RoR: Forum

I said there is no objective empirical evidence for the existence of a non-material (i.e. non-physical) mind. It has never been detected, in spite of the powerful technology for imaging the human body. There is no objective sign of a mind anywhere. Only brains, nerves, glands and such like. Stuff made of atoms and sub-atomic particles.

If you want to be believe in the existence of Mind made out of some non-material no physical fairy dust go right ahead. That puts you in the ranks of the religious.

Bob Kolker

Post 21

Sunday, February 24, 2008 - 10:20am

Kolker wrote:

I said there is no objective empirical evidence for the existence of a non-material (i.e. non-physical) mind. It has never been detected, in spite of the powerful technology for imaging the human body. There is no objective sign of a mind anywhere. Only brains, nerves, glands and such like. Stuff made of atoms and sub-atomic particles.

Why would you expect to detect the non-material with material means?

Let's try a different context.

There is no such thing as a market. There are people interacting with each other and doing various things with various objects but there is no market. Markets cannot be detected by any of our scientific instruments; not by microscopes nor telescopes nor oscilloscopes nor any other scopes.

Bob, you're looking in the wrong places from the wrong perspective with the wrong tools. That's why you can't find your mind.

Post 22

Sunday, February 24, 2008 - 11:20am

Wrong. The Market is a lot of people buying a selling stuff to and from each other. The Market is the Interaction of the parts. The interaction is real, it takes place in space and time. The interactors are real. They are made of stuff.

Bob Kolker

Post 23

Sunday, February 24, 2008 - 1:23pm

Bob,

=============
The Market is a lot of people buying a selling stuff to and from each other. The Market is the Interaction of the parts. The interaction is real, it takes place in space and time.
=============

That's not quite accurate. Allow me to re-create Searle's analogy ...

Communication's when folks pass words back and forth. If I were in China at the door of a locked room, with someone behind that door with whom I could pass notes -- and I passed some notes written in English to her -- if she passed the right notes back I'd prematurely extrapolate that she spoke English.

Just as communication is more than passing words back and forth -- the Market is more than folks buying and selling stuff from each other.

I mean -- sheesh! -- you are acting like a REDUCTIVE materialist here, Bob! And that's a crazy idea on which to base your actions.

Ed

Post 24

Sunday, February 24, 2008 - 2:35pm

Bob,

You have a wondrous ability to evade the content of other posts and twist them to suit your purposes. Let me simplify it for you:

(1) My statement:

Until we have a complete understanding of those phenomena, we cannot say that the laws of physics and chemistry are sufficient to explain them. Our level of knowledge is not yet at that point where we can say that there are no fundamentally different scientific principles which apply to living as opposed to inanimate phenomena. The only way to assert such a belief is through blind faith, or pure mysticism.

You reply:

No, it makes me an optimist, not a mystic. I work based on empirical evidence. So far the facts tend to support my view.

Until we understand biology and consciousness, the empirical facts do not justify any conclusion as to whether existing science can explain them. You are the one theorizing way beyond the empirical evidence. And that requires blind faith (i.e, mysticism).

(2) You say:

All things in the world have physical causes. All things in the world are physical. There do not exist any non-physical things. Everything we are or ever will be started with an event some fifteen billion years ago (or so). It has been physical since the git-go.

You do not address the obvious implications of your viewpoint for free will:

Unless there is something more than status quo physics and chemistry involved here, all mental events would require some type of antecedent stimulus. Are you prepared to dispense with the concept of free will? Because if you are, you will also need to dispense with any claim for the validity of your beliefs, since�based on present knowledge--all the contents of your thinking must be dictated by prior physical-neural events. In other words, since your mind is not in your control, neither are any of your conclusions.

Indeed, the facts do rule. Leaps of faith such as yours have no basis in the facts. Nor do they have the redeeming virtue of logical coherence.

Post 25

Sunday, February 24, 2008 - 4:05pm

No leaps of faith. Just hard laboratory evidence. It is you who are being mystical. You think a non-physical process or entity for which there is not one whit of objective evidence can produce material-physical effects. That sounds very religious. You might as well say God-Did-It.

Bob Kolker

Post 26

Sunday, February 24, 2008 - 4:19pm

Bob,

While you'd currently have to join RoR Psychology to view it -- I've proved your statements in this thread to be inaccurate:

http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/RoRPsychology/0021.shtml

Ed

Post 27

Sunday, February 24, 2008 - 5:30pm

This thread is silly. No one is working from any common definitions of the words being used.

Bob Kolker you are being very pedantic. When you say:

After I had a series of MR Images done recently, as part of an experimental program I asked several PhDs in neurology and brain functioning if they could point out where my Mind was. We had the images good to a resolution of a millimeter. My Mind was nowhere to be seen. If I and several PhDs could not find it, I have to assume it is not there. Maybe you have a Mind. I don't. I just have a physical brain, three pounds (or so) of gelatinous goo and it works just fine.

