Origin of the Mind/Mental States

[JimL]

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...

No, I don't have to start with that. The forces of nature need not be rational in order that the minds that emerging from nature be rational. Minds are rational simply because they are one with nature, they evolve together with the natural world to which they belong and out of which they are formed. What is in the mind is simply the mirror image of that which the senses percieve. That's why we call the mind rational, because it conforms with the reality to which it belongs. Again, I think that you are mistakingly assuming that minds are distinct entities, separate from the world within which they exist.

[Sparko]

No, I don't have to start with that. The forces of nature need not be rational in order that the minds that emerging from nature be rational. Minds are rational simply because they are one with nature, they evolve together with the natural world to which they belong and out of which they are formed. What is in the mind is simply the mirror image of that which the senses percieve. That's why we call the mind rational, because it conforms with the reality to which it belongs. Again, I think that you are mistakingly assuming that minds are distinct entities, separate from the world within which they exist.

I don't think you understand what "rational" means.

[JimL]

I don't think you understand what "rational" means.

What were those first three words?

[seer]

No, I don't have to start with that. Minds are rational simply because they are one with nature, they evolve together with the natural world to which they belong and out of which they are formed. What is in the mind is simply the mirror image of that which the senses percieve. That's why we call the mind rational, because it conforms with the reality to which it belongs. Again, I think that you are mistakingly assuming that minds are distinct entities, separate from the world within which they exist.

No Jim, if you want to make an argument that follows the laws of logic you must follow the deductive method. Everything you just said begs the question. How do you know that the mind is simply the mirror image of that which the senses perceive? Without first ASSUMING the rationality of the mind or the validity of sense perception? You are arguing in a circle. And I said nothing about minds being separate entities.

[Sparko]

What were those first three words?

explain what "rational" means to you JimL

[seer]

explain what "rational" means to you JimL

Whatever gives him a warm feeling in his tummy?

[Sparko]

Whatever gives him a warm feeling in his tummy?

I think he is using it to just mean "reflecting reality" - but then a photograph does that and it has no mind. Not to mention we don't always reflect reality in our minds, as JimL proves on a daily basis here on tweb.

[lee_merrill]

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

I think I agree, maybe we can stop here.

No, I only deny that my decisions are determined for me, even by memories and experiences.

my

Well, it's all probabilities, isn't it? And I think my view more probable, but that's what we're here to discuss! Your view versus others' views.

Best wishes,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

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?

The immaterial mind gives me something that can really choose, as opposed to an agent that is simply the sum of the atoms in my head. Something outside of nature is necessary, in order for there to be an undetermined choice.

Blessings,
Lee

[JimL]

The immaterial mind gives me something that can really choose, as opposed to an agent that is simply the sum of the atoms in my head. Something outside of nature is necessary, in order for there to be an undetermined choice.

Well a material mind is made up of all the data that has been impressed upon it, memories, experiences, information. Thats what it is, and its function is to use that data to make choices. As opposed to that, you talk of an immaterial mind, but it seems you have no idea what you mean by that. Have you actually thought about exactly what it is that you mean by an immaterial mind?

[Tassman]

The immaterial mind gives me something that can really choose,

What "immaterial mind", what is it, where is it located? How does an "immaterial mind" interact with the material body...where do they connect, where is the nexus? I think you are merely reinforcing a nonscientific belief system, which cannot be supported by scientific knowledge. In short, there is no such thing as an "immaterial mind."

as opposed to an agent that is simply the sum of the atoms in my head. Something outside of nature is necessary, in order for there to be an undetermined choice.

So your argument is that is that you think "something outside of nature is necessary, in order for there to be an undetermined choice", thereof it must be so. How is this not mere wishful thinking? And does this apply to ALL sentient creatures or just Homo sapiens? Did it apply to Neanderthal Man and Homo Erectus or all the other human species that once roamed the planet? Does it apply to our near relatives such as chimpanzees and bonobos? Why not?

[Tassman]

I think I agree, maybe we can stop here.

If you agree then you are arguing a form of determinism known as Compatibilism, i.e. the belief that free-will and determinism are mutually compatible and that it is possible to believe in both without being logically inconsistent.

No, I only deny that my decisions are determined for me, even by memories and experiences.

Not so. You subconscious relates to thoughts and feelings that exist in the mind and influence your behavior even when you are not aware of them. It comprises all your experiences and influences dating back to infancy.

Well, it's all probabilities, isn't it? And I think my view more probable, but that's what we're here to discuss! Your view versus others' views.

Your view is utterly unsupported by substantive evidence. Nice ideas are not necessarily true just because you think they ought to be true.

[lee_merrill]

Have you actually thought about exactly what it is that you mean by an immaterial mind?

Yes, the soul of man, that survives after death.

What "immaterial mind", what is it, where is it located? How does an "immaterial mind" interact with the material body...where do they connect, where is the nexus? I think you are merely reinforcing a nonscientific belief system, which cannot be supported by scientific knowledge. In short, there is no such thing as an "immaterial mind."

"I don't understand electricity, but I'm not going to sit around in the dark until I do." (Vance Havner)

Can you explain near-death experiences, where the soul seems to move outside the body?

Best wishes,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

So your argument is that is that you think "something outside of nature is necessary, in order for there to be an undetermined choice", thereof it must be so. How is this not mere wishful thinking?

It's reductio ad adsurdum, the alternative is insanity.

And does this apply to ALL sentient creatures or just Homo sapiens? Did it apply to Neanderthal Man and Homo Erectus or all the other human species that once roamed the planet? Does it apply to our near relatives such as chimpanzees and bonobos? Why not?

Creatures of instinct do not have human reason, which is far beyond what animals can do.

I only deny that my decisions are determined for me, even by memories and experiences.

Not so. You subconscious relates to thoughts and feelings that exist in the mind and influence your behavior even when you are not aware of them. It comprises all your experiences and influences dating back to infancy.

Then why are we arguing, if this whole discussion is predetermined?

Your view is utterly unsupported by substantive evidence.

I call to witness every human who has ever reasoned, and considered their reasoning to be valid, and not determined.



Best wishes,
Lee

[JimL]

Yes, the soul of man, that survives after death.

Yes, so what have you thought about it, does this immaterial soul have some sort of immaterial brain of its own? If so, what purpose does the physical brain serve for this immaterial soul?