Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed May 14, 2025 5:12 pm
How could we possibly explain any of the less than a handful major emergences?
How is “emergence” actually an “explanation”? It tells us absolutely nothing about the process in which it asks us to have belief.
I have no faith whatsoever.
Ah. So you’re one of those folks who thinks he doesn’t believe things? You don’t have faith in your own explanations, then. You must not “ believe” it.
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed May 14, 2025 5:06 pm
If mind can't be explained in terms of meat because it's non obvious how the processes of meat relate to our internal experience, then it's just begging the question to assume the same thing wouldn't be true of souls.
We’re talking about “mind,” so let’s not change the terms, okay? It will only confuse the issue.
I don't think I did.
Some people think you can explain minds in terms of meat. Some people think you need to invoke immaterial souls. Not sure what term is changing.
But you can't just invoke one mystery to explain another. You just have two mysteries. Nobody knows a single thing about how souls work, so saying "immaterial souls are a better explanation for mind" is not an explanation, it's just saying "magic".
Until there's an actual idea about how the soul realm operates, it will just be explaining one mystery in terms of another, which is no explanation at all.
(That's not saying it's incorrect, btw - maybe there really is an immaterial soul realm and that's where mind happens! But it doesn't actually get us any closer to understanding mind if we don't have any understanding of the immaterial soul realm.)
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed May 14, 2025 5:06 pm
If mind can't be explained in terms of meat because it's non obvious how the processes of meat relate to our internal experience, then it's just begging the question to assume the same thing wouldn't be true of souls.
We’re talking about “mind,” so let’s not change the terms, okay? It will only confuse the issue.
I don't think I did.
You went to “soul.” There are people who doubt the existence of souls. There are none that can rationally doubt the term “mind,” because “doubting” requires one.
But let’s be honest about what you seem to have been trying to do: you wanted to switch to the theological from the existential. And I do have a great interest in the theological. But for a secularist like yourself, the existential is impossible to deny, so I prefer that term.
But you can't just invoke one mystery to explain another.
Nobody’s doing that. What we’re doing is a rational procedure called “argument to the best explanation.” It means that when there are two explanations, we should select the one that does some justice to the evidence, or does the most justice to it. But “meat” does no justice to the phenomenon of mind; it just denies it even exists, so I suggest we ought to reject it as “not the best explanation,” or better, “not an explanation of anything at all."
I'm not saying "the soul realm can't be where minds happen".
I'm not saying "head meat has to be the place where minds happen"
I am saying that the intuition that it can't be meat because how meat works just seems so hard to relate to subjective experience... that thought process is a mistake. You only think that because we understand meat so much and souls so little. If someone actually came up with a concrete way for souls to work, it would suddenly look equally hard to relate how souls work to subjective experience. You only think it's a better explanation because you have no idea how souls work. You allow the mystery of it to fill in the blanks, which is a luxury you don't afford meat, and I think that train of reasoning is fallacious.
It's based on the faulty intuition that a mystery thing has to have a mystery explanation.
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed May 14, 2025 5:33 pm
I also want to clarify something.
I'm not saying "the soul realm can't be where minds happen".
I'm not saying "head meat has to be the place where minds happen”
That’s interesting. Most Materialists insist it can be nowhere else BUT in the brain. The materials are everything, to them.
I am saying that the intuition that it can't be meat because how meat works just seems so hard to relate to subjective experience...
Oh, I would say the opposite is obvious.
I would say that nobody looks at meat and says, “I wonder if it’s having a subjective experience.” That’s very hard to relate to.
You only think that because we understand meat so much and souls so little.
“Minds,” remember? We’re talking about minds.
I believe I understand the phenomenon of mind much better than somebody who denies mind exists. And I think you do, too…because you have existential experience with using your own mind at this very moment, whether you’re recognizing that experience or not. And I think that if you pause, you’ll realize that you’re not a body typing to a body (and, in fact, we are disembodied in relation to each other right now, by cyberspace), and you’ll realize that we’re two minds communicating, with your body merely mediating or acting as the instrument of your mind, but not generating your insights.
Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed May 14, 2025 5:12 pm
How could we possibly explain any of the less than a handful major emergences?
How is “emergence” actually an “explanation”? It tells us absolutely nothing about the process in which it asks us to have belief.
I have no faith whatsoever.
Ah. So you’re one of those folks who thinks he doesn’t believe things? You don’t have faith in your own explanations, then. You must not “ believe” it.
It doesn't have to. We're far to feeble minded to understand. Luckily I'm far too even yet dimmer to be bothered by it, in the wee-wee end of the pool, watching the big boys frustratedly thrashing in the deep end in denial of that. I can see that it hurts.
And no. I don't believe in unnatural things.
Last edited by Martin Peter Clarke on Wed May 14, 2025 5:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.
You only think that because we understand meat so much and souls so little.
“Minds,” remember? We’re talking about minds.
Yes, and two alternative explanations for mind:
Material meat, and immaterial souls
I'm not changing the subject or the terminology when I'm bringing up souls, I'm comparing meat to the alternative. The alternative is that immaterial soul stuff we've never detected, can't study and don't know anything about.
Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed May 14, 2025 5:12 pm
How could we possibly explain any of the less than a handful major emergences?
How is “emergence” actually an “explanation”? It tells us absolutely nothing about the process in which it asks us to have belief.
I have no faith whatsoever.
Ah. So you’re one of those folks who thinks he doesn’t believe things? You don’t have faith in your own explanations, then. You must not “ believe” it.
It doesn't have to. We're far to feeble minded to understand.
I think we’d be best to find that out by looking, rather that by presuming it, don’t you? Let’s see how far we get with our inquiries before deciding we’re too feeble-minded to get anywhere.
You only think that because we understand meat so much and souls so little.
“Minds,” remember? We’re talking about minds.
Yes, and two alternative explanations for mind:
Material meat, and immaterial souls
Why are you so keen to drop “mind” and pick up “soul”? I’ve explained why I’m happy to stick to the original “mind,” so maybe you’d explain why you’re not...
From a fiction by Jon Rappoport, one I've posted before in its entirety. Here, I've edited out all the narrative leaving only the important bit...
Q: Sir, would you say that the underlying nature of physical reality is atomic?
A: If you’re asking me whether atoms and smaller particles exist everywhere in the universe, then of course, yes.
Q: And are you satisfied that, wherever they are found, they are the same? They exhibit a uniformity?
A: Surely, yes.
Q: Regardless of location.
A: Correct.
Q: So, for example, if we consider the make-up of the brain, those atoms are no different in kind from atoms wherever in the universe they are found.
A: That’s true. The brain is composed entirely of these tiny particles. And the particles, everywhere in the universe, without exception, flow and interact and collide without any exertion of free will. It’s an unending stream of cause and effect.
Q: And when you think to yourself, “I’ll get breakfast now,” what is that?
A: The thought?
Q: Yes.
A: Ultimately, it is the outcome of particles in motion.
Q: You were compelled to have that thought.
A: As odd as that may seem, yes. Of course, we tell ourselves stories to present ourselves with a different version of reality, but those stories are social or cultural constructs.
Q: And those “stories” we tell ourselves—they aren’t freely chosen rationalizations, either. We have no choice about that.
A: Well, yes. That’s right.
Q: So there is nothing in the human brain that allows us the possibility of free will.
A: Nothing at all.
Q: And as we are sitting here right now, sir, looking at each other, sitting and talking, this whole conversation is spooling out in the way that it must. Every word. Neither you nor I is really choosing what we say.
A: I may not like it, but yes, it’s deterministic destiny. The particles flow.
Q: When you pause to consider a question I ask you…even that act of considering is mandated by the motion of atomic and sub-atomic particles. What appears to be you deciding how to give me an answer…that is a delusion.
A: The act of considering? Why, yes, that, too, would have to be determined. It’s not free. There really is no choice involved.