Of course you define mind to be something mystical, so obviously since by the definition of something being mystical it is not observable through any kind of sense-perception. So in that sense you're right, there's no such thing as mind as you want to define it. But mind generally speaking at least in non-religious terms is defined to be the higher brain functions responsible for an organism to have the capacity for reason. And yes, those are observable, the very act of you even participating in this forum and putting together thoughts to make any kind of coherent statement is evidence through sense-perception that you have a mind.

I said there is no objective empirical evidence for the existence of a non-material (i.e. non-physical) mind. It has never been detected, in spite of the powerful technology for imaging the human body. There is no objective sign of a mind anywhere. Only brains, nerves, glands and such like. Stuff made of atoms and sub-atomic particles.

You are conflating a physical process for a physical entity. Our words do not just describe physical entities with a static quality but we also have words to describe processes which yes, are physical. So of course when we say someone has a "mind", we mean someone has the capacity for reason, it is a process that we readily observe, in fact a mind is self-evident as to try and refute the concept of a mind is a self-refuting argument. You have the ability to reason, if not how are you able to even come up with an argument that the mind does not exist when a mind is required to make such an argument or any kind of argument? Again a mind is a quality that helps us define an organism, more specifically it is a description of a higher brain function. A mind cannot exist independently of that which it describes so of course Cartesian dualism is wrong, but it's not wrong because there is no such thing as a mind, it is wrong because it presumes a mind can exist independently of the body.

Think of it another way, when you use any adjective to describe an entity, does the adjective exist in reality separate from that which it defines? No. So if I pointed out to you a round red balloon, we wouldn't say that means we are seeing roundness and redness, instead we are seeing a round red balloon. Red and round is the qualitative description defining a balloon that cannot exist independently from the object we are defining.

Would you say that is Cartesian dualism and it is wrong because red and round don't exist?

The Market is a lot of people buying a selling stuff to and from each other. The Market is the Interaction of the parts. The interaction is real, it takes place in space and time. The interactors are real. They are made of stuff.

Yes, you are getting the point that a market is a description of a physical process. A market is where individuals trade goods and services with each other, so a mind is also a process. It describes the higher brain functions that allow you to reason.

Post 28

Sunday, February 24, 2008 - 5:48pm

No you haven't. I work from fact. You work from philosophical premises. We do not share a premise so nothing you have said disproves anything I have said. There are only two ways of disproving anything I have said:

1. Demonstrate a -logical- inconsistency. This you have not done.

2. Show a collision with established fact, i.e. an empirical refutation of what I have said. This you have not done.

If you want to go on believing that ectoplasmic entities made of faerie dust having no place in the space-time continuum have objectively observable physical effects, you go right on believing so. You believe in miracles. I do not.

Bob Kolker

Post 29

Sunday, February 24, 2008 - 5:51pm

The Market consists of trade events. The Market is a process not a thing that can sit on a shelf. Market is more a verb than a noun. The trade events are interactions of a particular kind that take place among and between real live entities. Markets are made of real events, not ectoplasm and faerie dust.

Bob Kolker

Post 30

Sunday, February 24, 2008 - 6:16pm

Bob, please when you post address the person you are responding to by name. Who are you responding to in post 28 or 29?

Post 31

Sunday, February 24, 2008 - 6:22pm

The whole tangent here Bob was that you asked what is a soul and does it have a physical existence? I guess I should've responded there is no other kind of existence except physical. But I responded it depends on how you define soul. If you define it to be something mystical, then no, of course it doesn't exist. But if you define it to be someone's mind, which a mind if defined to be the higher brain functions of a human being, then yes there is a soul and there is a mind.

Here Bob, look at this link to understand what equivocation fallacy means.

Post 32

Sunday, February 24, 2008 - 6:40pm

reply to post #51.

I do not equivocate. The is no evidence for the existence of Mind as a separate substance not subject to physical laws. This is the -res cogitens- of Descartes. It is a bogus concept. If the word "mind" has any meaning it refers to a subset of the brain's activities. In which case mind is a process, not a stand alone object.

When mind is spoken of, in most discourses, it is spoken of as a non-physical, non-material substance and that is what I object to.

In general I do not believe any non-physical thing exists. Anything that exists exists in space-time and is ultimately describable by physical laws (which are state quantitatively and mathematically which means anything that exists is a physical substance or a physical process. The basis of physical existence is space-time which is understood abstractly by human beings.

Speaking figuratively for a moment, I do not believe in ectoplasm, faerie dust, ghosts, spirits or gods. There is not a speck of objective evidence supporting the existence of these phantasms.

I am on the same page as Leucippus and Democritus. Unfortunately their works have not survived in extenso as have the works of Aristotle and Plato (for example). That is too bad. We have inherited from the past to many boojums a ghostly things.

