The Argument From Reason...

[seer]

That was a futuristic idea for his time wasn't it? The idea of a simulated reality.?

Yes, except in his case it would be a demon deluding you. But his logic is flawless - you could never show otherwise. So we all take reality by faith.

[Machinist]

No, it's that you can not prove that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality. You could be living in the Matrix, you are a brain in a vat with a scientist stimulating in your brain what you think of as reality. This all started with Descartes.

That was a futuristic idea for his time wasn't it? The idea of a simulated reality.?

[seer]

Briefly go over this again if you would. It's because we're using a subjective unverifiable tool (the mind), something that is beyond science, to conduct our experiments and make our conclusions. Is that the gist of it? I know you've gone over this time and time again.

No, it's that you can not prove that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality. You could be living in the Matrix, you are a brain in a vat with a scientist stimulating in your brain what you think of as reality. This all started with Descartes.

[Machinist]

First Tass, as we have discussed in the past you can not demonstrate that the material world exists, empirically or deductively.

Briefly go over this again if you would. It's because we're using a subjective unverifiable tool (the mind), something that is beyond science, to conduct our experiments and make our conclusions. Is that the gist of it? I know you've gone over this time and time again.

[seer]

The material world demonstrably exists - do you need "proof" that you are typing on a material computer? Conversely, your hypothesized immaterial world does not – it cannot be substantiated.

First Tass, as we have discussed in the past you can not demonstrate that the material world exists, empirically or deductively. We have faith that it does. Even you believe that we could be living in a simulation, and that it is more likely than not. So let's not speak of what can be substantiated or not when it suits you.

[seer]

Yeah, except you’re not actually playing, are you, Seer. You’ve simply proposed an unfalsifiable argument – “Mind is at least partially independent of the brain. How much? I’m not saying” – and demanded that those who disagree, prove you wrong. Rejecting out of hand any naturalistic arguments put forth to counter your position and offering nothing concrete to substantiate your own.

I never said that the mind was partly independent from the brain (but who knows in the end). I said that the mind is clearly not material. That is why first person experiences are not open to scientific redress. They are not physical - if they were science could easily map my brain and discover my favorite food, or car, who my first love was, how I experience a sunset, etc... And this is not a particularly religious question, many atheist see the problem, Thomas Nagel, Sam Harris (whom I linked), Chalmers, etc... From Descartes to Leibniz to Herbert Feigl the mind body problem is real. And I certainly do not have all the answers.

[Markus River]

Thanks for playing...

Yeah, except you’re not actually playing, are you, Seer. You’ve simply proposed an unfalsifiable argument – “Mind is at least partially independent of the brain. How much? I’m not saying” – and demanded that those who disagree, prove you wrong. Rejecting out of hand any naturalistic arguments put forth to counter your position and offering nothing concrete to substantiate your own.

Funny that we never see you and John Cleese in the same room.

[Tassman]

Sorry Tass, that is only the case if you are a materialist (an unproveable position).

The material world demonstrably exists - do you need "proof" that you are typing on a material computer? Conversely, your hypothesized immaterial world does not – it cannot be substantiated.

Theists believe in the soul which survives the physical.

So, the existence of immaterial, immortal souls is merely an unevidenced article of faith among believers. Got it.

Well I'm glad you agree that the mind is not material.

ONLY in the sense that it can’t be removed as an independent material entity. Nevertheless, the mind remains totally dependent on the material living brain to exist. NO living physical brain, NO mind.

[seer]

Great. Since you are unable to, in any way, substantiate your opinions, I'll ignore them.

Markus, in case this escaped you, you are grounding your beliefs in a materialistic structure. Hence your requirement for 'falsifiable evidence.' But that materialistic belief is not provable, it is assume apart from evidence. So you are merely offering your opinion - and given what you said above I am free to ignore it. Thanks for playing...

[Markus River]

Well no it doesn't. I need not prove anything, I offer my opinions, do what you will with them.

Great. Since you are unable to, in any way, substantiate your opinions, I'll ignore them.

[seer]

I agree. It's all a matter of taste. That rationality came from rationality is my preferred taste. I can't understand how the atheist could prefer that rationality came from irrationality. To each his own I guess.

Right, or consciousness from consciousness...

[Machinist]

I think showing that something is beyond science, and doesn't fit the materialist mold should cause one to wonder. Where that goes, or what is gleaned from that, is for each individual to decide. I think it is just cool discussing such things...

I agree. It's all a matter of taste. That rationality came from rationality is my preferred taste. I can't understand how the atheist could prefer that rationality came from irrationality. To each his own I guess.

[seer]

So we see that Tass is a dualist of sorts. I don't understand why there is a hesitancy on the atheists part to state the obvious. So where does the argument go from here? Once everyone agrees on the reality (of at least some form) of dualism, where do you take the argument?

I think showing that something is beyond science, and doesn't fit the materialist mold should cause one to wonder. Where that goes, or what is gleaned from that, is for each individual to decide. I think it is just cool discussing such things...

[Machinist]

Well I'm glad you agree that the mind is not material.

So we see that Tass is a dualist of sorts. I don't understand why there is a hesitancy on the atheists part to state the obvious. So where does the argument go from here? Once everyone agrees on the reality (of at least some form) of dualism, where do you take the argument?

[seer]

Well yes, I do. The mind is a product of the physical neuronal system of the living brain and ALL indications are that when physical living organisms die, they perish.

Sorry Tass, that is only the case if you are a materialist (an unproveable position). Theists believe in the soul which survives the physical.

The mind is “immaterial” ONLY in the sense that it can’t be removed as an independent material entity. But nor can it exist as anything other than the consequence of a complex dynamic system totally dependent on the living brain to exist.

Well I'm glad you agree that the mind is not material.