Are Thoughts Causal?

[shunyadragon]

And there is no conclusion in your link, and I quote:

"

OK, but as usual you are selective as to what the whole definition of Dualism considers the relationship between the mind and the brain.

A more complete definition as a starting point for discussion, particularly what 'non-physical' means in terms of dualism. This has been addressed many times before. Note highlighted.

Source: https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_dualism.html

[Substance] Dualism in Metaphysics is the belief that there are two kinds of reality: material (physical) and immaterial (spiritual). In Philosophy of Mind, Dualism is the position that mind and body are in some categorical way separate from each other, and that mental phenomena are, in some respects, non-physical in nature.

It can be contrasted (both as a metaphysical concept and as regards Philosophy of Mind) with various kinds of Monism (including Physicalism and Idealism), and with Pluralism, which holds that ultimately there are many kinds of substance, rather than just two.

© Copyright Original Source

The question has been answered many many times, and you chose to ignore it.

More specifically:

Source: https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_dualism.html

Substance Dualism (or Cartesian Dualism) argues that the mind is an independently existing substance - the mental does not have extension in space, and the material cannot think. This is the type of Dualism most famously defended by Descartes, and it is compatible with most theologies which claim that immortal souls occupy an independent "realm" of existence distinct from that of the physical world.

© Copyright Original Source

[Substance] Dualism does say that 'two kinds of reality: material (physical) and immaterial (spiritual).' No, simply stated materialism states that the mind is a direct result of the brain, and NOT two separate kinds of reality, but it is a bit more varied beyond this as follows:

Source: https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_dualism.html

Property Dualism (also sometimes known as Token Physicalism) maintains that the mind is a group of independent properties that emerge from the brain, but that it is not a distinct substance. Thus, when matter is organized in the appropriate way (i.e. in the way that living human bodies are organized), mental properties emerge.

There are three main types of Property Dualism: Interactionism, which allows that mental causes (such as beliefs and desires) can produce material effects, and vice-versa. Descartes believed that this interaction physically occurred in the pineal gland.

Occasionalism, asserts that a material basis of interaction between the material and immaterial is impossible, and that the interactions were really caused by the intervention of God on each individual occasion. Nicholas Malebranche was the major proponent of this view.

Parallelism (or Psychophysical Parallelism), holds that mental causes only have mental effects, and physical causes only have physical effects, but that God has created a pre-established harmony so that it seems as if physical and mental events (which are really monads, completely independent of each other) cause, and are caused by, one another. This unusual view was most prominently advocated by Gottfried Leibniz.

Epiphenomenalism, which asserts that mental events are causally inert (i.e. have no physical consequences). Physical events can cause other physical events, and physical events can cause mental events, but mental events cannot cause anything, since they are just causally inert by-products of physical events which occur in the brain (i.e. epiphenomena) of the physical world. This doctrine was first formulated by Thomas Henry Huxley in the 19th Century, although based on Thomas Hobbes' much earlier Materialism theories.
Predicate Dualism argues that more than one predicate (how we describe the subject of a proposition) is required to make sense of the world, and that the psychological experiences we go through cannot be redescribed in terms of (or reduced to) physical predicates of natural languages.

Epistemological Dualism (also known as Representationalism or Indirect Realism) is the view in Epistemology that the world we see in conscious experience is not the real world itself, but merely a miniature virtual-reality replica of that world in an internal representation.

© Copyright Original Source

[seer]

OK, but as usual you are selective as to what the whole definition of Dualism considers the relationship between the mind and the brain.

What the hell are you talking about, your own link acknowledges the mind body problem and agree that materialism has no answer. So the hard problem of consciousness is not a bogus problem as you wrongly suggest.

[shunyadragon]

What the hell are you talking about, your own link acknowledges the mind body problem and agree that materialism has no answer. So the hard problem of consciousness is not a bogus problem as you wrongly suggest.

The reference http://www.cogsci.rpi.edu/~heuveb/te...odyProblem.pdf just defines the different philosophies involved and the various different view, and the questions involved with the different views, and does not single out materialism as not having the answer.

No it does not it simply describes the different views of dualism which you have not responded to. Actually one more post you have not responded to. There are no hard questions addressed here, and the question who has or has not the answer is not addressed.

Please address the post and reference as cited. Cite accurately and specifically, without editorial opinion.

[seer]

No it does not it simply describes the different views of dualism which you have not responded to. Actually one more post you have not responded to. There are no hard questions addressed here, and the question who has or has not the answer is not addressed.

Please address the post and reference as cited. Cite accurately and specifically, without editorial opinion.

Again what the hell are you talking about? I read your previously link - and? It clearly says that materialism can not answer the question. And now you link another site? You are deeply dishonest Shuny. And you have no idea what you are talking about...

[seer]

The reference http://www.cogsci.rpi.edu/~heuveb/te...odyProblem.pdf just defines the different philosophies involved and the various different view, and the questions involved with the different views, and does not single out materialism as not having the answer.

No it does not it simply describes the different views of dualism which you have not responded to. Actually one more post you have not responded to. There are no hard questions addressed here, and the question who has or has not the answer is not addressed.

Please address the post and reference as cited. Cite accurately and specifically, without editorial opinion.

Shuny I have read this link twice WHAT IS YOUR POINT - DO YOU EVEN KNOW?

[shunyadragon]

Shuny I have read this link twice WHAT IS YOUR POINT - DO YOU EVEN KNOW?

