Mind/Body Problem...

kelly1

Hello folks, I'd like to open a discussion about the nature of the mind.

I like to hear opinions on whether you think thoughts and ideas are a purely physical process or is the mind something other that matter? Are you a monist or a dualist?

To quote from Wikipedia:

"The question, then, is how it can be possible for conscious experiences to arise out of a lump of gray matter endowed with nothing but electrochemical properties."

How can our minds, if they're nothing more than electrochemical processes, produce abstract thoughts about ideas such as justice, freedom, mathematics, metaphysics, encryption, morality etc. Ideas are not material. Clearly a notion such as "the self" is not composed of atoms.

Another related question is why is man capable of asking philosophical questions and using abstract thought? Why can't animals do this? Why are we the only species capable of these things? It's obviously not determined by brain size because there are animals with bigger brains than ours.

Personally, I think the only satisfying answer is spirit. I believe it is a spirit which gives us intelligence and the ability to love. I know spirit is unsatisfactory to atheists because spirit is mostly undetectable. I find atheists a stubborn in this regard. Spirit is a good explanation for how the mind works and I also think infinite spirit (God) is a good explanation for what kicked off the big bang, the point at which something came out of nothing and the reason why physics breaks down. But now I'm digressing. Back to mind matters....

Any thoughts?

Regards,
Noel.

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

Hello folks, I'd like to open a discussion about the nature of the mind.

I like to hear opinions on whether you think thoughts and ideas are a purely physical process or is the mind something other that matter? Are you a monist or a dualist?

To quote from Wikipedia:

"The question, then, is how it can be possible for conscious experiences to arise out of a lump of gray matter endowed with nothing but electrochemical properties."

How can our minds, if they're nothing more than electrochemical processes, produce abstract thoughts about ideas such as justice, freedom, mathematics, metaphysics, encryption, morality etc. Ideas are not material. Clearly a notion such as "the self" is not composed of atoms.

Another related question is why is man capable of asking philosophical questions and using abstract thought? Why can't animals do this? Why are we the only species capable of these things? It's obviously not determined by brain size because there are animals with bigger brains than ours.

The brain is vastly complex. The ability to love and reason is probably written or hardcoded into the brain when we're born. I'm no expert.

kelly1 wrote: »

Personally, I think the only satisfying answer is spirit. I believe it is a spirit which gives us intelligence and the ability to love. I know spirit is unsatisfactory to atheists because spirit is mostly undetectable. I find atheists a stubborn in this regard. Spirit is a good explanation for how the mind works and I also think infinite spirit (God) is a good explanation for what kicked off the big bang, the point at which something came out of nothing and the reason why physics breaks down....

Merely a guess a what gives us our thoughts and it requires a lot of blind faith.

Wreck

kelly1 wrote: »

"The question, then, is how it can be possible for conscious experiences to arise out of a lump of gray matter endowed with nothing but electrochemical properties."

How can our minds, if they're nothing more than electrochemical processes, produce abstract thoughts about ideas such as justice, freedom, mathematics, metaphysics, encryption, morality etc. Ideas are not material. Clearly a notion such as "the self" is not composed of atoms.

Another related question is why is man capable of asking philosophical questions and using abstract thought? Why can't animals do this? Why are we the only species capable of these things? It's obviously not determined by brain size because there are animals with bigger brains than ours.

Personally, I think the only satisfying answer is anti-spirit. I believe it is an anti-spirit which gives us intelligence and the ability to love. Anti-spirit is mostly undetectable. Anti-spirit is a good explanation for how the mind works.

Probably one of my more convincing arguments. Everything explained satisfactorily?

Dades

kelly1 wrote: »

Personally, I think the only satisfying answer is spirit.

I think this is the key point here. You require an answer.

Consciousness is an amazing thing - but we know it comes from the brain. A simple crack on your head with a lump hammer will prove that! But just because we can't de-construct the entire workings of the human brain, doesn't mean we have to resort to a paranormal explanation.

There is nothing about humans to suggest they have a spirit, any more than animals. If you shoot a human and a giraffe the exact same thing happens. They both die and decompose.

It's okay to not have all the answers, as long as the search for those answers continues.

kelly1

Wreck wrote: »

Personally, I think the only satisfying answer is anti-spirit. I believe it is an anti-spirit which gives us intelligence and the ability to love. Anti-spirit is mostly undetectable. Anti-spirit is a good explanation for how the mind works.

Probably one of my more convincing arguments. Everything explained satisfactorily?

Looking for the children's forum?

Tim Robbins

kelly1 wrote: »

How can our minds, if they're nothing more than electrochemical processes, produce abstract thoughts about ideas such as justice, freedom, mathematics, metaphysics, encryption, morality etc. Ideas are not material. Clearly a notion such as "the self" is not composed of atoms.

