Free Will

[bahman]

Bahman …yes there is a mind, the mind is the immortal energy that is expressing as and through everything. I agree with your immortal mind theory.

Mind is a changeless substance. I can prove that. The argument is however very technical and long. Once you accept that the mind is changeless then it is easy to prove that it is immortal.

The mind is energy, and it generates energy through thinking, feeling, and choosing. It is our aliveness, without which, the physical brain and body would be useless. That means we are our mind, and mind-in-action is how we generate energy in the brain.

We do not have a mind, we are the mind.

I think there are an infinite number of minds. The argument for this is however very complicated.

The mind being the immortal energy that generates the mortal brain. The brain being just a responder of mental activity.

Correct. Mind however is a substance and not energy given the definition of energy which is the formation of a changeable substance.

The mind is separate, yet inseparable from the brain. The mind is never seen as a physical entity like the brain. And so the brain is useless without the mind in the same context an electrical oven is useless without electricity to power it.

Without a mind, there cannot be any change.

[Immanuel Can]

Let's look at this list you provided: Cognition, decision, identity, volition, morality, rationality, science, and knowledge. In your understanding, which of these items is the duty of the mind, brain, or both?

Those are all "mind" functions. The brain, considered merely physically, is just a lump of meat, chemicals and meaningless electrical impulses.

I don't think so. I think that you agree that brain damage can impair your thinking.

You're not paying attention. I've already pointed out that the two are inter-involved. But I'm also pointing out that they aren't the totality of one another.

"Meaning" comes only from mind. Consider it this way: our conversation is a combination of pixels forming black squiggles on screen -- but also of ideas and concepts we are debating thereby. Without the black squiggles, no such thing would be possible -- but "black squiggles" is not a proper explanation of the words, concepts and ideas we're debating. The latter is mind; the former is like brain. "Squiggles" are real, but are meaningless unless decoded by an intelligence, a consciousness, and translated into meaning. Just so, the brain is a lump of meat in which the meanings taken in through the eyes and the cortex are assembled and arranged chemically and biologically, but the brain is not even capable of infusing them with any significance or meaning; only the mind can do that.

You cannot defend any form of substance dualism if you cannot define the mind and the brain.

Au contraire: one may well admit that something remains mysterious about the mind-brain duality, while still being unavoidably drawn by all the evidence to the conviction that both exist. For again, epistemology is not ontology. Just because you or I don't know something, it does not imply that thing isn't true. When everybody thought the Earth was a flat plane, it was still round. And if we can't define brain and mind precisely, it does not mean there's no truth to their existence. It just means we are unable at present to describe in precise terms the parameters involved in a reality we cannot help but acknowledge.

[bahman]

Those are all "mind" functions. The brain, considered merely physically, is just a lump of meat, chemicals and meaningless electrical impulses.

I don't think so. I think that you agree that brain damage can impair your thinking.

You're not paying attention. I've already pointed out that the two are inter-involved. But I'm also pointing out that they aren't the totality of one another.

Well, that was you who said that all the items on that list are done by the mind.

"Meaning" comes only from mind. Consider it this way: our conversation is a combination of pixels forming black squiggles on screen -- but also of ideas and concepts we are debating thereby. Without the black squiggles, no such thing would be possible -- but "black squiggles" is not a proper explanation of the words, concepts and ideas we're debating. The latter is mind; the former is like brain. "Squiggles" are real, but are meaningless unless decoded by an intelligence, a consciousness, and translated into meaning. Just so, the brain is a lump of meat in which the meanings taken in through the eyes and the cortex are assembled and arranged chemically and biologically, but the brain is not even capable of infusing them with any significance or meaning; only the mind can do that.

You cannot defend any form of substance dualism if you cannot define the mind and the brain.

Au contraire: one may well admit that something remains mysterious about the mind-brain duality, while still being unavoidably drawn by all the evidence to the conviction that both exist. For again, epistemology is not ontology. Just because you or I don't know something, it does not imply that thing isn't true. When everybody thought the Earth was a flat plane, it was still round. And if we can't define brain and mind precisely, it does not mean there's no truth to their existence. It just means we are unable at present to describe in precise terms the parameters involved in a reality we cannot help but acknowledge.

If you don't have a solid theory for substance dualism then it is better to say that you don't know.

[henry quirk]

I believe everything is god, and there is nothing else but god.

And I respect your right to be wrong....

