Actually, I understand the territory pretty darn well. Don't be fooled by those stupid jerks. I have defined the mind as internal thought, feeling, memory, perception, imagination, and consciousness....I read somewhere that nonreductive physicalism has become popular, and this appears to be the case. I guess this makes sense because other forms of materialism so obviously don't work, and it probably appeals to neuroscientists who don't understand philosophy very well....And yet it still seems strange to think that the things I listed above are really physical. They are clearly not physical in any normal sense of the word. Materialists appear to be extremely delusional and have huge blind spots. They worship science and do not realize its limitations. I doubt that there is any argument that could ever convince them to change their minds. They have assumed physicalism as a guiding principle and nothing can shake their belief. They are convinced that they are on the right side of history, and that kind of arrogance will be their downfall....

Anyway, who is on here? Graduate students? Retired professors? There's probably a variety, I suppose. It doesn't really matter, but I am kind of curious. Do you spar with those jerks regularly? That's not something I would enjoy. Anyway, thanks for being on my side. It was you and one other, Aaron R. He appears to also understand the issues pretty well.

True, but the internet can bring out the worst in people it seems. Yes, most people on here were ok, but there were two jerks, materialists who were very arrogant and condescending, like they could not possibly be wrong.

I actually did reply to this earlier. I'm really tired now, but basically what I said was that brain and mind work together so if your mind disagrees, your brain will disagree also. Even though they are different, they are intimately linked and connected.

By the way, there are some really nasty people on here. I guess the hide behind anonymity. Perhaps I made a mistake to give my real name. I really didn't know better when I signed up.

You should buy my book. You might learn something.

I don't know who you think you are, but you're the one who is confused and deluded. But only time will tell. Don't bother replying. You're just wasting my time. I won't reply to you any more.

Perhaps a materialism might say that the brain causes conscious experience, and therefore this must be physical. What I am saying is that the brain can create something nonphysical, namely the internal mind and conscious experiences. Of course, this is quite different from materialism.

"By "indivisibility" I simply meant that you couldn't take someone's consciousness and split it into pieces. At least, I am not aware of any phenomenological descriptions of such a thing. I'd consider things like thought, feeling and imagination to be more akin to categories or features of consciousness."

It might be possible to split consciousness in two if, leaving aside the ethical implications, you could split someone's brain in two and put one hemisphere in a different body. Of course, this is very theoretical and hypothetical.

"Yeah. And isn't the physicalist problem allegedly to do with that sentience rather than that rationality?"

Actually, it appears that the physicalist has a problem with rationality, feeling, perception, thought, memory, imagination, and really everything that is in the mind because these things are mental rather than physical. This is where I disagree with Chalmers, as I noted above. He actually makes it too easy on the physicalist. Everything going on in the mind is problematic for the materialist or physicalist, not just subjective experience.

I disagree with you that how humans developed "linguistic habits involved in reasoning" is an easy problem that has already been answered. I think that this shows the problematic nature of the distinction between hard and easy problems developed by Chalmers. He may have considered this an easy problem, but I do not. I think you are overly optimistic about what science has already achieved.

I think you make a good point about substance.

I think you are reading too much into the term "naturalism". By naturalism, I simply mean that I do not believe in the supernatural or spiritual. I do believe that there is a lot that science has not explained yet, and whether it can ever explain everything even in principle is still an open question.

You, like Uber, appear to be conflating naturalism with materialism. The things you mention are incompatible with materialism, but not naturalism when you realize that the mind is actually natural.

I agree with you that the evolution of language had a huge effect. Also, I wouldn't put too much stock in anything Richard Dawkins has to say. (For one thing, his concept of a "meme" is clearly wrong.) Although I believe that minds evolved in conjunction with the brain, the evolution of our current culture cannot be reduced simply to survival and reproduction. it is much too complex for that. By the way, I'm going to check out that website you mentioned. It will be interesting to see how the ideas there compare to mine.

I'm going to reply here and then get back to Wayfarer.