Cleary? I think it is anything but clear.

It's obviously not determined by brain size because there are animals with bigger brains than ours.

If you compare human brain size to body mass and body volume, it far exceeds the rest of the animal kingdom.
We have a massive brain / body mass compared to our closest cousins and primates. It's about 6 times their size. The intellegience / brain size correlation has been thrown out by science a long time ago. It is more the ratio of brain size: body mass / volume.

Personally, I think the only satisfying answer is spirit. I believe it is a spirit which gives us intelligence and the ability to love. I know spirit is unsatisfactory to atheists because spirit is mostly undetectable. I find atheists a stubborn in this regard. Spirit is a good explanation for how the mind works and I also think infinite spirit (God) is a good explanation for what kicked off the big bang, the point at which something came out of nothing and the reason why physics breaks down. But now I'm digressing. Back to mind matters....

Well I don't accept that answer because it is more of the same old mantra:
"I don't know, so it must be God!" This is why I don't like theology. While I appreciate your type of Theology searches for some intellectual reasoning as opposed to some creationist nutters, I really don't like the suspension of questioning, investigation and invoking the proverbial God of Gaps.

I'll believe in God when there is positive evidence for one, not every time we come across a puzzle in Science.

lookinforpicnic

Wreck wrote: »

Personally, I think the only satisfying answer is anti-spirit. I believe it is an anti-spirit which gives us intelligence and the ability to love. Anti-spirit is mostly undetectable. Anti-spirit is a good explanation for how the mind works.

Probably one of my more convincing arguments. Everything explained satisfactorily?

Ha, or maybe its our ingestion of alcohol, clearly people who don't drink are not nice people and most probably stupid, thats why the Irish are such a holy nation you know...

pH

kelly1 wrote: »

Personally, I think the only satisfying answer is spirit. I believe it is a spirit which gives us intelligence and the ability to love. I know spirit is unsatisfactory to atheists because spirit is mostly undetectable. I find atheists a stubborn in this regard. Spirit is a good explanation for how the mind works and I also think infinite spirit (God) is a good explanation for what kicked off the big bang, the point at which something came out of nothing and the reason why physics breaks down. But now I'm digressing. Back to mind matters....

This would be a satisfying answer if we found that our cranium was full of empty space, but it isn't - there's a brain in there, and we know that this brain produces all of these abstract thoughts and ideas. How do we know this you may ask? Well brain damage for one.

If we have an incorporeal spirit inside us that gives rise to the things you mention then damage to the physical brain shouldn't affect these things, but we find it does. Your ability to do mathematics and what moral choices you make can be altered by damaging parts of the brain or even by using drugs. Your conciousness and self is clearly produced by your physical brain, if it wasn't then what's the purpose of this grey matter, surely this incorporeal spirit would make it unnecessary?

On a side note, do those with severe brain damage or mental health problems recover their full faculties in heaven? Is Schizophrenia a disease of the brain or the spirit in your view?

Wreck

kelly1 wrote: »

Looking for the children's forum?

Sorry, it was a little facetious of me. I was merely trying to point out that your 'satisfying answer' explains nothing and is essentially meaningless.

Tim_Murphy

Originally Posted by kelly1
Personally, I think the only satisfying answer is spirit. I believe it is a spirit which gives us intelligence and the ability to love. I know spirit is unsatisfactory to atheists because spirit is mostly undetectable. I find atheists a stubborn in this regard. Spirit is a good explanation for how the mind works and I also think infinite spirit (God) is a good explanation for what kicked off the big bang, the point at which something came out of nothing and the reason why physics breaks down....

The word 'spirit' the way you are using it is basically interchangeable with words like God or Magic. You call it a good explanation but it really doesn't explain anything. It doesn’t tell us anything and effectively amounts to a ‘We don’t know’. It would be much more honest of course just to say we don’t know.

kelly1

Dades wrote: »

I think this is the key point here. You require an answer.

And what's wrong with that? There has to be a reason for everything. Would you say the same thing to those scientists who are trying to understand the cause of the Big-Bang? Give up boys, you don't need to know everything.

Dades wrote: »

Consciousness is an amazing thing - but we know it comes from the brain.
A simple crack on your head with a lump hammer will prove that! But just because we can't de-construct the entire workings of the human brain, doesn't mean we have to resort to a paranormal explanation.

No, we don't know that consciousness comes from the brain. Has some new discovery been made that I'm not aware of?

Dades wrote: »

There is nothing about humans to suggest they have a spirit, any more than animals.

How does a material object come up with concepts such as infinity. How can matter produce something which is totally unrelated to matter e.g the concept of justice? Justice isn't physical, it's not composed of atoms so what produced it?

Dades wrote: »

It's okay to not have all the answers, as long as the search for those answers continues.