Just jokin'.

That's all cool, DAM, if it works for you, go with it...

[Immanuel Can]

I don't think so. I think that you agree that brain damage can impair your thinking.

You're not paying attention. I've already pointed out that the two are inter-involved. But I'm also pointing out that they aren't the totality of one another.

Well, that was you who said that all the items on that list are done by the mind.

And they are. Those are all mind-functions that a piece of meat simply cannot perform. And the brain, considered as merely a physical entity, is just a lump of meat. But the brain isn't merely a physical entity, but also the vessel of consciousness, of identity, of reason, of science, and so forth.

You may not like that paradox: not liking it won't make it go away, though.

If you don't have a solid theory for substance dualism then it is better to say that you don't know.

"Theories" are, by definition, never "solid." And you're simply wrong. Just because you don't know everything about a particular thing does not mean you know nothing about it. And just because you cannot say everything about it, does not mean you can say nothing, or that you are better to do so, or more honest if you do so.

If that's what we made the rule, then there would be no "theories" at all: and every scientific discovery would have to spring into reality fully-formed already, with no remaining questions to be asked, and no uncertainties left over. The mere presence of one mysterious aspect of any question would mean that we were not allowed to say anything at all about it, no matter how much we knew. In other words, it would put an end to all learning.

So no, that's not "better." It's immeasurably worse.

[bahman]

You're not paying attention. I've already pointed out that the two are inter-involved. But I'm also pointing out that they aren't the totality of one another.

Well, that was you who said that all the items on that list are done by the mind.

And they are.

If they are then you could think without a brain.

Those are all mind-functions that a piece of meat simply cannot perform. And the brain, considered as merely a physical entity, is just a lump of meat. But the brain isn't merely a physical entity, but also the vessel of consciousness, of identity, of reason, of science, and so forth.

What do you mean by vessel?

You may not like that paradox: not liking it won't make it go away, though.

I am wondering how you could think that substance dualism is correct despite all the paradoxes.

If you don't have a solid theory for substance dualism then it is better to say that you don't know.

"Theories" are, by definition, never "solid." And you're simply wrong. Just because you don't know everything about a particular thing does not mean you know nothing about it. And just because you cannot say everything about it, does not mean you can say nothing, or that you are better to do so, or more honest if you do so.

If that's what we made the rule, then there would be no "theories" at all: and every scientific discovery would have to spring into reality fully-formed already, with no remaining questions to be asked, and no uncertainties left over. The mere presence of one mysterious aspect of any question would mean that we were not allowed to say anything at all about it, no matter how much we knew. In other words, it would put an end to all learning.

So no, that's not "better." It's immeasurably worse.

So you admit that you don't know the ultimate theory of substance dualism! I am wondering why you stick to the idea. Materialism is an alternative that is of course not anomaly-free. Why you don't simply say that you don't know?

[Immanuel Can]

Well, that was you who said that all the items on that list are done by the mind.

And they are.

If they are then you could think without a brain.

I'll say it again, and see if you catch it: "interrelated," but "not the same."

Those are all mind-functions that a piece of meat simply cannot perform. And the brain, considered as merely a physical entity, is just a lump of meat. But the brain isn't merely a physical entity, but also the vessel of consciousness, of identity, of reason, of science, and so forth.

What do you mean by vessel?

A metaphor for something nobody understands precisely, including the world's great brain experts and all the philosophers of mind.

So you admit that you don't know the ultimate theory of substance dualism!

I know theories. But theories are, by definition, not certainties. They're plausible models upon which we continue to work as data comes in.

How is this unfamiliar to you?

Why you don't simply say that you don't know?

Because that would be ridiculous. Just because you don't know all the answers about something does not mean you know none of them. And not knowing the final answer to everything is the best reason to keep discussing, based on what you already DO know. So start with what we DO know, and work towards what we do not YET know. That's called "learning."

We're not ignorant of some basic facts. One is that we can find the material brain. The other is that the use and effects of the immaterial mind are equally manifest and undeniable. How those two relate is how the mystery begins. And if you want to give up working on that mystery, you can; I'm inclined to keep working on it until we know more, but you can choose your path, of course.

[Fairy]

I believe everything is god, and there is nothing else but god.

And I respect your right to be wrong....

Just jokin'.

“ I was feeling part of the scenery - I walked right out of the machinery.”

