not to change the subject, but
- Started
- Last post
- 58 Responses
- buKabu0
haha, too damn funny kOna
- discipler0
It would be a challenge indeed to prove that altruism, love, artistic expression, the number 5, first-person perspective, etc... are represented by physical matter inside the skull. If so, how much does the number 5 weigh? Where are propositions located, exactly?
I think the error in thinking that everything can be reduced to physical matter, quickly becomes evident.
- buKabu0
possibly, a challenge indeed, but we used to think a lot of things were immaterial, er, extra physical, like gravity, light, air even, let alone love and pain, but we now consider gravity a field, light a waveicle, air a mixture of gases, and love and pain chemical in the body
thats not to say that just because the history of science is pretty much a chronology of the demystifying and unspiritualizing of the phenomenons around us, that the mind/brain is next, that it will inevitably show to be nothing more than physical matter, there is no guarantee that either dualism or physicsim will ever be proved the winner
but i think its equally challenging to prove the opposite, that the concepts in our heads are weightless, so to speak
i mean, it is "common sense" that altruism, love, artistic expression, the number 5, first-person perspective, etc... are all something other than matter, not reducible, but i dont know, sure it take faith to believe in the non common sense world of quantum and string theory and memetics, but hmmm...
- discipler0
good points, bukabu. Who knows, maybe they'll find some sort of particle that corresponds with these "immaterial" concepts. Maybe. I guess my skepticism is with the notion that they originate in the lump of flesh in our skull. It seems more plausible that the brain is merely the "apparatus" or receiver, for the "energy", if you follow me.
- discipler0
And it would be a real challenge to suggest that concepts and propositions, like 2+2 = 4, could be reduced to physical matter.
I read a published study recently, where heart attack victims, who were declared brain dead and later revived, recounted lucid thoughts during the time they were dead. Effects of drugs and oxygen deprivation were ruled out.
- buKabu0
that study sounds interesting, but i wonder if there is anyway to rule out poor time perception, like a dream that feels really really long that is shown on brain scans to actually take just a few seconds, its possible the revived only thought the thoughts they had were during the brain dead time frame, when really its was, well, you get the idea
- discipler0
From what i read, they ruled all of that out.
- discipler0
There was another study I read, where Neuroscientists stimulated the portion of the brain controlling motor skills. They instructed the subject to resist what they were doing via brain stimulation. They noted that he fought against his brain. He made the statement, "'I' didn't do that. 'You' did that."
One has to ask, "who" or "what" is this unique sense of "I" that is battling the against the stimulated brain?
- buKabu0
apparatus and energy, pretty good proxy terms, and yes, that is the basic dual ist point, that there is radio and radio waves (but that the radio waves in the analogy are not physical), ive heard a hard line version of it that says that the brain is actually in the mind, not the traditional view that its the other way around
in the book "mister god, this is anna" the theory that "god" or "spirit" doesnt reside inside any one person, that it is between people, but i dont know, that give alot of exclusivity to humans, i for one have seen the movie "fern gully", and i just know the tree have souls too, wink
- discipler0
If you get the chance, Philosopher J.P. Moreland specializes in this area of study and has some compelling arguments about the mind. There are some great papers floating around, by him.
- buKabu0
fair enough, good to see there is some science going on on the "i" side of the debate, ive ready a my fair share on intelligent design, but the only stuff ive come across on dualism has been philosphical, not physical, so, yippie
i guess where i stand is with the memes makes total sense to me, the revived brain dead thinkers asside, i dont think the "i" is un explained by memes
it is funny how we all come to the table with our own bagage (to your "lump of flesh in our skulls" comment), and scientists even darwin himself, setting out to find a physical law, ignoring all alts
- Mimio0
For the other side of this argument check out the work of Owen Flanagan.
- ********0
ohhh lovely day
- Mimio0
p.s. Bukaku, dualists are myticists all their arguments are philosophical.
- buKabu0
ah, cool, thanks, i got into memes after reading richard dawkins "the selfish gene", there was this pseudo sequel by susan blackmore called "the meme machine", nifty stuff all
- discipler0
Mimio, there's nothing philosophical about the experiments in Neuroscience I just cited.
Do they have philosophical implications? Yes. But so does materialism... in fact, it is philosophy.
- discipler0
Dawkin's selfish gene theory is seriously flawed, IMO. He neglects to account for selfless acts of altruism that do nothing to further the community of a species and ensure it's survival.
He would have a heck of a time explaining away Mother Theresa's life.
- buKabu0
oh, i know theyer mysticalists, but arent there a couple versions, i was reading a paper a while back, i cant remember the terms, ill have to dig it up again, something like neo dualists (no thats not a Keanu Hugo reference, snicker)
- discipler0
And then there are actual Neurologists who became dualists BECAUSE of their studies. Like, Dr. Wilder Penfield and Physiologist Charles Sherrington and Sam Parnia, etc...
- discipler0
In fact, according to Dawkin's religion, Mother Theresa is a mishap of natural selection... she wasn't supposed to neglect her own life for the good of strangers. She was a virus of sorts.