I believe progress in science is asymptotic i.e. we creep closer and closer to the limit of knowledge but ever more slowly. The theory of everything seems to be frustratingly elusive. Are we making any progress with string theory, brane theory and M theory? I predict there will never be a theory of everything because science ignores the spiritual world.

Obni

Kelly1,
I believe Dades was questioning your requirement to resolve the issue and obtain a final answer immediately; and if science can't join all the dots then fill the gaps with spirituality.
I don't think anyone suggested that you stop looking for answers, just that you shouldn't settle for so impoverished an answer as 'We can't explain that bit, so it must be spirit'.

By the way, have you ever considered that if we discover a final TOE (theory of everything), that it could be seen as a key piece of evidence of divine presence?
The probability that a short-lived organic life-form would develop a full understanding of the staggeringly complex universe in which it finds itself, is surely so low, that if we do figure it all out it could only be by divine intervention?

I predict there will never be a theory of everything because we're on our own in this search, and it may prove beyond us.

Dades

kelly1 wrote: »

No, we don't know that consciousness comes from the brain. Has some new discovery been made that I'm not aware of?

If I deprive your brain of oxygen what happens? You lose consciousness.
Maybe that's a new discovery for you.

kelly1 wrote: »

How does a material object come up with concepts such as infinity. How can matter produce something which is totally unrelated to matter e.g the concept of justice? Justice isn't physical, it's not composed of atoms so what produced it?

How does an intangible, invisible, undetectable spirit come up with these concepts?!! The matter explanation seems more realistic!

lookinforpicnic

kelly1 wrote: »

And what's wrong with that? There has to be a reason for everything. Would you say the same thing to those scientists who are trying to understand the cause of the Big-Bang? Give up boys, you don't need to know everything.

Of course nothing is wrong with searching for answers, but what is wrong (and plainly a bit thick) is substituting the word spirit in somewhere as an explanation, the idea of a spirit doesn't explain anything, why does it give you intelligence? why can you feel love with it? its just ridiculous. Read some cognitive neuroscience and you might see what a real explanations looks like.

kelly1 wrote: »

I predict there will never be a theory of everything because science ignores the spiritual world.

Thats just nonsense, science deals with evidence give some evidence for the spiritual world and it can be included in the theories.

Be interesting to hear what you think on pH's question do you think that schizophrenia (or any other neuropsychological disease) is a disease of the spirit or the brain?

LaVidaLoca

"Personally, I think the only satisfying answer is spirit. I believe it is a spirit which gives us intelligence and the ability to love. I know spirit is unsatisfactory to atheists because spirit is mostly undetectable. I find atheists a stubborn in this regard. Spirit is a good explanation for how the mind works and I also think infinite spirit (God) is a good explanation for what kicked off the big bang, the point at which something came out of nothing and the reason why physics breaks down. But now I'm digressing. Back to mind matters....

This is just white noise.

You find atheists stubborn because they dont admit to beleiving in things there is no evidence for? Spirit is an explanation, sure, but not one for which there is any evidence. Therefore it's not a good one. You're free to beleive it of course, but dont ask anybody to respect you for it.

ghouse

Can we stay on point pls and stop attacking the OP's opinions.

From the point of view of evolution, the human mind is a difficult road-block. Many of the functions we have that are not mirrored in animals we are apparently closely related to, give some cause for confusion.

Until we have more information on the brain and the development of the thought processes unique to man, we should avoid ascribing the currently inexplicable to the paranormal and equally inexplicable.

kelly1

pH wrote: »

This would be a satisfying answer if we found that our cranium was full of empty space, but it isn't - there's a brain in there, and we know that this brain produces all of these abstract thoughts and ideas. How do we know this you may ask? Well brain damage for one.

There is also the theory that the brain is the vehicle and the spirit is the driver. The brain obviously is required to send signals to the muscles etc to produce motion. But where does the will to move a muscle come from? If I'm standing there with a gun pointed at some-one, what decides whether I pull the trigger?

pH wrote: »

If we have an incorporeal spirit inside us that gives rise to the things you mention then damage to the physical brain shouldn't affect these things, but we find it does. Your ability to do mathematics and what moral choices you make can be altered by damaging parts of the brain or even by using drugs. Your conciousness and self is clearly produced by your physical brain, if it wasn't then what's the purpose of this grey matter, surely this incorporeal spirit would make it unnecessary?

Cleary the brain is used in the thought process but is it the ultimate source of all our thoughts or just a funnel? I'm inclined to think that drugs act like a tap either restricting the flow of thoughts or opening up to allow a greater flow of thoughts.

pH wrote: »

On a side note, do those with severe brain damage or mental health problems recover their full faculties in heaven? Is Schizophrenia a disease of the brain or the spirit in your view?