“ Mediocrity is gone. Mind is clear of limitation. I seek no state of enlightenment. Neither do I remain where no enlightenment exists. Since I linger in neither condition, eyes cannot see me. If hundreds of birds strew my path with flowers, such praise would be meaningless.”

The Cosmic Joke… The truth is you are never going to be happy because it simply, fundamentally & literally is not possible. You’re never going to be aware. You’re never going to be conscious. You’re never going to be awake. You will never actually be kind, selfless, loving, whole or good because it’s impossible.

Never Mind.

[Harbal]

You don't say why there can't be a universe without God, and you don't say why not having a soul makes you just meat. I won't even bother asking what you think a soul actually is.

Well, even as an atheist (only five or six years back) it didn't make sense the universe just happened. I didn't accept that, couldn't accept the infinite regress of an always existing universe, and rejected God did it. I said, back then, in a conversation with Mannie, there had to be another option. There isn't. The universe just happened, it's always been, or God did it. Only the last makes sense.

Well I don't know the answer to how the universe came about; the information that would enable me to know is simply not available to me. I don't see the point in guessing; particularly as I don't find not knowing a problem.

I can give links if you like, but, in short: there's a growing body of evidence coming out of neuroscience suggesting mind is not a product of brain activity. Wilder Penfield (a neurosurgeon who worked extensively with epileptics), his research is particularly demonstrative. But all that really just supports a sensible observation: mindless particles, no matter the amount or configuration, cannot think or feel or understand. But we do, don't we.

I think it all comes down to consciousness. What is consciousness? Until we know that, I think there is much that will remain unanswered. Post the links, if you don't mind.

As to what the soul is: hell if I know. What's information? We know it exists, but what is it? Information has no mass, no volume, is not situated. We can point to representations of information but never to information itself. This word -- FIRE -- s a placeholder for information, but where's the information? In the word? In your head? Where is it? What is it? It's like that with the soul.

But we have reason to believe there is something that somehow corresponds with the "placeholder", FIRE. I'm not aware of any reason to think the same of the soul.

What does Deism say about the origine of human beings?

All any strain of deism sez is: God Created and God is not personally involved in what He Created. He set the conditions, turned the universe on and then, mebbe, went off and had a beer. One can infer that man, as part of the Creation, is part of the original blue print. We're meant to be. One can further infer man is meant to be a free will capable of and subject to moral judgment as measured against an objective standard cuz that's how it seems to be. Really, though, all the deist can say is God Created and God is not personally involved in what He Created cuz that's deism.

I can easily see why you might infer those things, but not with absolute certainty. For instance, morality quite often seems like a matter of objective truth to me, but thinking about it rationally, I just can't see how it can be. But, contrary to what IC might say, I find my own moral values no less compelling because of that.

Were they created as they are now, are they the result of Darwinian evolution, along with all other life on the planet, or did they come into existence some other way?

Since deism only makes one claim -- God Created and God is not personally involved in what He Created -- I imagine there are all kinds of deists with all kinds of opinions on that. Me, I'm agnostic on the subject. There's too many holes in Darwin's theory to accept it as is, but I don't accept man as coming into world fully formed either.

I don't share your doubts about evolution theory; I find it very plausible. At least I find what I know of it very plausible, but if someone came up with a theory that made more sense, I wouldn't stick to it like a religious belief. It will probably surprise you to learn that I find your views on the subject perfectly reasonable.

That seems very relevant to our place in the "scheme" of things.

Not to me.

I say it seems relevant because if the world was brought into existence millions/billions of years before any life emerged, what sense would concepts like morality and natural rights have made?

[bahman]

And they are.

If they are then you could think without a brain.

I'll say it again, and see if you catch it: "interrelated," but "not the same."

How they could be interrelated. You know that substance dualism suffers from the mind-body problem!

Those are all mind-functions that a piece of meat simply cannot perform. And the brain, considered as merely a physical entity, is just a lump of meat. But the brain isn't merely a physical entity, but also the vessel of consciousness, of identity, of reason, of science, and so forth.

What do you mean by vessel?

A metaphor for something nobody understands precisely, including the world's great brain experts and all the philosophers of mind.

So, you don't know yet you use it!

So you admit that you don't know the ultimate theory of substance dualism!

I know theories. But theories are, by definition, not certainties. They're plausible models upon which we continue to work as data comes in.

How is this unfamiliar to you?

