Origin of the Mind/Mental States

[Tassman]

I note that you are assuming the validity of reasoning in order to demonstrate the validity of reasoning.

But this does not explain how people saw events happening in other rooms.

[lee_merrill]

But if reasoning is simply the sum of the atoms in my head, it is not valid.

Ah, a priori there is no supernatural explanation. But this is not an argument.

Best wishes,
Lee

[JimL]

But if reasoning is simply the sum of the atoms in my head, it is not valid.

Who said that reasoning was merely the sum of the atoms in your head. Reasoning is the atoms in your head reacting to informational stimuli, both internal and external. It's what we call a brain and its function. It's not like the atoms in your head are just sitting there like a rock, unreactive to anything. The brain is a reactive process, synapses are firing, information is traversing the axons from one part of the brain to the other wherein ideas, thoughts and memories are formed and stored. So reasoning is not just the sum of inert grey matter, it's a function of that grey matter. If you think there is an intelligent ghost in the machine, then a physical brain would be superfluous.

Ah, a priori there is no supernatural explanation. But this is not an argument.

Actually it is an argument, since it is based on the fact that there is no evidence for the claim of the supernatural in the first place.

[Tassman]

But if reasoning is simply the sum of the atoms in my head, it is not valid.

'Reasoning' is what the brain is doing. You are what the brain is doing. How is "not valid"?

Ah, a priori there is no supernatural explanation. But this is not an argument.

Given that there is no substantive evidence of the supernatural it doesn't figure in the argument at all.

[lee_merrill]

So reasoning is not just the sum of inert grey matter, it's a function of that grey matter.

I don't see any difference here, though.

If you think there is an intelligent ghost in the machine, then a physical brain would be superfluous.

I believe the brain is an instrument by which we think, but it is not required in order to think.

Actually it is an argument, since it is based on the fact that there is no evidence for the claim of the supernatural in the first place.

Given that there is no substantive evidence of the supernatural it doesn't figure in the argument at all.

This would be a claim, but I need the argument.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

'Reasoning' is what the brain is doing. You are what the brain is doing. How is "not valid"?

Because you are assuming the validity of reasoning in order to make this argument.

Best wishes,
Lee

[JimL]

I don't see any difference here, though.

You don't see the difference between a rock and a brain?

I believe the brain is an instrument by which we think, but it is not required in order to think.

If the brain wasn't required for thought, then why would it have evolved, why would it exist?

This would be a claim, but I need the argument.

It's not a claim, there is no empirical evidence of the supernatural.

[Tassman]

Because you are assuming the validity of reasoning in order to make this argument.

There is no reason to demonstrate the "validity of reasoning", when we have plentiful evidence of many sentient creatures evolving with the ability to reason? There's nothing to argue.

[Tassman]

This would be a claim, but I need the argument.

You believe in the existence of the supernatural when this notion is unsupported by any verified, substance evidence. There is nothing to argue. .

[lee_merrill]

You don't see the difference between a rock and a brain?

So you are saying my thoughts are the sum of the atoms in my head?

If the brain wasn't required for thought, then why would it have evolved, why would it exist?

It exists to be the instrument of thought, by which we think as long as we are in the body.

It's not a claim, there is no empirical evidence of the supernatural.

You are indeed claiming there is no empirical evidence of the supernatural, now I need a demonstration of that claim.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

There is no reason to demonstrate the "validity of reasoning", when we have plentiful evidence of many sentient creatures evolving with the ability to reason?

But this assumes the validity of reasoning, in order to make this point.

Best wishes,
Lee

[JimL]

So you are saying my thoughts are the sum of the atoms in my head?

No. Do you equate the complexity of your brain to that of a rock? You are your brain, ergo it is you who does the reasoning, the thinking.

It exists to be the instrument of thought, by which we think as long as we are in the body.

So, then, your holy ghost is, in itself, a brainless, non thinking thing?

You are indeed claiming there is no empirical evidence of the supernatural, now I need a demonstration of that claim.

No, it is you who is making the negative claim of the supernatural, therefore it is you who need demonstrate it.

[Tassman]

So you are saying my thoughts are the sum of the atoms in my head?

Your thoughts are an extension of (and supported by) evolutionary theory.

It exists to be the instrument of thought, by which we think as long as we are in the body.

If you are not "in" your body you are dead and buried.

You are indeed claiming there is no empirical evidence of the supernatural, now I need a demonstration of that claim.

What you "need" is to explain why you would assume the existence of the supernatural.

But this assumes the validity of reasoning, in order to make this point.

It shows the demonstrable existence of "reasoning" as evidenced by sentient creatures evolving with the ability to reason.

[lee_merrill]

No. Do you equate the complexity of your brain to that of a rock? You are your brain, ergo it is you who does the reasoning, the thinking.

The brain is complex! but "you are your brain" is what is in dispute.

So, then, your holy ghost is, in itself, a brainless, non thinking thing?

No, the soul can think without a brain, is my position.

No, it is you who is making the negative claim of the supernatural, therefore it is you who need demonstrate it.

I am making a positive claim, actually, and one demonstration is in the validity of human reasoning. The naturalist has no basis on which to establish the validity of human reasoning, therefore it is supernatural.

Now your negative claim that there is no empirical evidence of the supernatural needs defending.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Your thoughts are an extension of (and supported by) evolutionary theory.

But still, my thoughts are determined by the motions of atoms in my head?

If you are not "in" your body you are dead and buried.

But the soul may live on, as evidenced by out-of-body experiences where people report events that happened when they were brain-dead, even events that happened outside their room.

What you "need" is to explain why you would assume the existence of the supernatural.

I don't assume it, there is evidence for it.

It shows the demonstrable existence of "reasoning" as evidenced by sentient creatures evolving with the ability to reason.

But here you again assume the validity of reasoning to make your point about the validity of reasoning.

Best wishes,
Lee