Everyone separates from their physical bodies at the point of death so there is no physical brain present to obstruct the workings of the spirit. So yes, I do believe the dead will have full use of their thinking faculties. As regards schizophrenia, I don't know. I think it's difficult to separate mind and spirit so I imagine both are involved.

Dades

ghouse wrote: »

Can we stay on point pls and stop attacking the OP's opinions.

Noel's post is the point of this thread!

Wreck

kelly1 wrote: »

But where does the will to move a muscle come from? If I'm standing there with a gun pointed at some-one, what decides whether I pull the trigger?

A purely physical process based on cause and effect taking place in the matter contained in your skull.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

I like to hear opinions on whether you think thoughts and ideas are a purely physical process or is the mind something other that matter? Are you a monist or a dualist?

At the risk of self-labelling, I'd tend to the monist point of view. I don't see how declaring the existence of an undefined "spirit" clarifies the matter in any way. It's rather like a creationist claiming "god did it" in response to some question, and hoping that this explains the problem.

kelly1 wrote: »

Ideas are not material. Clearly a notion such as "the self" is not composed of atoms.

Yes, not of atoms alone. It seems that ideas and feelings all the rest of the state-based paraphernalia of a living mind is encoded in the unending interplay of neurons, electrical signals and an assortment of chemicals. How consciousness, or the feeling of consciousness, arises from that is a complete mystery, but at lower levels, some progress is being made. Researchers have identified how bits and pieces of the visual subsystem works, and how bits of the aural and other subsystems work. In time, this knowledge will probably increase, but at the moment, it's woefully incomplete.

The fact that the human brain is very sensitive to the presence of mood-altering substances -- alcohol, caffeine, LSD and so on -- suggests that mood and the sense of self is, bizarrely, a chemical phenomenon, no matter how much we might like to think otherwise.

If an immaterial "spirit" somehow controlled the mind, then how come it's so sensitive to material chemicals?

monkeyfudge

Memory plays a huge part in what makes you who you are.

Thoughts and ideas would be created from the juxtapositions of different memories and experiences you have. Jumble that up with the built in biological and genetic impulses and you come up with a unique consciousness.

And memory is very much a function of the biological brain.

kelly1

Obni wrote: »

By the way, have you ever considered that if we discover a final TOE (theory of everything), that it could be seen as a key piece of evidence of divine presence?
The probability that a short-lived organic life-form would develop a full understanding of the staggeringly complex universe in which it finds itself, is surely so low, that if we do figure it all out it could only be by divine intervention?

Interesting thought. That a tiny part of the universe, a by-product of the big-bang, would have a complete understanding of the whole of the universe including it's origin, seems a little unlikely to say the least.

Obni wrote: »

I predict there will never be a theory of everything because we're on our own in this search, and it may prove beyond us.

I really do think we're approaching a limit of knowledge. The particle accelerators are getting bigger and bigger and the particles being produced are getting shorter lived. Intuitively speaking, I'd say physicists are running out of ideas.

monkeyfudge

Yeah... but you're trying to study something from the point of view of being inside the petri dish... I can't see how with that limited perspective how fully understanding the universe will ever be within our grasp.

Wreck

kelly1 wrote: »

I really do think we're approaching a limit of knowledge.

How is the idea that there is a limit to knowledge compatible with the existence of an omniscient god (i.e. a being with infinite knowledge)

Way off topic I know.

Dades

kelly1 wrote: »

I really do think we're approaching a limit of knowledge.

"Everything that can be invented has been invented."

Charles H. Duell, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899

kelly1

Dades wrote: »

If I deprive your brain of oxygen what happens? You lose consciousness. Maybe that's a new discovery for you.

That doesn't prove that the brain is the source of consciousness. The brain could be an "interconnect" between the physical body and the spirit. I think we could use the analogy of a puppet and a puppeteer.

Puppeteer corresponds to spirit
Strings correspond to brain
puppet corresponds to body

Without the strings(brain) the puppet falls down lifeless.

Dades wrote: »

How does an intangible, invisible, undetectable spirit come up with these concepts?!! The matter explanation seems more realistic!

Really? How does matter produce ideas (non-matter)?

Wreck

kelly1 wrote: »

That doesn't prove that the brain is the source of consciousness. The brain could be an "interconnect" between the physical body and the spirit. I think we could use the analogy of a puppet and a puppeteer.

Puppeteer corresponds to spirit
Strings correspond to brain
puppet corresponds to body

Ok so in your analogy the puppeteer makes physical contact with the strings to control the puppet.

How does an immaterial spirit contact or manipulate or connect with the material brain?

pH

kelly1 wrote: »

That doesn't prove that the brain is the source of consciousness. The brain could be an "interconnect" between the physical body and the spirit. I think we could use the analogy of a puppet and a puppeteer.

