The Argument From Reason...

[Tassman]

First Tass, you have no idea what happens to the mind after death.

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.

Or if it necessarily remains brain dependent.

There is no substantive reason to think that consciousness in self-aware animals such as humans remains anything other than brain dependent.

But again, that was not the point - which is the mind is not material.

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.

[Tassman]

"It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.”

Or to paraphrase your atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel from the viewpoint of a theist: "It isn’t just that I believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there IS a God! I don’t want there to be NO God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.”

[seer]

Neither do you. And since there has never been any falsifiable evidence for a mind’s, dissociated post-mortem existence, it falls upon you to demonstrate that such entities exist. If indeed, you believe that they do?

Well no it doesn't. I need not prove anything, I offer my opinions, do what you will with them. Falsifiable evidence belongs in the realm of science, and there you need to assume that this is a scientific question. Which is not. Nor do I need assume that science can answer every and all phenomenon.

This is becoming a circular game of; “Oh, yes it is! Oh, no it isn’t!” You (seem to) believe that mind and brain are, at least to some degree, independent. I, and others here, believe that minds are emergent properties of living organic brains and do not exist except in conjunction with, and dependently upon, the healthy operation of that brain. And that they cease when the brain’s function ceases.

I know you want to believe otherwise, and your signature sums up your conviction. Or does it simply hide your fear, that your identity of self is facing an eternity of post mortem oblivion?

If the mind is emergent then it is not the same as the physical brain. Unless you want to make the case that this emergent property is physical - good luck with that. As far as fear, we all have our subjective preferences, perhaps you fear a just God at the end of the road. To quote the Atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel:

"It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.”

[Markus River]

First Tass, you have no idea what happens to the mind after death.

Neither do you. And since there has never been any falsifiable evidence for a mind’s, dissociated post-mortem existence, it falls upon you to demonstrate that such entities exist. If indeed, you believe that they do?

Or if it necessarily remains brain dependent. But again, that was not the point - which is the mind is not material.

This is becoming a circular game of; “Oh, yes it is! Oh, no it isn’t!” You (seem to) believe that mind and brain are, at least to some degree, independent. I, and others here, believe that minds are emergent properties of living organic brains and do not exist except in conjunction with, and dependently upon, the healthy operation of that brain. And that they cease when the brain’s function ceases.

I know you want to believe otherwise, and your signature sums up your conviction. Or does it simply hide your fear, that your identity of self is facing an eternity of post mortem oblivion?

[seer]

The 'mind' is not an entity in it's own right of any sort. It is a product of the entire physical neuronal system and totally dependent upon the functioning of the living brain. When it ceases YOU cease, regardless of your religious beliefs..

First Tass, you have no idea what happens to the mind after death. Or if it necessarily remains brain dependent. But again, that was not the point - which is the mind is not material.

[Tassman]

I didn't say the mind was independent, but only that it is not material. As far as the mind not existing without the brain, that may be the case now, but as a Christian I don't have to accept that will always be the case.

The 'mind' is not an entity in it's own right of any sort. It is a product of the entire physical neuronal system and totally dependent upon the functioning of the living brain. When it ceases YOU cease, regardless of your religious beliefs..

[seer]

Any mappable, traceable activity that is. i.e. this pattern of neural activity shows that the person is ruminating on a potential real estate deal.

No they could not map that without self reporting.

Also, what is your objection to the ant colony being used as an example for emergence?

????

[Machinist]

Yes, that is the point. But I don''t think I would say that first person experiences don't corresponded to brain activity. But that they can not be reduced to the physical - hence emergence.

Any mappable, traceable activity that is. i.e. this pattern of neural activity shows that the person is ruminating on a potential real estate deal.


Also, what is your objection to the ant colony being used as an example for emergence?

[seer]

Isn't the point of the argument the existence of private inner experiences, and that these first person experiences cannot be corresponded to any brain activity? A dual Aspect?

Who denies that there is a dual aspect? Whether you believe in emergence...whether you are a strict monist...whether you believe in substance dualism or property dualism or biological naturalism...or any mix and match suiting your taste...there is a dual aspect:

a private one and an observable one.

Is this not the point and focus of the argument?

Yes, that is the point. But I don''t think I would say that first person experiences don't corresponded to brain activity. But that they can not be reduced to the physical - hence emergence.

[Machinist]

Isn't the point of the argument the existence of private inner experiences, and that these first person experiences cannot be corresponded to any brain activity? A dual Aspect?

Who denies that there is a dual aspect? Whether you believe in emergence...whether you are a strict monist...whether you believe in substance dualism or property dualism or biological naturalism...or any mix and match suiting your taste...there is a dual aspect:

a private one and an observable one.

Is this not the point and focus of the argument?

[seer]

No they're not. A brain is a biological organ that serves as the centre of the nervous system in all vertebrate and most invertebrate animals. Physiologically, brains exert centralised control over a body's other organs.
They also act on the rest of the body both by generating patterns of voluntary and involuntary muscle activity and by driving the secretion of hormones. All of this, with the possible exception of voluntary muscle activity, without the requirement of a single “interdependent” thought.

I was speaking of immaterial thoughts influencing the physical. Nothing more, and we seem to agree on that point.

[Markus River]

Haven't I made my self clear that that mind and brain are interdependent?

No they're not. A brain is a biological organ that serves as the centre of the nervous system in all vertebrate and most invertebrate animals. Physiologically, brains exert centralised control over a body's other organs.
They also act on the rest of the body both by generating patterns of voluntary and involuntary muscle activity and by driving the secretion of hormones. All of this, with the possible exception of voluntary muscle activity, without the requirement of a single “interdependent” thought.

[seer]

‘Mind’ is not a separate entity in its own right that can act interdependently with the physical brain. It exists only as a complex emergent property of the living, physical brain and ceases to exist when the physical brain ceases to function.

I didn't say the mind was independent, but only that it is not material. As far as the mind not existing without the brain, that may be the case now, but as a Christian I don't have to accept that will always be the case.

[Tassman]

Haven't I made my self clear that that mind and brain are interdependent?

‘Mind’ is not a separate entity in its own right that can act interdependently with the physical brain. It exists only as a complex emergent property of the living, physical brain and ceases to exist when the physical brain ceases to function.

[seer]

So the mind and the brain (the mental and physical) in tandem move the physical. What you would expect if mind is an emergent property of the brain. The mind alone is unable to act alone on the physical.

Haven't I made my self clear that that mind and brain are interdependent?