I know that the version of substance dualism developed by Descartes suffers from the mind-body problem and other problems.

Why you don't simply say that you don't know?

Because that would be ridiculous.

Quite oppositely, I think it would be ridiculous to think that a theory among many other theories is the right one while all the theories have anomalies.

Just because you don't know all the answers about something does not mean you know none of them. And not knowing the final answer to everything is the best reason to keep discussing, based on what you already DO know. So start with what we DO know, and work towards what we do not YET know. That's called "learning."

We're not ignorant of some basic facts. One is that we can find the material brain. The other is that the use and effects of the immaterial mind are equally manifest and undeniable. How those two relate is how the mystery begins. And if you want to give up working on that mystery, you can; I'm inclined to keep working on it until we know more, but you can choose your path, of course.

It is not correct to think that a theory is the correct theory for explaining reality if it has anomalies, such as substance dualism.

[Immanuel Can]

If they are then you could think without a brain.

I'll say it again, and see if you catch it: "interrelated," but "not the same."

How they could be interrelated.

We KNOW they are. We just don't know quite HOW they are.

What do you mean by vessel?

A metaphor for something nobody understands precisely, including the world's great brain experts and all the philosophers of mind.

So, you don't know yet you use it!

A metaphor? Apparently, I do.

I know that the version of substance dualism developed by Descartes suffers from the mind-body problem and other problems.

I'm not a Cartesian. If you find one, you can have the debate with him/her.

Why you don't simply say that you don't know?

Because that would be ridiculous.

Quite oppositely, I think it would be ridiculous to think that a theory among many other theories is the right one while all the theories have anomalies.

It would only be ridiculous if somebody did exactly what you're claiming you want me to do...namely, to take the best theory and pretend it's more than a theory, or alternately, to deny there are any preferable theories at all. Neither of those routes appeals to me, and neither is even remotely necessary.

[henry quirk]

You go, girl...

[bahman]

I'll say it again, and see if you catch it: "interrelated," but "not the same."

How they could be interrelated.

We KNOW they are.

Have you ever experienced your mind? If not which kind of justification do you have that it exists?

We just don't know quite HOW they are.

Well, that is a second problem. You don't have any justification for your mind. You don't know how your mind interacts with your body either.

A metaphor for something nobody understands precisely, including the world's great brain experts and all the philosophers of mind.

So, you don't know yet you use it!

A metaphor? Apparently, I do.

What is the use of a metaphor when you don't know what it means?

I know that the version of substance dualism developed by Descartes suffers from the mind-body problem and other problems.

I'm not a Cartesian. If you find one, you can have the debate with him/her.

Which version of substance dualism do you believe? Could you please elaborate?

Because that would be ridiculous.

Quite oppositely, I think it would be ridiculous to think that a theory among many other theories is the right one while all the theories have anomalies.

It would only be ridiculous if somebody did exactly what you're claiming you want me to do...namely, to take the best theory and pretend it's more than a theory, or alternately, to deny there are any preferable theories at all. Neither of those routes appeals to me, and neither is even remotely necessary.

People don't have the best theory. The best theory is a theory which is anomaly-free!

[Immanuel Can]

Have you ever experienced your mind?

The only way you can "experience" is WITH your mind. You've never done anything else.

Meat cannot "have experiences."

I know that the version of substance dualism developed by Descartes suffers from the mind-body problem and other problems.

I'm not a Cartesian. If you find one, you can have the debate with him/her.

Which version of substance dualism do you believe?

Not "substance" dualism at all.

People don't have the best theory. The best theory is a theory which is anomaly-free!

This is nonsense. All "theories" are subject to "anomalies." When they are not, they become simple facts.

Got anything insightful to say, or are we done?

[bahman]

Have you ever experienced your mind?

The only way you can "experience" is WITH your mind. You've never done anything else.

Meat cannot "have experiences."

Prove it!

I'm not a Cartesian. If you find one, you can have the debate with him/her.

Which version of substance dualism do you believe?

Not "substance" dualism at all.

Then which version of dualism do you believe in?

People don't have the best theory. The best theory is a theory which is anomaly-free!

This is nonsense. All "theories" are subject to "anomalies." When they are not, they become simple facts.

So to you, God's knowledge of reality is subject to anomalies as well?

Got anything insightful to say, or are we done?

I know the right theory. We have been through it though so I don't find it fruitful to discuss it with you since you didn't agree with it.