Puppeteer corresponds to spirit
Strings correspond to brain
puppet corresponds to body

Without the strings(brain) the puppet falls down lifeless.

We know that when we lose consciousness it's not just the the body that falls down limp, you don't continue to think and be self aware whilst you're unconscious.

And not all brain damage purely affects the the ability of the consciousness to control the body, certain types of brain damage can dramatically affect a person's morality, who they love, their ability to solve complex problems etc.

Have a read here. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that part of 'us' is separate from the actual physical brain and immune to physical damage. Everything we observe is entirely consistent with our consciousness, personality and faculties emerging purely from electrical and chemical reactions within the brain.

kelly1

lookinforpicnic wrote: »

Of course nothing is wrong with searching for answers, but what is wrong (and plainly a bit thick) is substituting the word spirit in somewhere as an explanation, the idea of a spirit doesn't explain anything

Why doesn't it? Scientists may not like the idea but that doesn't mean it's wrong. It's wrong of scientists to assume that they will some day have the answer to these questions. Can scientists not accept that everything might not have a natural/physical explanation? Of course if scientists allowed for the possibility of the supernatural, then they would also have to accept that they might never get to the bottom of these questions and that would bring an end to science as we know it. So the only possible way forward for science is to deny the possibility of the supernatural, thereby keeping their egos afloat.

lookinforpicnic wrote: »

, why does it give you intelligence? why can you feel love with it? its just ridiculous.

I think something immaterial is more likely to be the source of immaterial things such as concepts, ideas, love etc.

lookinforpicnic wrote: »

Read some cognitive neuroscience and you might see what a real explanations looks like.

Does it fully explain the source of ideas, decision-making, passion for knowledge etc or just offer theories?

Xhristy

This post has been deleted.

Dave!

kelly1 wrote: »

Personally, I think the only satisfying answer is spirit. I believe it is a spirit which gives us intelligence and the ability to love. I know spirit is unsatisfactory to atheists because spirit is mostly undetectable. I find atheists a stubborn in this regard. Spirit is a good explanation for how the mind works and I also think infinite spirit (God) is a good explanation for what kicked off the big bang, the point at which something came out of nothing and the reason why physics breaks down. But now I'm digressing. Back to mind matters....

Don't be f*cking ridiculous........

How about this for a satisfying answer: I DO NOT KNOW

There's a crazy phrase you don't often hear coming from theists' mouths! It's usually translated into the following: GOD DID IT :rolleyes:

I tend to leave sh*t like this to people who have studied it for years and experimented and analysed their results. Y'know, like we did with physics and biology and chemistry........ You'll find they tend to yield results when they're not being undermined by moronic sh*t like this. Psychology as a scientific subject is relatively young, so give it time to develop as a discipline and you'll have adequate answers which you can then force into your Biblical interpretation of everything, like an ill-placed jigsaw piece.

kelly1

ghouse wrote: »

Can we stay on point pls and stop attacking the OP's opinions.

From the point of view of evolution, the human mind is a difficult road-block. Many of the functions we have that are not mirrored in animals we are apparently closely related to, give some cause for confusion.

Thanks. I don't see too many here who seem to grasp the problem. If apes had the same size brains as us, would they have the same faculties as us? I don't think so.

ghouse wrote: »

Until we have more information on the brain and the development of the thought processes unique to man, we should avoid ascribing the currently inexplicable to the paranormal and equally inexplicable.

An interesting question I just thought of; is the structure of animals brains very different to ours. Do other animals such as the chimpanzee have brains that are very similar to ours? Do their brains differ primarily in size?

kelly1

Wreck wrote: »

A purely physical process based on cause and effect taking place in the matter contained in your skull.

Meaning that the gunman had no choice?

seamus

kelly1 wrote: »

Meaning that the gunman had no choice?

It's as valid a theory as any other - who's to say that we actually do have free will. Everything is about cause and effect and since our universe is a closed system (as far as we know), there's a good argument to say that everything since the big bang has been predetermined and inevitable. Even our actions and our choices.

I prefer not to subscribe to it, but I accept that it's a very valid theory.

In fact, theists should love this theory. The existence of free will means that an "all-knowing" God is an impossibility - if I can make my own choices, how could he possibly know what that outcome will be? In fact, if I have free will, then you're going down the multiple universes road, meaning that there are infinite universes for every possible choice. It would be an impossibility for God to know or guess how things turn out, because they turn out every way imaginable.

The idea of a predetermined universe however implies that there is only one universe and it is possible to know everything about it. Which is kind of crucial for God.

kelly1

Wreck wrote: »

How is the idea that there is a limit to knowledge compatible with the existence of an omniscient god (i.e. a being with infinite knowledge)

I don't see any problem with that. We have a finite spirit while God's is infinite. Our intelligence is finite, God's is not.