Q: And the outcome of this conversation, whatever points we may or may not agree upon, and the issues we may settle here, about this subject of free will versus determinism…they don’t matter at all, because, when you boil it down, the entire conversation was determined by our thoughts, which are nothing more than atomic and sub-atomic particles in motion—and that motion flows according to laws, none of which have anything to do with human choice.
A: The entire flow of reality, so to speak, proceeds according to determined sets of laws. Yes.
Q: And we are in that flow.
A: Most certainly we are.
Q: The earnestness with which we might try to settle this issue, our feelings, our thoughts, our striving—that is irrelevant. It’s window dressing. This conversation actually cannot go in different possible directions. It can only go in one direction.
A: That would ultimately have to be so.
Q: Now, are atoms and their components, and any other tiny particles in the universe…are any of them conscious?
A: Of course not. The particles themselves are not conscious.
Q: Some scientists speculate they are.
A: Some people speculate that the moon can be sliced and served on a plate with fruit.
Q: What do you think “conscious” means?
A: It means we participate in life. We take action. We converse. We gain knowledge.
Q: Any of the so-called faculties we possess—are they ultimately anything more than particles in motion?
A: Well, no, they aren’t. Because everything is particles in motion. What else could be happening in this universe? Nothing.
Q: All right. I’d like to consider the word “understanding.”
A: It’s a given. It’s real.
Q: How so?
A: The proof that it’s real, if you will, is that we are having this conversation. It makes sense to us.
Q: Yes, but how can there be understanding if everything is particles in motion? Do the particles possess understanding?
A: No they don’t.
Q: To change the focus just a bit, how can what you and I are saying have any meaning?
A: Words mean things.
Q: Again, I have to point out that, in a universe with no free will, we only have particles in motion. That’s all. That’s all we are. So where does “meaning” come from?
A: “We understand language” is a true proposition.
Q: You’re sure.
A: Of course.
Q: Then I suggest you’ve tangled yourself in a contradiction. In the universe you depict, there would be no room for understanding. Or meaning. There would be nowhere for it to come from. Unless particles understand. Do they?
A: No.
Q: Then where do “understanding” and “meaning” come from?
A: [Silence.]
Q: Furthermore, sir, if we accept your depiction of a universe of particles, then there is no basis for this conversation at all. We don’t understand each other. How could we?
A: But we do understand each other.
Q: And therefore, your philosophic materialism (no free will, only particles in motion) must have a flaw.
A: What flaw?
Q: Our existence contains more than particles in motion.
A: More? What would that be?
Q: Would you grant that whatever it is, it is non-material?
A: It would have to be, but…
Q: Then, driving further along this line, there is something non-material which is present, which allows us to understand each other, which allows us to comprehend meaning. We are conscious. Puppets are not conscious. As we sit here talking, I understand you. Do you understand me?
A: Of course.
Q: Then that understanding is coming from something other than particles in motion. Without this non-material quality, you and I would be gibbering in the dark.
A: You’re saying that, if all the particles in the universe, including those that make up the brain, possess no consciousness, no understanding, no comprehension of meaning, no freedom, then how can they give birth to understanding and freedom. There must be another factor, and it would have to be non-material.
Q: Yes. That’s what I’m saying. And I think you have to admit your view of determinism and particles in motion—that picture of the universe—leads to several absurdities.
A: Well…perhaps I’m forced to consider it. Otherwise, we can’t sit here and understand each other.
Q: You and I do understand each other.
A: I hadn’t thought it through this way before, but if there is nothing inherent in particles that gives rise to understanding and meaning, then everything is gibberish. Except it isn’t gibberish. Yes, I seem to see a contradiction. Interesting.
Q: And if these non-material factors—understanding and meaning—exist, then other non-material factors can exist.
A: For example, freedom. I suppose so.
Q: And the drive to eliminate freedom in the world…is more than just the attempt to substitute one automatic reflex for another.
A: That would be…yes, that would be so.
Q: Scientists would be absolutely furious about the idea that, despite all their maneuvering, the most essential aspects of human life are beyond the scope of what they, the scientists, are “in charge of.”
