If you're not, then you're with me. — Bartricks
Well, you just stipulated that the laws apply to physical things alone. — Bartricks
What's your position - are you a materialist or an immaterialist about the mind? — Bartricks
Minds are immaterial, yes, for like the 4th time. — khaled
Right. So when I decided - a mental event - to raise my arm, and my arm raised, what happened there? — Bartricks
Your view must be that it was pure coincidence that my decision to raise my arm was followed by my arm raising. — Bartricks
And when I eat food and feel satisfied, that feeling was just coincidental. — Bartricks
Or do you, perhaps, believe there was causal interaction after all? — Bartricks
No new energy coming in. — Bartricks
You're getting it for free. — Bartricks
Your brain caused the mental event. And your brain also caused the arm to move. — khaled
So, if your brain....material thing....causes a 'mental event'...an 'event of the mind'.......then.......wait for it......wait.......you have a material thing, causally interacting with an immaterial thing.
Which you think doesn't happen. — Bartricks
Must be good being able to do that - being able to just think all these contradictory things at once. I spend ages trying to avoid doing that. — Bartricks
I said an immaterial thing cannot cause material movement. The other way is fine. — khaled
So causal interactions can take place between material and immaterial entities. — Bartricks
If a physical event can cause a non-physical event, why can't a non-physical event cause a physical one? — Bartricks
Seems entirely arbitrary to believe that — Bartricks
Doors can only be pushed. They can't be pulled. Dammit. I'm stuck in my study. — Bartricks
Anyway, must go to bed now — Bartricks
given we have equally strong evidence for the latter as for the former. — Bartricks
If it didn't have some degree of privacy we could never lie. — Harry Hindu
Add that one can get drunk to Searle's example, and it is clear that physical events effect mental events and vice versa. This gives the illusion of a bridge between dualisms, bit that strikes me as a poor ontology.Not safe to assume both ways. — khaled
Well, obviously; as Searle pointed out, I decide to raise my arm, and the darn thing goes up. — Banno
physical events effect mental events — Banno
and vice versa — Banno
Unless you believe in God, spirits, ghosts or other such things (pretty clear I'm an atheist) how could anyone argue that consciousness ISN'T simply an integral aspect of the material brain — GLEN willows
I've not considered it, but you seem to have something in mind. Do tell.How does it square with our understanding of physics, such as conservation laws? — khaled
↪Banno Well you’re saying that mind affects matter above and beyond matter affecting matter. In other words, the conscious thought to raise my arm is what causes me to raise my arm. If this is the case, we should expect that in the human brain there would be some movement or other that has no detectable cause (since it was caused by the mind, not merely the brain) that results in the arm raising. This goes against conservation of energy. — khaled
Two descriptions:
1. My arms move because I decide to move my arm,
2. Certain neurone fire, causing specific muscle fibres to contract.
One event. — Banno
2b. I decide to move my arm, causing specific muscle fibres to contract.
No issue so far...? — Banno
Yes and yes. And it was solved ages ago. Plato. Avicenna. Descartes. Locke. Berkeley. Read them.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.