Wreck

kelly1 wrote: »

Our intelligence is finite, God's is not.

Ok, fair enough, but that's not actually what you originally said. You're also using the terms knowledge and intelligence interchangeably. I'm not going to go any further into this as I don't want to derail the thread.

kelly1

Wreck wrote: »

Ok so in your analogy the puppeteer makes physical contact with the strings to control the puppet.

How does an immaterial spirit contact or manipulate or connect with the material brain?

Spirit would need to have the ability to influence matter and I believe it does.

pH wrote: »

We know that when we lose consciousness it's not just the the body that falls down limp, you don't continue to think and be self aware whilst you're unconscious.

And not all brain damage purely affects the the ability of the consciousness to control the body, certain types of brain damage can dramatically affect a person's morality, who they love, their ability to solve complex problems etc.

Have a read here.

As I said already, that doesn't prove that the brain is the source of intelligence/consciousness. It could be a conduit between the spirit and the rest of the body.

pH wrote: »

There is absolutely nothing to suggest that part of 'us' is separate from the actual physical brain and immune to physical damage. Everything we observe is entirely consistent with our consciousness, personality and faculties emerging purely from electrical and chemical reactions within the brain.

Matter can only produce matter and chemicals can only produce different chemicals. The point is that ideas are non-physical so how can the physical produce the non-physical?

Xhristy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I have difficulties with this idea. A brain is a material object albeit a complex one. Wouldn't it require something greater than the brain to comprehend the workings of the brain. As the brain grows in understanding of itself, it becomes more complex a thing to understand which in turn makes it more difficult for the brain to comprehend itself (if that makes any sense). I reckon there needs to be some external observer involved. How can an object understand itself, no matter how complex?

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

How can our minds, if they're nothing more than electrochemical processes, produce abstract thoughts about ideas such as justice, freedom, mathematics, metaphysics, encryption, morality etc.

You seem to imply from that statement that electrochemical process cannot produce human thought. Why exactly?

kelly1 wrote: »

Ideas are not material. Clearly a notion such as "the self" is not composed of atoms.

Ideas are not material, but everything that processes them are. Books contain ideas but to exist they must be made of atoms. Unless books have spirits too.

kelly1 wrote: »

Another related question is why is man capable of asking philosophical questions and using abstract thought? Why can't animals do this?

Well firstly you assume animals can't do this, which is a bit of a jump.

Secondly humans have evolved big brains, which allows us to ask these types of questions.

kelly1 wrote: »

Why are we the only species capable of these things? It's obviously not determined by brain size because there are animals with bigger brains than ours.

Why do you assume that animals with bigger brains don't do this?

kelly1 wrote: »

Personally, I think the only satisfying answer is spirit.

Well personally I think that is the least satisfying answer since "spirit" is completely undefined and as such explains nothing. You might as well say that "boogallo" is the only satisfying answer.

kelly1 wrote: »

Spirit is a good explanation for how the mind works

Ok, explain how the mind works using "spirit" .. in detail please. What happens when my eyes see, say, my mother and I think of a memory of my childhood.

I imagine your "explanation" of what is happening that includes the "spirit" will be a little lacking .... :rolleyes:

Wreck

kelly1 wrote: »

Wreck wrote:

How does an immaterial spirit contact or manipulate or connect with the material brain?

Spirit would need to have the ability to influence matter and I believe it does.

I asked how is it possible for an immaterial entity to influence or connect with a material or physical object. you respond by saying you believe it does.

kelly1 wrote: »

We know that when we lose consciousness it's not just the the body that falls down limp, you don't continue to think and be self aware whilst you're unconscious.

As I said already, that doesn't prove that the brain is the source of intelligence/consciousness. It could be a conduit between the spirit and the rest of the body.

What is the spirit, which you claim to be the source of our ideas and thoughts, doing while our brain is not functioning? Is it continuing to create ideas and thoughts?

Bottle_of_Smoke

ghouse wrote: »

From the point of view of evolution, the human mind is a difficult road-block. Many of the functions we have that are not mirrored in animals we are apparently closely related to, give some cause for confusion.

Until we have more information on the brain and the development of the thought processes unique to man, we should avoid ascribing the currently inexplicable to the paranormal and equally inexplicable.

Perhaps the animals that did mirror some of those functions are now extinct. Given they would have competed with humans or human like hominids I don't find this idea even a little bit surprising.

Kelly1 wrote:

Why doesn't it? Scientists may not like the idea but that doesn't mean it's wrong. It's wrong of scientists to assume that they will some day have the answer to these questions. Can scientists not accept that everything might not have a natural/physical explanation? Of course if scientists allowed for the possibility of the supernatural, then they would also have to accept that they might never get to the bottom of these questions and that would bring an end to science as we know it.