Much like Uber, you don't appreciate what is new about my new dualism, and so I'll try to spell it out here. The point is that it is very different from the traditional dualism of Descartes for at least four reasons. (Of course, it is possible that someone could have proposed something similar recently, but I am not aware of this, and it certainly does not appear to be well known. Although intuitively obvious, I think that not many people have wanted to believe in it because dualism has such a bad reputation, but this reputation is unfair.)

Reason 1. Descartes believed that mind and brain were totally independent substances. I believe that the mind depends on the brain, and thus it is not independent. Also, I don't really like the term, substance, which appears to be vague and not well defined.

Reason 2. Descartes held that the mind had no location in space. I believe that the mind must be located within the brain. Where else could it be?

Reason 3. Descartes believed that mind and brain interact through the pineal gland. This is clearly wrong. Mind and brain appear to interact somehow although we don't really know how.

Reason 4. Descartes believe that the soul could outlive the body. This appears extremely unlikely. In all likelihood, consciousness dies when the brain dies.

I hope I have made myself more clear.

You seem to equate information with the mind, but I am not really sure what to make of that. (I wouldn't rely on neuroscientists. To me, they appear to be very biased and confused.) It appears like the mind consists of internal experience. Are you really claiming that internal experiences such as feelings do not exist?

Wow, you've really changed. I thought you're earlier post was interesting, but now you appear to have totally lost it. Are you drunk, or do you have another explanation?

However, you did ask why I think that the brain creates consciousness. First, a correlation between mind and brain has been established by the effects of brain injuries as well as by brain scanners. For example, when someone imagines playing tennis, this corresponds to certain activity in a particular part of the brain. Given this reality, it appears that either mind and brain must be identical or the brain causes conscious experience. I have already argued against identity--not as much as I could, but that would take too long. Suffice it to say, causation is far more likely than identity. It is the only realistic option. Thus, in all likelihood, the brain causes, creates, produces, and generates conscious mental experience.

I believe that I have a pretty good idea of what I know and what I don't know, but of course I am fallible. I don't know exactly how the brain creates conscious experience, but it appears beyond all reasonable doubt that it really does this. To me this implies a new kind of dualism. This is obviously "softer" than the old Cartesian dualism. Perhaps it is conceptually similar to nonreductive physicalism, but to me nrp appears to be contradictory. If the mind does not reduce to the brain, then it appears not to really be physicalism.

I think you are right that we have pre-ordered templates that should be challenged. It appears to be human nature to overreach, and I believe that is what materialists have done. What theory do you believe is violating Occam's razor, and why? That appears unclear to me from your post.

You appear to be a beacon of light in a sea of ignorance. You make some good points about the difference between the mental and physical. One point I would quibble with is when you say the mind is apparently indivisible. To me it appears that the mind can be divided into feeling, thought, memory, imagination, consciousness, etc. Still your other points appear to ring true. Of course, it is unknow just how brain and mind interact, but it appears to be beyond all reasonable doubt that they do in fact interact. To think that they could not possibly interact because they are so different is reading too much into our ignorance. It would be like saying that because you don't know why the sun is hot, it could not possibly be hot.

I think you misunderstand my position. I don't see mind and brain as being different independent substances with the mind being supernatural. That's the old dualism. Clearly, mind and brain are different, and yet the mind depends on the brain in a naturalistic way. I believe in naturalism but not materialism. I don't get how Uber cannot understand this, but that's his problem.

You say the brain does information processing. How could it do that without a mind?

You have no idea what you are talking about. You don't seem to want to learn anything new. You are a waste of my time. Don't reply to me as I will no longer reply to you.

Wow, Uber, it appears that I got under your skin and you've gotten a little personal. I find that kind of amusing, both because I'm not used to these kind of online debates, and also, when I was younger, my cousin would make me mad, but now it seems that I'm on the other side.

First, let me assure you that my philosophy is extremely consistent, and if you don't see that, then it's you who do not understand. Second, there really is a significant difference between materialism and naturalism. I believe in evolution, and not in the supernatural. Of course, the mind has traditionally been conflated with the soul, but that is not necessarily the case. As I already pointed out, I believe that the mind evolved naturally even though it is nonphysical. I believe that it is extremely unlikely if not impossible that the mind (or soul) could survive brain death, given that mind and brain are intimately linked and connected. Third, I wasn't claiming that the person in the quote agreed with me. I was actually pointing out that he is wrong.

