I don't follow.
Whether brains are physical objects or the mental activity of another mind (as, say, Berkeley would maintain) is left open by their existence being potentially illusory. That is, we could be dreaming brains exist and there are none in reality consistent with Berkelian idealism. As such, I don't see how physicalism per se is challenged by what I have said. — Bartricks
My point is that the only thing anyone can be certain of is that they have minds (the thinker) — TheMadFool
everything else, the material/physical world, could be an illusion à la Cartesian deus deceptor and brains in vats. — TheMadFool
I don't think that's true - we can be certain of more than that. — Bartricks
Does physicalism, to be plausible, need to be indubitable? — Bartricks
Like what? — TheMadFool
Yes, it affirms that all is physical, a statement of absolute certainty. It has no room for doubt but that's exactly what's introduced with Descartes' deus deceptor and Harmann's brain in a vat. — TheMadFool
Reasons. I think I have reason to believe I am thinking, and that I have reason to believe that thoughts cannot exist absent a mind to think them, and reason to think that I, a mind, exist. But then if I have reason to think those things, and reason to think them true with certainty, then I have as much if not more reason to think reasons exist. And thus reasons exist with complete certainty. — Bartricks
No, a view can be true and not believed. And a view can be true and not believed with certainty.
I do not believe materialism is true. But the fact that we can doubt the reports of our senses is not evidence that materialism is false. For we can doubt the reports of our senses even if materialism is false, and there's no special reason to think our senses would be indubitable if materialism were true (I mean, why would they be?).
But anyway, this is now getting off topic. The mind is not the brain regardless of whether brains are material objects or something else. If they are material objects - that is, if they are extended in space - then our minds are clearly not identical with them, for our minds seem to have no properties in common and thus are about as far from being them as it is possible to be. And if they are not extended in space - that is, if brains are not material substances, but bundles of ideas in the mind of God (as Berkeley believed), then our minds are not them either, for our minds are not bundles of ideas, but objects that have ideas.
Those who believe that our minds are our brains invariably have no argument for that view - they just assume it because they are fashion victims and that is the current intellectual fashion - or they have appalling arguments (see Murky above). — Bartricks
Of one thing we can be certain - minds. We can't disprove that there are no minds for to attempt to do so requires a mind, kinda like shooting oneself in the foot. — TheMadFool
Certain: mind; Uncertain: matter & energy — TheMadFool
↪TheMadFool You've proven nothing but demonstrated how brains can support strange ideas. You have a brain that functions. What you call mind is the normal functioning of your brain. You and Bartricks are mezmerized by the word mind. No physical matter? Get real. Why should anyone take you seriously?
Certain: mind; Uncertain: matter & energy
— TheMadFool
You know when you comment you self document your own ineptitude. It's just ridiculous.
And how did you and Bartricks get sucked into Bishop Berkeley's world of ass-backwardism? Maybe that was your wrong turn. — Mark Nyquist
And why do you think I would want your references? — Mark Nyquist
Perhaps there's a good argument out there that has "therefore, my mind is my brain" as its conclusion - but if there is, I haven't heard it yet. — Bartricks
Before we can determine whether thinking takes place in the brain, we have to first establish the brain exists outside the mind. — RogueAI
The prevailing model is of course that thought is caused by brain tissue, and the natural conclusion is that these thoughts are within this tissue somehow or to some extent. Intuition makes this claim nebulous however, so do any models (as opposed to spiritual ideas) exist that account for how thought might happen beyond the brain, or is this uncharted territory? — Enrique
No, thinking does not take place in the brain. It takes place in the 'mind'. Thoughts are mental states - states of mind. They are not brain states. — Bartricks
If someone breaks your arm/leg with a club, you can still think but if the club makes contact with your head (brain) with sufficient force, your thinking stops. So, I guess, the brain inside our skulls does the thinking. — TheMadFool
There is the theory of embodied cognition, which suggests that cognitive processes are not limited to the brain but draw from aspects of the entire body. — Hermeticus
Yes, it does, but where the "ideas" that make up the whole process of "Thinking" from its conception to its conclusion come from, that is another discussion. — Gus Lamarch
Begs the question: Where is a human brain? If thinking "takes place" in it, it must be somewhere, but to be somehere presupposes meaningful spatial designations and these are groundless, every one, in the final determination. — Constance
My view is brain supports mental content and mental content is a sort of virtual world that you might call mind. — Mark Nyquist
If someone breaks your arm/leg with a club, you can still think but if the club makes contact with your head (brain) with sufficient force, your thinking stops. So, I guess, the brain inside our skulls does the thinking. — TheMadFool
But what? Please copmplete your thought. I like to know your opinion. BTW, in your first comment (which I quoted in my "collection" of responses) you stated "So, I guess, the brain inside our skulls does the thinking." Are you revising or questioning your view?we think it's the brain that thinks but... — TheMadFool
then that interaction demonstrates that the non physical can and does causally interact with the physical. — Bartricks
otherwise you have no non question begging evidence that physical events can only have physical causes. — Bartricks
So you need first to establish that the mind is physical — Bartricks
Why? Because minds and their contents exist with the utmost certainty and it would be irrational to reduce the more certain to the less. — Bartricks
Very good point.... any ideas? — Daniel
So your objection is premise 1. — khaled
If I don’t see anything original in the reply I’m not responding. — khaled
Are any of the posters at this forum capable of rendering intuitions about the nonphysical mind in scientific or more pointedly objective terms, or is this hopelessly elusive and futuristic at our stage of knowledge? — Enrique
So basically, whether we define the mind as physical or nonphysical is arbitrary from a structural standpoint. — Enrique
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.