Eh, sounding a bit American Taliban here. This post shows you really have no clue about how science works. It's like you think all scientists believe the same thing about everything. If a Scientist had any good evidence of the supernatural they'd be doing their level best to show it in action.

So the only possible way forward for science is to deny the possibility of the supernatural, thereby keeping their egos afloat.

Hahaha, as if the idea of the supernatural bears any relevence to the vast majority of sciences.

If you break your leg are you gonna go to the hospital with all the egotistical science flying around or just gonna have a pray?

JC 2K3

kelly1 wrote: »

How can our minds, if they're nothing more than electrochemical processes, produce abstract thoughts about ideas such as justice, freedom, mathematics, metaphysics, encryption, morality etc.

How can't they?

We think, therefore they do.

kelly1 wrote: »

Another related question is why is man capable of asking philosophical questions and using abstract thought? Why can't animals do this?

How do you know they can't?

kelly1 wrote: »

Personally, I think the only satisfying answer is spirit. I believe it is a spirit which gives us intelligence and the ability to love. I know spirit is unsatisfactory to atheists because spirit is mostly undetectable. I find atheists a stubborn in this regard. Spirit is a good explanation for how the mind works and I also think infinite spirit (God) is a good explanation for what kicked off the big bang, the point at which something came out of nothing and the reason why physics breaks down. But now I'm digressing. Back to mind matters....

What's a spirit?

kelly1 wrote: »

There has to be a reason for everything.

Why?

kelly1 wrote: »

How does a material object come up with concepts such as infinity. How can matter produce something which is totally unrelated to matter e.g the concept of justice? Justice isn't physical, it's not composed of atoms so what produced it?

kelly1 wrote: »

Really? How does matter produce ideas (non-matter)?

How do computers, material objects, store and process "immaterial" data, perform immaterial concepts like mathematics etc. Do computers have "spirits"? Personally I don't think so, I recognise that computers act the way they do due to the arrangement of the atoms inside them.

Try this: The arrangement of atoms in the human brain makes humans generally act in a certain way, which tends to reflect the concept of "justice". The arrangement of these atoms can be altered by a number of facotrs in life, which makes some humans act in ways that adhere more or less to the concept of justice.

kelly1

DaveMcG wrote: »

Don't be f*cking ridiculous........

Really nice. Can you not debate something without lowering yourself to crude insults? How did you get to be a mod?

DaveMcG wrote: »

How about this for a satisfying answer: I DO NOT KNOW

There's a crazy phrase you don't often hear coming from theists' mouths! It's usually translated into the following: GOD DID IT :rolleyes:

It's a bit like the response we often hear from the scientific world - we don't know yet, but we're working on it! There seems to be a blind faith among scientists that they will someday have the answers to everything.

Dades

kelly1 wrote: »

So the only possible way forward for science is to deny the possibility of the supernatural, thereby keeping their egos afloat.

Are you for real?! Man's most worthwhile pursuit reduced to an ego trip?

The only parties in this debate with an agenda are the ones who don't care what the suggestion is as long as it doesn't contradict their religion.

Akrasia

kelly1 wrote: »

I really do think we're approaching a limit of knowledge. The particle accelerators are getting bigger and bigger and the particles being produced are getting shorter lived. Intuitively speaking, I'd say physicists are running out of ideas.

Um, scientists are adding to human knowledge at a rate unprecedented in the history of human civilisation.

Compare this with the middle ages when the church crushed all attempts at scientific enquiry that contradicted religion..

Akrasia

Wreck wrote: »

Ok so in your analogy the puppeteer makes physical contact with the strings to control the puppet.

How does an immaterial spirit contact or manipulate or connect with the material brain?

through the pineal gland, duh

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

It's a bit like the response we often hear from the scientific world - we don't know yet, but we're working on it! There seems to be a blind faith among scientists that they will someday have the answers to everything.

As opposed to what, religion just making the answers up ... I think I will stick with science

Wreck

Akrasia wrote: »

through the pineal gland, duh

Oh yeah, I forgot about that

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

You seem to imply from that statement that electrochemical process cannot produce human thought. Why exactly?

Because a thought is non-physical and the brain is physical. How can something material produce something which has nothing in common with itself. We know of nothing in this world that can produce anything non-physical so why should the brain be an exception just because of its complexity.

Wicknight wrote: »

Ideas are not material, but everything that processes them are.

I don't think anyone has proved that the brain is the ultimate source of our thoughts. The activity that we see in the brain could be in response to thought produced by spirit.

Wicknight wrote: »

Books contain ideas but to exist they must be made of atoms. Unless books have spirits too.