Yes, my philosophy is a little different. (That's why I call it the new dualism.) Still, I would recommend that you take it seriously and pay attention because what I say is probably right, and materialism is certainly wrong despite widespread acceptance. How do I know this? I've taken a long hard look at the history of this issue along with the logic and evidence of the mind. Much of the acceptance of materialism is based on faulty ideology and groupthink going back to the logical positivists and even before. In a way, it could hardly be more obvious once you really get it. You need to open your mind and realize that there is a real possibility that you could be wrong. The truth is not based on what so called experts think. It's ultimately based on logic, reason, and empirical evidence. Experts have been wrong before, and they are certainly wrong in this case.

I doubt that I will change your mind, and you probably think that I also have a closed mind, and yet that is not true. It is because I generally have an open mind that I was able to find what I believe to be the truth. One thing that we could probably both agree on is that your view is more mainstream, but in twenty or thirty years that may not be the case. GSC

Thanks for being the only person on here to actually support me. I like what you said here.

"I think that you [Uber] are underestimating how counter-intuitive the materialist thesis is. It's not simply a question of dependency, but a question of identity. The form of materialism being criticized in the OP doesn't merely claim that the mind depends on the operations of the nervous system - even a dualist can accept that - but, that the mind is identical with said operations. You may believe that, but as the OP points out, it amounts to little more than faith at this point."

For Uber and his ilk to be consistent, they would have to think of the mind as being identical to the physical operations of the nervous system on some level, but that does not appear to be the case at all. Of course, conscious experience is caused by the physical brain, and yet it does not appear to be identical to the physical activity of neurons. Uber and others want to say that because the brain causes mental activity or mental activity emerges from the brain (which is really saying the same thing) then it must be physical, but that is not necessarily the case. In fact, it appears that internal minds and conscious experience are not physical, and that's why most materialists of the past have tried to either eliminate the mind outright or claimed that it is identical to the physical brain. When these strategies did not work, many have resorted to nonreductive physicalism, and yet this does not appear to work either.

The only theory that actually appears to work is a new kind of dualism where conscious experience is caused by neurological activity and yet is not identical to it. Because people hate the concept of the mental so much, perhaps it would be better to call this experience something else, but whatever you want to call it, there are clearly two very different and distinct things going on in the brain. Thus, the new dualism is the only theory that actually works and makes sense.

Uber, I got the following from a quote you cited.

"Contemporary neuroscience has established a fundamental correlation between brain function and mental activity; the data support the basic monistic premise that human emotional and intellectual life is dependent on neuronal operations. This monistic perspective is associated with a philosophy of materialism."

The above quote demonstrates the basic problem, and some of the bias against dualism. Yes, there is a correlation between brain function and mental activity, but this actually supports dualism because these are two different things. To say that this supports monism is clearly biased. It assumes that because the mind depends on the physical brain, then it must itself be physical, but as I have already argued, that is not the case.

You want evidence? How dare you? Just kidding. First, although many neuroscientists are biased against the mind, the idea that the mind emerged from the brain implies causation. Perhaps even Uber would agree with this. It appears that my main dispute with Uber is that he believes the mind to be really physical, which is actually contradictory. Mental and physical are in fact opposites. The mind is internal while the physical world is external. Thus, it makes no sense for the mind to be physical. This is why so many materialists have wanted to dismiss or eliminate the mind altogether. If the mind were really physical, then we wouldn't even be having this problem.
To clarify:
The mind consists of internal feeling, thought, perception, memory, imagination, and consciousness.
The physical brain consists of neurons, synapses, electrochemical activity and regions such as the hippocampus, frontal cortex, etc.

I also believe that consciousness is an emergent state, but that does not make it physical. There is tremendous bias against dualism among neuroscientists. One might think that it is just a semantic difference, and perhaps there is some truth to this, and yet it really does appear to be more than that. A new kind of dualism is far more logical and likely.

