Origin of the Mind/Mental States

[lee_merrill]

Why would you do that?

If the supernatural exists, that has implications! So I try and understand what's true in this area.

This is wishful thinking. Time and again substantive evidence for the supernatural is promised and fails to materialize. Ever!

Well, check out my threads on prophecy in this forum, that's good evidence!

But not-reason implies not-reason, as a logical implication.

Yes people choose. But you are claiming that people freely choose which is contrary to the evidence.

Well, if we are automatons, and cannot freely choose, and were programmed by a blind process, which cannot freely choose, they I don't see how reasoning has solid ground.

I accept that I cannot choose, I accept that my thoughts are determined by blind processes, that I cannot control my thinking, and this is sanity?

The best I can, by examining evidence, making conclusions. Posting at Tweb!

Best wishes,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Okay, and that is exactly what the brain does. It evaluates the data available to it and comes to conclusions based on that data. How does the process of reasoning differ with respect to your immaterial mind?

I would say that is what the immaterial mind does too! The question though is whether we have a basis to believe our reasoning is valid, and not caused by non-reason, and this has to be a first principle, this cannot be the result of a proof.

Blessings,
Lee

[seer]

I accept that I cannot choose, I accept that my thoughts are determined by blind processes, that I cannot control my thinking, and this is sanity?

Exactly...

[JimL]

But that is not what I'm saying Jim. I'm saying that you can not make the connection without BEGGING THE QUESTION. A logical fallacy. You see a red car, how do you know you see a red car? Because your thoughts or mind relates that, but how do you know that is correct? Your thoughts confirm that. So your thoughts are are proving your thoughts, that is circular reasoning. In the big picture the evolutionary process does not, aim for, care about, on intend, that you have largely true or correct thoughts. To assume that you do is where begging the question comes in, in other words you need to use a logical fallacy to justify your position.

What does that even mean, seer. When you see a red car, do you think it could possibly be a purple giraffe. If you percieve a red car, then it's a red car that you concieve of, if you perceive a willow tree, then it's a willow tree that you conceive of. Your mind is one with whatever reality is so what your mind conceives of is the same as that which it perceives. Your thoughts confirm that a red car is a red car because your mind already knows what a red car is before it perceives it. It isn't a thought confirming a thought, it's internal data confirming external data.

[JimL]

I would say that is what the immaterial mind does too! The question though is whether we have a basis to believe our reasoning is valid, and not caused by non-reason, and this has to be a first principle, this cannot be the result of a proof.

In what sense does the reasoning process of your immaterial mind differ from the reasoning of the material brain which gives the formers conclusions more validity? This is the problem with the so called soul, or immaterial mind idea. You're not fixing the seeming problem of "reason" that you see from the materialistic perspective, you're simply changing the object from material to immaterial and saying there, all fixed. I don't see the problem you're seeing, since as you have agreed yourself, the process of reasoning would be the same in either case.

[Tassman]

If the supernatural exists, that has implications! So I try and understand what's true in this area.

is the key word here. Your argument is based upon a conditional proposition, i.e. it's speculation. There is no good reason to think that the supernatural exists.

Well, check out my threads on prophecy in this forum, that's good evidence!

But not-reason implies not-reason, as a logical implication.

Well, if we are automatons, and cannot freely choose, and were programmed by a blind process, which cannot freely choose, they I don't see how reasoning has solid ground.

We are not automatons, our own thought processes have an input over and above our biological and community programming. They are mutually reinforcing.

I accept that I cannot choose, I accept that my thoughts are determined by blind processes, that I cannot control my thinking, and this is sanity?

The best I can, by examining evidence, making conclusions.

my

[seer]

It isn't a thought confirming a thought, it's internal data confirming external data.

Jim, it is still circular. You only know what external data is in the first place because it was originally processed by internal thought. Your thoughts/mind is where it all happens. You can not escape the fact that you are always using a logical fallacy to justify human reason.

[seer]

In what sense does the reasoning process of your immaterial mind differ from the reasoning of the material brain which gives the formers conclusions more validity? This is the problem with the so called soul, or immaterial mind idea. You're not fixing the seeming problem of "reason" that you see from the materialistic perspective, you're simply changing the object from material to immaterial and saying there, all fixed. I don't see the problem you're seeing, since as you have agreed yourself, the process of reasoning would be the same in either case.

I don't know what Lee would say, but this is my point. If materialism is true (i.e. no God) then we know that natural forces did not intend or create or aim for us to have largely true beliefs. In other words it was completely by accident if we did have largely true beliefs. The Christian on the other hand would say that God created us to have largely true beliefs, He intended and aimed for our rationality. If that is correct it logically follows that we do have largely true beliefs, that we were created to be rational. This would not logically follow from an evolutionary process that did not intend or aim us towards rationality.