Bob Kolker

Post 33

Sunday, February 24, 2008 - 7:03pm

Bob:

I do not equivocate. The is no evidence for the existence of Mind as a separate substance not subject to physical laws. This is the -res cogitens- of Descartes. It is a bogus concept. If the word "mind" has any meaning it refers to a subset of the brain's activities. In which case mind is a process, not a stand alone object.

Funny, as that is pretty much exactly what I've been saying for several posts. But you didn't qualify your prior posts saying "Mind is a subset of the brain's activities" you just kept interpreting the quote by Ed to only mean "Mind" in religious terms as a disembodied entity existing separately from the brain.

So yes, you have been equivocating for the entire thread now.

When mind is spoken of, in most discourses, it is spoken of as a non-physical, non-material substance and that is what I object to.

This is RoR, this isn't like most discourses.

The Market is a process not a thing that can sit on a shelf.

Uh, right, Of course not, but doesn't that go without saying? A lot of concepts cannot be put on a shelf. Can you put Capitalism on a shelf? It doesn't make sense to describe interactions that way as a tangible object.

Market is more a verb than a noun.

No it's a noun. A word depending on how it's used in a sentence is either a verb or a noun or something else. It is never more a verb than a noun, it is either a verb or it isn't. I've never heard of a market used as a verb. Could you put it in a sentence as a verb for me?

Post 34

Sunday, February 24, 2008 - 7:08pm

I wrote:

==============
I've proved your statements in this thread to be inaccurate ...
==============

... and then I gave a link to the proof (a link that won't work unless you join RoR Psychology).

But then you replied -- apparently without even looking at it (as you're not signed up for that forum!)! -- with:

==============
No you haven't. ... We do not share a premise so nothing you have said disproves anything I have said. ... You believe in miracles. I do not.
==============

I guess what I'll do now is remain polite -- though you don't seem to deserve to be treated that way. I'll copy the evidence for my claim into the RoR Science forum then -- to which you do belong -- so that you could view it (though you don't seem to care about viewing evidence which proves your inaccuracy in this thread).

Ed

Post 35

Monday, February 25, 2008 - 12:07am

Bob,

(1) You clearly have no answer for my argument that there is no empirical basis for the claim that the laws of physics and chemistry will eventually explain biology and consciousness. Your �optimistic� guess does not qualify as knowledge. That constitutes an empirical refutation�your conclusion is unsupported. Therefore, you are, indeed, a mystic�someone who claims knowledge without sufficient evidence.

(2) You clearly have no answer for my argument that your blind faith in the laws of physics as an explanation for everything contradicts free will and therefore disproves your right to claim truth for your conclusions. Reaching a valid conclusion requires volition to direct your thinking processes. You are denying the existence of volition by implication. That is a logical inconsistency.

Your arbitrary assertions are meaningless in the absence of answers to those specific arguments.

You made reference to the power of "intelligence" in a prior post. Did you ask those PhDs where intelligence was on your MRI?

I am inclined to think that when someone is so adamant about the fact that he does not have a mind, we should take him at his word. Having established that there is no one to debate with, the discussion should end at that point. I don�t debate with glands.

I truly wish there were some way to make sense of your viewpoint.

Post 36

Monday, February 25, 2008 - 3:26am

When I told you that the best technologically available scans (MRI ahd PET) did not show the smallest trace or evidence of a stand alone Mind (res cogitens) in my skull I stated a FACT.

No sign of a separate substantial mind anywhere.

When I told you that treatment of so-called mental diseases (depression, schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder) has been achieved by medicinal (i.e. physical) means I stated a FACT.

I have been stating FACTUAL evidence supporting the view that Mind as a non-physical entity (right up their with Elan Vital) is bogus.

How much empirical evidence will it take to convince you that Mind as a separate non-physical substance simply does not exist? There is no more evidence for the existence of res cogitens than there is for the existence of God, which is to say there is none. You are an atheist wrt the concept of God. Why are you not an a-mentalist with respect to the concept of Mind? Mind is a ghost. Soul is a ghost. If one cannot find a soul during a post mortum dissection, why do you suppose it exists?

I believe that was the original question: what is a soul. I never got a good verifiable testable notion from anyone, a notion that could be backed by objective (observable by two or more people) evidence. It is a bogus notion.

Bob Kolker

(Edited by Robert J. Kolker on 2/25, 8:50am)

Post 37

Monday, February 25, 2008 - 8:26am

Dennis,
Mr. Kolker is a zombie (see here). He acts just like us, but there's nobody home.
Thanks,
Glenn

Post 38

Monday, February 25, 2008 - 8:29am

Just my brain, which is me. My brain does everything you claim your mind does, and it does it better. I am my prefrontal cortex. The rest of me is just for getting food and providing transportation.

Bob Kolker

Post 39

Monday, February 25, 2008 - 8:44am