You could not be more wrong in saying that materialism has won. In fact, it is on much shakier ground than it appeared to be in the 1950's. It's actually lost a lot of ground since then. See Nagel, Chalmers, Lanier, and McGinn to name a few. If we're still alive when they figure out how the brain causes conscious experience, then the joke will really be on you big time.

Your puzzle analogy appears to be a good one. The mind is like a piece that won't fit into the materialistic puzzle. I think you're wise to caution us not to take a hard line approach. After all, no one knows just how the brain causes conscious experience. Still, I believe that those who dismiss the mind as an illusion or irrelevant are clearly wrong. It appears that a new kind of dualism is the best answer, but it will be interesting to see what happens from here.

It appears to me that the mind did emerge from the physical brain. However, there is no real evidence that the mind is somehow physical. This is just something that some have assumed.

Uber,

You are seriously confusing materialism and naturalism. I believe in naturalism. I believe that the internal mind and conscious experience evolved along with the brain through the process of natural selection, and thus the mind is natural although nonphysical. It appears that the joke is on you.

yatagarasu,

Thank you for being polite. Still, I think your view of history is a little off. I don't believe that science was formed within a materialistic mindset as you claim. It appears to me that modern science began with Copernicus, Bacon, Galileo, Descartes, and others of that time, which was well before materialism became ascendant in the twentieth century. Some have thought of Newtonian mechanics as being materialistic but this appears to be a overreach. (At least it is an overreach to think that it can be applied to absolutely everything, although admittedly many did.) Nonetheless, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, idealism was the dominant philosophy. It was only in the twentieth century that materialism became ascendant and got to be associated with science. Perhaps this somewhat oversimplifies, but it is certainly more correct than your assertion. It appears to me that science has recently gotten away from the scientific method where evidence and reason are important. Scientists have accepted some ideas, such as materialism, that are unsupported by the scientific method.

As for dual aspect theory, this is a theory that mental and physical are fundamentally the same, but still somehow different, so there is a sense that 2=1, which is obviously contradictory. At one time, I tried to make a kind of dual aspect theory work by holding that mind and brain are epistemically different and yet fundamentally the same. This appears to get around the contradiction, but it still does not work. For one thing, there is no real evidence that mind and brain are fundamentally the same. If they were, what would this fundamental unity look like? This appears to be even more mysterious than the brain causing conscious mental experience, and so it is even more mysterious than dualism. One of the main reasons dualism was widely rejected was because it was considered to be mysterious, and so it makes no sense to accept something even more mysterious. (By the way our ignorance of just how the brain causes conscious experience is not a good argument against dualism. It would be like saying that because you don't know why the sun is hot, it must not really be hot.)

Uber,

This is similar to your last post. First I want to point out that there are many different kinds of materialism, some not as rational as yours. You say that consciousness emerges from interactions among neural networks. Even assuming this is true, it does not mean that consciousness is physical. In fact, it appears that something non-physical has emerged from physical brains. This is really no stranger than life emerging from nonlife, something that appears to have actually happened.

Why do I think that the mind is non-physical? Well, for one thing, you cannot see any mental aspects or conscious experience when you examine a physical brain. This is one reason why many have thought these things to be mysterious, and they are mysterious in a sense, but it is an obvious fact that we really do have them. We sense mental aspects, such as feelings, thoughts, memories, and imaginings internally, while the physical world is external. What I am saying is that mental and physical are different and that nonphysical minds exist, but they are not so mysterious. They somehow emerged from the physical brain during the course of evolution. Consciousness itself is not so mysterious. What is mysterious is just how the brain creates it.

Jacykow, materialists have indeed said things such as: What we believe is the consequences of neurons put together to form a kind of survival machine, as you put it. The problem is that they have no real evidence for the radical assumption that consciousness is some sort of illusion. Their claim that the brain somehow "fools" us is ad hoc and without any supporting evidence. It is far more likely that we think we have conscious experience because we actually do have conscious experience.

Jacykow, I don't think that predictions made by YouTube in any way implies materialism or physicalism, or disproves dualism. Moreover, I don't really feel like YouTube does much to predict my decisions. It appears to offer suggestions, and that's about it. By the way, even if you could somehow build a conscious robot, this does not imply materialism either. It would still be the case of something physical (the robot's computer "brain") producing something nonphysical, namely conscious experience. Obviously, this is not going to happen anytime soon, but as a thought experiment, I think the materialists are wrong about this.

