. Its just an abstract idea that makes religious people feel better. It doesn't explain anything and itself needs a lot of explaining.

kelly1 wrote: »

An idea isn't physical is it?

No, it is conceptual. But how it is represented is (again see the example of a book)

Tim_Murphy

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Hey we got another Tim, Welcome!

Hey. *wondering what we're doing posting with real names on a forum full of people using screen names :eek: *

Dave!

That's not actually Tim's real name


It's Tom Ribbins!

God this is gonna get so confusing -- one of you change your names! Welcome anyway Tim