Mind is not reduceable to brain

[metacrock]

Unfortunately the only so called rational warrant for the belief in the existence of mind/spirit is that, like the notion of god, it can't be disproven.

nonsense. the fact that it can't reduced to brain function means that it's probably a separate thyi9ng in it's own right because we are it's effects. the thing we call us is the effect and produced of mind. so not disproving it is a from a form of proving it.

any reason to believe in something is a rational warrant, warrant is basically just the permission of logic to accept a premise.,

there are many reasons to believe in God other than not being able to disprove it. there are not as many for mind but there are some. not the least of which is we know we are conscious. we reason. you are doing that in arguing with me I wont take the obvious cheap shot and say "badly."

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, is dualism true or not? Still waiting...

Again, again, again and again, not the topic of the thread.

[shunyadragon]

if this isn't an empirical question, then it wouldn't be a matter of falsification. It would come down to rational warrant and preponderance of reasons to believe.

The physical relationship between the brain, and the mind and consciousness, is an empirical question for science. It is not completely answered yet, but there is considerable research supporting a relationship. .

Rational warrant and preponderance reasons to believe is weak, because the Rational warrant is too circular, and there is not a perponderance of reasons to believe. This smells of Plantinga's arguments to make those who believe feel comfortable with their belief.

[JimL]

nonsense. the fact that it can't reduced to brain function means that it's probably a separate thyi9ng in it's own right because we are it's effects. the thing we call us is the effect and produced of mind. so not disproving it is a from a form of proving it.

What can't be reduced to brain? You've yet to show that there is any such thing as a mind other than the brain. If you can not show that there is a mind or spirit or a self that exists separately from the brain, then it is just silly to speculate over whether or not it is reducible to the brain.

any reason to believe in something is a rational warrant, warrant is basically just the permission of logic to accept a premise.,

Sure, but you have no reason to believe in the existence of a self that is distinct and separate from the body, or a mind that is separate from the brain. Simply making stuff up is not "reason."

there are many reasons to believe in God other than not being able to disprove it.

The only reason to believe in god is that we are ignorant as to why there is something rather than nothing and ignorance is without reason. A more reasonable answer to that question is that there is something rather than nothing because there being something is just the natural state of affairs. But there is no evidence that anything was ever created, much less so that anything was ever created ex-nihilo, and much, much, less evidence that an immaterial mind existed from eternity and decided just a mere 14 billion years ago to puff the material world into existence ex nihilo.

there are not as many for mind but there are some. not the least of which is we know we are conscious. we reason. you are doing that in arguing with me I wont take the obvious cheap shot and say "badly."

And just why does the fact that we are conscious of our consciousness give you reason to believe that we are immaterial minds? The only thing that we are conscious of is that our material selves are conscious. You are making the unreasoned assumption that consciousness is an immaterial something with absolutely no evidence of, or definition of, exactly what that something is.

[shunyadragon]

Define 'reducible'.

Simply the mind and consciousness can be reduced to neurological function of the brain and nervous system.

Source: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=reducible%20definition

Reducible = (of a subject or problem) capable of being simplified in presentation or analysis.

© Copyright Original Source

[Truthseeker]

Perhaps metacrock used diction that is infelicitous. My guess is that he means, "Explicable as a function of the state of the mind and the associated nervous system." Something like that anyway.

[seer]

Again, again, again and again, not the topic of the thread.

Why won't you answer? What are you afraid of? Besides you have gone off topic in other threads!

[Jim B.]

Unfortunately the only so called rational warrant for the belief in the existence of mind/spirit is that, like the notion of god, it can't be disproven.

No, it's the irreducibility of consciousness that's the issue, not a 'ghost in the machine.' Like any metaphysical problem, it can be informed by empirical findings, but in the end it has to do with the cogency of the arguments that are offered.

[Jim B.]

The physical relationship between the brain, and the mind and consciousness, is an empirical question for science. It is not completely answered yet, but there is considerable research supporting a relationship. .

Rational warrant and preponderance reasons to believe is weak, because the Rational warrant is too circular, and there is not a perponderance of reasons to believe. This smells of Plantinga's arguments to make those who believe feel comfortable with their belief.

No, it's not whether there's a "relationship"; it's pretty non-controversial that there is. What the realtionship means, what constitutes consciousness, as opposed to its causal relations, is the issue. It's primarily a philosophical one, although empirical findings can greatly inform the arguments. Science needs philosophy to clarify its concepts and claims, and vice versa. You're not advocating scientism, are you?

[Jim B.]

Simply the mind and consciousness can be reduced to neurological function of the brain and nervous system.

Source: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=reducible%20definition

Reducible = (of a subject or problem) capable of being simplified in presentation or analysis.

© Copyright Original Source

There are several kinds of reduction: causal, logical or definitional, ontological, theoretical... I think you're advocating a logical or ontological reduction (correct me if I'm wrong), similar to saying that "water" really is nothing but "H2O." That's different from saying that water is caused by H2O or dependent on H2O. Let's say we know someone named Bob Smith, known to some as Bob, others as Mr. Smith. It would be silly to say that Bob is caused by or depends upon Mr. Smith or vice versa, because the names he's known by really have the very same reference.

[Truthseeker]

Why won't you answer? What are you afraid of? Besides you have gone off topic in other threads!

Start a new thread & send its url to Shuny.

[JimL]

No, it's the irreducibility of consciousness that's the issue, not a 'ghost in the machine.' Like any metaphysical problem, it can be informed by empirical findings, but in the end it has to do with the cogency of the arguments that are offered.

So by what reasoning is it asserted that consciousness is not reducible to the brain? If you probe the brain it elicits the conscious experience of past events, so consciousness is not a something/a mind, that exists apart from brain, it is brain activity that is the cause of conscious experience. If not, then what you are suggesting is a mind, a ghost in the machine, and a mind, a thinking thing, a conscious ghost, minus a brain makes no sense. You are substituting the notion of an immaterial brain in the place of a material brain. Why would the problem of consciousness be any different in the former than in the latter?

[Tassman]

Why won't you answer? What are you afraid of? Besides you have gone off topic in other threads!

I thought shunya made it clear several times where he stands on 'dualism'...namely that he accepts it as a matter of religious faith whilst simultaneously acknowledging that it's not supported by scientific evidence.

[shunyadragon]

No, it's not whether there's a "relationship"; it's pretty non-controversial that there is. What the relationship means, what constitutes consciousness, as opposed to its causal relations, is the issue. It's primarily a philosophical one, although empirical findings can greatly inform the arguments. Science needs philosophy to clarify its concepts and claims, and vice versa.

The actual physical relationship is a scientific one, where the only thing known is a causal relationship. The research concerning the brain, and the mind and consciousness has found only a direct relationship based neurological activity of our nervous system, in particular the brain. Progressively the scientific research is showing that it is the only physical relationship. The only philosophical route possible at this point is an 'argument from ignorance.'

You're not advocating scientism, are you?

Scientism is a bogus layman 'negative name calling' concept and meaningless in this discussion. If you want to discuss this aspect of the philosophy of science use meaningful terminology such as philosophical naturalism. I, of course, do not advocate 'philosophical (ontological) naturalism,' because I am a theist.

[seer]

I thought shunya made it clear several times where he stands on 'dualism'...namely that he accepts it as a matter of religious faith whilst simultaneously acknowledging that it's not supported by scientific evidence.

Yes, so Shuny believes that dualism is a fact in spite of their being no "scientific evidence." Therefore all facts are not subject to scientific investigation.