[JimL]

Jim, it is still circular. You only know what external data is in the first place because it was originally processed by internal thought. Your thoughts/mind is where it all happens. You can not escape the fact that you are always using a logical fallacy to justify human reason.

I think that what you're suggesting/questioning, is how can we know that there even is an external world to which our minds are connected, how do we know that the mind is not the only thing there is and that our thoughts have nothing to do with what our "seemingly real" senses perceive. How do we know that we are not dreaming it all up. Does it matter, I don't think so. If the world is simply a dream, or a collective dream, then a red car is still a red car even if like the the world as a whole is naught but the dream of a mind, or minds. A red car is not a purple girraffe whether it has external reality or not.

[JimL]

I don't know what Lee would say, but this is my point. If materialism is true (i.e. no God) then we know that natural forces did not intend or create or aim for us to have largely true beliefs.

Nature doesn't need to intend, our minds evolved within nature, are one with nature, so it would be a contradiction if they weren't in sync with the reality out of which they evolved.

In other words it was completely by accident if we did have largely true beliefs. The Christian on the other hand would say that God created us to have largely true beliefs, He intended and aimed for our rationality. If that is correct it logically follows that we do have largely true beliefs, that we were created to be rational. This would not logically follow from an evolutionary process that did not intend or aim us towards rationality.

Rationality is simply the minds being in sync with reality and that as explained above is simply a natural effect of evolution. I think what you are doing is you are seeing the mind as being something totally foriegn to the natural world from out of which it was formed and evolved. I understand that to be a christian perspective, i.e. that the mind didn't evolve, that it was created out of whole cloth so to speak, but that's an old and unsupported idea. If you understand that the mind evolved along with the reality to which it is a part, then you could see that it would be a contradiction if it didn't have "largely true beliefs" about that reality.

[seer]

I think that what you're suggesting/questioning, is how can we know that there even is an external world to which our minds are connected, how do we know that the mind is not the only thing there is and that our thoughts have nothing to do with what our "seemingly real" senses perceive. How do we know that we are not dreaming it all up. Does it matter, I don't think so. If the world is simply a dream, or a collective dream, then a red car is still a red car even if like the the world as a whole is naught but the dream of a mind, or minds. A red car is not a purple girraffe whether it has external reality or not.

I'm saying more than that Jim, I'm saying that you can not make a logical case for human rationality starting with materialism. I think Matt also touched on this point in his latest post.

[JimL]

I'm saying more than that Jim, I'm saying that you can not make a logical case for human rationality starting with materialism. I think Matt also touched on this point in his latest post.

Seer, I just made such a case in post #70. If you don't think it a logical case, then speak to that.

[seer]

Nature doesn't need to intend, our minds evolved within nature, are one with nature, so it would be a contradiction if they weren't in sync with the reality out of which they evolved.

No Jim, you are still using a circular argument. How do you know that your thoughts are in sync except by what your thoughts tell you?

Rationality is simply the minds being in sync with reality and that as explained above is simply a natural effect of evolution. I think what you are doing is you are seeing the mind as being something totally foriegn to the natural world from out of which it was formed and evolved. I understand that to be a christian perspective, i.e. that the mind didn't evolve, that it was created out of whole cloth so to speak, but that's an old and unsupported idea. If you understand that the mind evolved along with the reality to which it is a part, then you could see that it would be a contradiction if it didn't have "largely true beliefs" about that reality.

Again Jim, it does not logically follow that rationality comes from non-rationality. Jim you are telling me how you think it works, you are not making a deductive argument supporting your position.

[JimL]

No Jim, you are still using a circular argument. How do you know that your thoughts are in sync except by what your thoughts tell you?

Because your thoughts are merely conceptual expressions of what is. What do you think thoughts are? Even if the thoughts themselves are all there is to reality, which is the alternative that you seem to be pushing, then there would be no other reality than the thoughts themselves, which would make them "true beliefs."

Again Jim, it does not logically follow that rationality comes from non-rationality.

Well, I just explained to you how it does logically follow.

[seer]

Because your thoughts are merely conceptual expressions of what is. What do you think thoughts are? Even if the thoughts themselves are all there is to reality, which is the alternative that you seem to be pushing, then there would be no other reality than the thoughts themselves, which would make them "true beliefs."

Well, I just explained to you how it does logically follow.

You are not getting the point Jim, here is a deductive argument.

1. A rational God exists.

2. Said rational God intents and creates rational image bearers.

3. God creates man as His image bearers.

4. Therefore men are rational.

The conclusion is certain, it necessarily follows from the premises.

Now you make a deductive case for your position where the conclusion necessarily follows, you will have to start with this.

1. The non-rational forces of nature exist...