It is your reading comprehension that is the problem. You have not cited anything specifically. Please cite where consciousness is hard problem for materialism specifically. Like all science there are of course unanswered questions for all cited.

. . . and, ah . . . you have not responded to the problems with your assertions concerning dualism.

[seer]

It is your reading comprehension that is the problem. You have not cited anything specifically. Please cite where consciousness is hard problem for materialism specifically. Like all science there are of course unanswered questions for all cited.

. . . and, ah . . . you have not responded to the problems with your assertions concerning dualism.

I have not said anything about dualism idiot, and your own link says that materialism can not account for the mind body problem. And I already linked you to Sam Harris' site. https://samharris.org/the-mystery-of-consciousness/

[shunyadragon]

I have not said anything about dualism idiot, and your own link says that materialism can not account for the mind body problem. And I already linked you to Sam Harris' site. https://samharris.org/the-mystery-of-consciousness/

Your being selective to support your agenda. Sam Harris presents philosophical view of consciousness. He actually does not buy your world view, and does not specifically single out any one philosophical view as having any more of a problem with consciousness than any other. I cited scientific research that deals specifically with the question of consciousness and you have not responded to those.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris#Free_will

Sam Harris on free will - Harris says, "the idea of free will "cannot be mapped on to any conceivable reality" and is incoherent."

© Copyright Original Source

Same Harris on neuroscience:

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris#Free_will

Building on his interests in belief and religion, Harris completed a PhD in cognitive neuroscience at UCLA.[20][26][27] He used fMRI to explore whether the brain responses differ between sentences that subjects judged as true, false, or undecidable, across a wide range of categories including autobiographical, mathematical, geographical, religious, ethical, semantic, and factual statements.[78] Harris and colleagues were also able to use artificial intelligence algorithms to predict whether an individual believed or disbelieved these statements using fMRI measurements,[79] and this work was later replicated with electroencephalography.[80]

In another study, Harris and colleagues examined the neural basis of religious and non-religious belief using fMRI.[81] Fifteen committed Christians and fifteen nonbelievers were scanned as they evaluated the truth and falsity of religious and nonreligious propositions. For both groups, statements of belief (sentences judged as either true or false) were associated with increased activation of ventromedial prefrontal cortex, a region of the brain involved in emotional judgment, processing uncertainty, assessing rewards and thinking about oneself.[26] A "comparison of all religious trials to all nonreligious trials produced a wide range of signal differences throughout the brain," and the processing of religious belief and empirical belief differed in significant ways. The regions associated with increased activation in response to religious stimuli included the anterior insula, the ventral striatum, the anterior cingulate cortex, and the posterior medial cortex.[81] In a study published in 2016, a research team including Harris probed the neural systems involved in maintaining one's political beliefs in the face of opposing evidence.

© Copyright Original Source

Sam Harris on consciousness:



You make assertions, and I specifically cite the sources. More to follow . . .

[seer]

Sam Harris on consciousness:

Right here you go:

The problem, however, is that no evidence for consciousness exists in the physical world.

. The only thing in this universe that attests to the existence of consciousness is consciousness itself; the only clue to subjectivity, as such, is subjectivity. The fact that the behavior of our fellow human beings persuades us that they are (more or less) conscious does not get us any closer to linking consciousness to physical events.

https://samharris.org/the-mystery-of-consciousness/

[shunyadragon]

Right here you go:

As I said Sam Harris takes a philosophical view of consciousness. What I cited is more descriptive of what Sam Harris considers what the relationship between brain and mind. His view is all we have is the mind and the source is the brain. Sam Harris's philosophical view, by the way materialist and likely atheist, is not science, and does nothing to support your claims. From the philosophical perspective one could describe consciousness as the soul, ghosts, manifestations of a greater consciousness as in panpsychism, or nothing at all as Sam Harris does.

As far as Sam Harris is concerned it is not a 'hard problem,' because as far as he is concerned it does not exist.

Again I prefer to cite actual scientific research, which you have not responded to, concerning the brain, mind and consciousness.

[seer]

As I said Sam Harris takes a philosophical view of consciousness. What I cited is more descriptive of what Sam Harris considers what the relationship between brain and mind. His view is all we have is the mind and the source is the brain. Sam Harris's philosophical view, by the way materialist and likely atheist, is not science, and does nothing to support your claims. From the philosophical perspective one could describe consciousness as the soul, ghosts, manifestations of a greater consciousness as in panpsychism, or nothing at all as Sam Harris does.

Again I prefer to cite actual scientific research, which you have not responded to, concerning the brain, mind and consciousness.

Shuny stay out of my thread, you don't know what you are taking about and you don't understand what Harris is saying. Mods please take notice.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny stay out of my thread, you don't know what you are taking about and you don't understand what Harris is saying. Mods please take notice.

Your busted!!!!!

[seer]

Your busted!!!!!

And you are ignorant, now stay out of my thread.

[Zara]

Your book reference is over 20 years old, and I do not agree with it's philosophical conclusions of 'arguing from ignorance' as to what it claims we do not know.

I like this reference as a beginning that simple looks matter of factly at the nature of consciousness, and mind brain problems:http://www.cogsci.rpi.edu/~heuveb/te...odyProblem.pdf

Huh? You not agreeing is irrelevant. It is the current position in philosophy, the problem is not solved unless you're part of a small group of dogmatists. So, if you don't like it, either come up with an argument why it's wrong, or leave this thread as was suggested. Shouting 'argument from ignorance' over and over again, isn't a solution to the problem.

[Zara]

Your busted!!!!!

You're busted.