The Argument From Reason...

[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...

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[Tassman]

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.

Well, we CAN demonstrate that the material world exists, we’re living in it, we are a part of it - our very bodies are material.

Even you believe that we could be living in a simulation, and that it is more likely than not.

Even if we are living in a simulated world as per Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom et al one has no option other than to treat it as real and actual as we do re the natural material world in which we now live. .

So let's not speak of what can be substantiated or not when it suits you.

Yes, let’s speak of what can be substantiated and what cannot be substantiated. Your subjective world of spirits and souls and gods CANNOT be substantiated, merely believed or not believed. Conversely, the objective material world in which we live CAN be demonstrated by the very keyboard at which you’re typing the thoughts emanating from your living physical brain.

[seer]

Well, we CAN demonstrate that the material world exists, we’re living in it, we are a part of it - our very bodies are material.

Even if we are living in a simulated world as per Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom et al one has no option other than to treat it as real and actual as we do re the natural material world in which we now live.

But then you can not demonstrate that the material world exists if it is likely a simulation.

Yes, let’s speak of what can be substantiated and what cannot be substantiated. Your subjective world of spirits and souls and gods CANNOT be substantiated, merely believed or not believed. conversely, the objective material world in which we live CAN be demonstrated by the very keyboard at which you’re typing the thoughts emanating from your living physical brain.

We just proved that the material world can not be substantiated, since it is likely that we live in a simulation.

[Machinist]

Even if it's not likely that we're living in a simulation, there is always the possibility that the world outside doesn't exist except in our own minds (some form of Idealism) . And if we're relying on our subjective minds to affirm the existence of the material world, then how could we even be sure in the truest possible sense?

[seer]

Even if it's not likely that we're living in a simulation, there is always the possibility that the world outside doesn't exist except in our own minds (some form of Idealism) . And if we're relying on our subjective minds to affirm the existence of the material world, then how could we even be sure in the truest possible sense?

Descartes' way around this was to invoke God, a good, honest Deity. That He created the material world and our rational abilities to grasp the world. And therefore since He is trustworthy we can generally trust our perceptions.

[Stoic]

Descartes' way around this was to invoke God, a good, honest Deity. That He created the material world and our rational abilities to grasp the world. And therefore since He is trustworthy we can generally trust our perceptions.

Another way around it is to invoke senses and rational abilities that can generally be trusted.

[Tassman]

But then you can not demonstrate that the material world exists if it is likely a simulation.

We know that the material world exists and, whether simulated or not, it remains material. Science gives us the experimental means to examine the material world; it is the only methodology of providing objective repeatable results, eliminating subjective human opinion.

Conversely, your subjective world of spirits and souls and gods is an unsubstantiated article of faith and can only be accepted as such, i.e., merely something you choose to believe or not believe.

We just proved that the material world can not be substantiated, since it is likely that we live in a simulation.

See above.