A: It would be a naked challenge to the power of science. Let me see if I can summarize this, because it’s really rather startling. The universe is nothing but particles. All those particles follow laws of motion. They aren’t free. The brain is made up entirely of those same particles. Therefore, there is nothing in the brain that would give us freedom. These particles also don’t understand anything, they don’t make sense of anything, they don’t grasp the meaning of anything. Since the brain, again, is made up of those particles, it has no power to allow us to grasp meaning or understand anything. But we do understand. We do grasp meaning. Therefore, we are talking about qualities we possess which are not made out of energy. These qualities are entirely non-material. In that case, there is…oddly enough, a completely different sphere or territory. It’s non-material. Therefore, it can’t be measured. Therefore, it has no beginning or end. If it did, it would be a material continuum and we could measure it.
Why are you so keen to drop “mind” and pick up “soul”? I’ve explained why I’m happy to stick to the original “mind,” so maybe you’d explain why you’re not...
I'm not dropping mind you dork. We both agree on mind, we both agree that we have minds and thoughts and subjective experience. We disagree on where the seat of the mind is, what makes it exist, happen, how subjective experiences come about.
You don't think it happens in meat, you think it happens in something else, something entirely non physical, which I'm calling soul because why not?
We need three words, not two. One word for the thing we're interested in explaining, and one word each for our respective proposed explanations. Right? Does that not make sense?
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed May 14, 2025 5:43 pm
Yes, and two alternative explanations for mind:
Material meat, and immaterial souls
Why are you so keen to drop “mind” and pick up “soul”? I’ve explained why I’m happy to stick to the original “mind,” so maybe you’d explain why you’re not...
I'm not dropping mind you dork.
Now, now...there's no reason discussion shouldn't remain civil. I'm not insulting you, and haven't. I would ask for the same courtesy.
You don't think it happens in meat, you think it happens in something else, something entirely non physical, which I'm calling soul because why not?
Why not humour me, and just say "mind," if, as you say, it's the same thing?
We need three words, not two.
Why? Why are you so keen to pull the theological into a discussion that's merely phenomenological so far? I'm not opposed to talking about "soul," when it becomes relevant to do so: but I am curious as to what you think you're getting for that move. I see no need of it, right now. It just seems to interject needless controversy...
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed May 14, 2025 5:59 pmWhy not humour me, and just say "mind," if, as you say, it's the same thing?
[
When did I say it's "the same thing"? What the actual fuck are you talking about?
You don't get a monopoly on the word mind. I also believe we have minds. I don't believe minds are non-physical. I'm using the word soul to give your position a unique word that makes it easy to refer to.
You for some reason can't get it through your skull that I'm not disagreeing that minds exist, so calling your position "mind" obviously doesn't work . BOTH of our positions is mind.
I'm not saying anything theological at all. You're just being weird about things. Nobody is bringing up god or Jesus or miracles.
For a religious person, you have some serious hang ups about the word soul.
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed May 14, 2025 6:02 pm
You don't get a monopoly on the word mind.
I certainly never said I did.
I also believe we have minds. I don't believe minds are non-physical. I'm using the word soul to give your position a unique word that makes it easy to refer to.
My position is on "mind." Every time, that's the word I've used. And with good reason; there's no need to invoke any theological concept in the present discussion.
In fact, since, as a secularist you may doubt the very existence of soul, it would be useless for us to use that term. We could not even agree it refers to a reality. It's not so easy to do with "mind." "Mind" is the relevant term, referring to a reality on which we both agree (according to your claim that you believe in it, too)...it exists.
But you say that "meat" is all the explanation you need. I think it's not an explanation at all.
Of course we don't agree on the soul existing. That's the point of the word. The word distinguishes the position that you have, that I don't share. Why would we want a word we both agree refers to something real, to distinguish the positions we disagree on? You just don't get it. You don't get basic conversational flow.
Last edited by Flannel Jesus on Wed May 14, 2025 6:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I think we’d be best to find that out by looking, rather that by presuming it, don’t you? Let’s see how far we get with our inquiries before deciding we’re too feeble-minded to get anywhere.