Dalia,

Actually, I think brain and mind work together. They are intimately linked and connected. So if you say that my brain disagreed with you, that would really be no different than saying my mind disagreed with you. Still, thought and feeling are technically contained in the mind. I believe that the brain creates and then interprets internal conscious experience.

Marcus, I think people rebel against dualism with such enthusiasm, as you put it, because it appears to be so obviously right. They assume it is a kind of naïve view. The problem with this is that no other theory appears to work. Certainly, the burden of proof is on those who would reject dualism, and they have never met this burden.

What I am saying is that according to the new dualism, which is my view, the mind is not independent of the brain. It is caused by the brain and yet is still distinct from it. Also, there are many different forms of materialism, which is a clue to the weakness of the materialist position. They cannot come up with any form of materialism that actually works and makes realistic sense.

There are many reasons materialism became ascendant (although none of them are any good) and as you point out, one of them is that dualism became associated with religion and spiritualism. You are right to say that the baby of dualism has been ejected with the bathwater of the Cartesian view. You are also right that the burden of proof is on the materialist. Still, I believe that thought does depend on a material process, but this is different than saying that thought itself is a material process. Immaterial thought depends on a material brain.

You make some additional interesting points, but I'll let those go for now.

Jacykow, I suppose the reason I appear emotional is because I truly believe that materialism has been extremely harmful to both science and humanity. It's actually very difficult to defend materialism because it cannot explain the internal mind and conscious experience. You assume that materialism can explain everything, but that is clearly an overreach.

I think you are wrong about information being the fundamental building block, but your argument would take too much time to get into. Also, you appear to confuse the mental with the spiritual. I don't think that the mind is spiritual. I believe that mental aspects and conscious experiences are a natural result of evolution. They evolved along and in conjunction with the physical brain.

Thank you, Aaron, for criticizing one of my critics. Of course, you are absolutely right.
What you said points out one of the main problems with materialism. Materialists generally assume that someday we will be able to understand the mind within the context of materialism. They take this to be a matter of quasi-religious faith that, dare I say, is irrational. To truly understand how the brain produces conscious experience, it will take a whole new theory and paradigm shift on the order of Copernicus, Newton, Darwin, or Einstein.

Galuchat,

You didn't write many words, but there's a lot packed in there. I just want to make a few points. It's true that correlation does not prove causation, but I believe that, given the evidence, the most likely explanation by far is that the brain causes conscious experience. Yes, there are different levels of abstraction (that appears to be the point that Uber was making) but the difference between brain and mind is certainly more than this. Also, I don't believe that the mind is an epiphenomenon. The brain would not produce experience for no reason, so it must be doing something. Conscious experience must have some effect back on the physical brain.

Dual aspect and neutral monism are two different theories. All forms of monism are wrong because brain and mind differ, hence dualism is right. Dual aspect theory is self-contradictory, holding that brain and mind are different and yet still the same somehow. Thus, it cannot be right.

Uber, first I will admit that you are not irrational. In fact, yours is probably the best kind of defense of materialism that can be given. It definitely raises issues I have thought about. It is true that those who want to eliminate the mind completely are irrational, but you appear to support a kind of non-reductive physicalism. The problem with this is that if the mind does not reduce to the brain, then it is not really physical. Whatever the mind is, call it X, it is different from the brain--thus dualism is right. My point is that there are two different things going on in the brain, and to say the mind is physical is a kind of cop out, like you are trying to have it both ways. I think you have a bias against dualism. As you said, we may not be that far apart in theory, but semantics are important, and the idea of dualism, that mind and brain are different makes far more sense than nonreductive physicalism, which is confusing and contradictory. More can be said about this, but I want to get to the others.

I will answer these objections one by one.
First to Dalia: It's not my senses that are important. There is an objective truth that goes beyond the individual. Philosophers and scientists need to understand the objective truth. Also, you are confusing brain and mind. It's the mind that makes categories, not the brain.