Books contain paper and ink. The combination of symbols that are used in books are only made possible by thought producing an agreed code.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well firstly you assume animals can't do this, which is a bit of a jump.

Have we any reason to believe that animals are capable of philosophical or abstract thought? If they are capable of it, they're hiding it very well unless you're thinking of a Dr. Doolittle situation.

Wicknight wrote: »

Secondly humans have evolved big brains, which allows us to ask these types of questions.

I think we've already established that the size of our brain is not the key factor. Whales have much bigger brains than us.

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok, explain how the mind works using "spirit" .. in detail please. What happens when my eyes see, say, my mother and I think of a memory of my childhood.

I can't explain how spirit works except to say that every spirit is created by God and is endowed with intelligence and has the ability to affect the brain.

Wicknight wrote: »

I imagine your "explanation" of what is happening that includes the "spirit" will be a little lacking .... :rolleyes:

Yes, it is lacking but so is the scientific "explanation".

Ciaran500

kelly1 wrote: »

Because a thought is non-physical and the brain is physical. How can something material produce something which has nothing in common with itself. We know of nothing in this world that can produce anything non-physical so why should the brain be an exception just because of its complexity.

Why is a thought "non-physical"? Sure its just a sequence of impulses in the brain

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't think anyone has proved that the brain is the ultimate source of our thoughts. The activity that we see in the brain could be in response to thought produced by spirit.

What? Has anyone presented anything to the contrary?

kelly1

JC 2K3 wrote: »

How do computers, material objects, store and process "immaterial" data, perform immaterial concepts like mathematics etc. Do computers have "spirits"? Personally I don't think so, I recognise that computers act the way they do due to the arrangement of the atoms inside them.

A computer has no understanding of the data that it stores in memory or on a hard disk. At the end of the day it's just 1s and 0s, nothing more. These 1s and 0s are grouped together into bytes which represent numbers which are codes for symbols etc.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Try this: The arrangement of atoms in the human brain makes humans generally act in a certain way, which tends to reflect the concept of "justice". The arrangement of these atoms can be altered by a number of facotrs in life, which makes some humans act in ways that adhere more or less to the concept of justice.

Sorry, I don't buy this. How does an arrangement of atoms or firing synapses (or whatever it is that goes on in the brain) represent justice or produce love for another person or God?

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

Because a thought is non-physical and the brain is physical. How can something material produce something which has nothing in common with itself.

A thought is a conceptual model, in the same way that a millimetre is a conceptual measurement of a distance in reality. A computer can "produce" a millimetre in the same way that a brain can produce a thought.

kelly1 wrote: »

We know of nothing in this world that can produce anything non-physical so why should the brain be an exception just because of its complexity.

Computers can produce non-physical things. Books can store them. Again the idea that non-physical things, such as ideas, cannot exist in a material fashion doesn't hold.

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't think anyone has proved that the brain is the ultimate source of our thoughts.

We aren't going to have another discussion about science and "proof" are we

kelly1 wrote: »

The activity that we see in the brain could be in response to thought produced by spirit.

I could be, but I see little reason to believe it is. By your own definition spirit cannot interact with material world, as such I fail to see how it could ever actually do anything

kelly1 wrote: »

Books contain paper and ink. The combination of symbols that are used in books are only made possible by thought producing an agreed code.

Certainly. And brains use atoms and electricity. The "agreed code" is determined by evolution.

kelly1 wrote: »

Have we any reason to believe that animals are capable of philosophical or abstract thought?

Well they have brains don't they. Some have brains the same size as ours, others have brains that we have discovered similar parts to ours.

kelly1 wrote: »

If they are capable of it, they're hiding it very well unless you're thinking of a Dr. Doolittle situation.

Well that is a rather egotistical position to take. If they do have conscious thought what makes you think they are the least bit interested in demonstrating that to you?

kelly1 wrote: »

I think we've already established that the size of our brain is not the key factor. Whales have much bigger brains than us.

True, but then whales have very advanced brains, on some levels more advanced that the other non-human apes. If there are in fact other species that possess consciousness I wouldn't be at all surprised if they included whales. Elephants, who also have large brains, also appear to have advanced almost human like brains.

kelly1 wrote: »

I can't explain how spirit works except to say that every spirit is created by God and is endowed with intelligence and has the ability to affect the brain.Y es, it is lacking but so is the scientific "explanation"

Wow, that explains so much :rolleyes:

What is the point of an "answer" that doesn't actually answer anything? I knew just as much about how the human brains works before your explanation of the "spirit" as I knew afterwards.

The scientific explanation at least attempts (sets out) to explain how the brain works. It does this far more than your spirit explanation, which explains exactly nothing.

Like a lot of religious mumbo jumbo its purpose is to not actually explain anything (which it can't and doesn't do), it is simply to get you to stop asking the question in the first place.