"We can only know what we have in mind, therefore
We can only know what is mental"
Materialism might do a better job explaining why the universe appears relatively orderly, compared to a mind which could generate any conceivable (orderly or disorderly) universe. Materialism predicts a fairly powerful unconscious, while the idea that only mind exists might not. Alternative (non materialist) theories are forced to explain many observed phenomena as being generated by some incomprehensible unconscious.
We can only know what is mental"
Who said there isn't a mechanism to decern true statements? Who said Science ever makes true statements? They make conclusions based on the observable evidence. We give symbolic names to everything so we have a way to communicate with coherence. The mechanism is the brain. How else can mind work? Please give evidence.So you have no evidence that materialism is true other than an assertion that it is true? Without a mechanism by which anyone can discern true statments? Could anything be more incoherent?
How is that confirmation bias? Is it not true? Please support. All you've shown is a mans brain that over time, deteriorated and his neural network re-wired it self. I never said it was inconsequential, only that the brain is pretty remarkable actually. I read that article on NDE (very interesting BTW) and I do shrug it off as did the authors. There was no conclusion that mind existed during brain death, only that after revival, people had memories, but there was nothing to suggest these memories weren't already in place in the brain material.This is classic confirmation bias. Look at what you just did; you provided a theoretical prediction that the brain is the cause of consciousness because if the brain is damaged, or otherwise impaired, it results in a corresponding effect to the mind. When I give you evidence of a severely deformed brain to the point of 50-75% of it is missing entirely, you shrug it off as inconsequential. I suppose that if I linke once again to the NDE study published in the Lancet that describes a case where a patient that had flatline brain activity successfully reported on events that transpired while they were in brain flatline, you would find a way of shrugging that off as well.
I didn't invent anything, false charge. Maybe if you had a rudimentary course in the brain and some of its different parts, it may make some sense to you. the first 4 links may help explain how the brain works. Also, the guy with the fluid in the brain wasn't actually missing brain parts, they were pushed out of the way from their normal position.In other words, you are proposing evidence for your case, but denying precisely contrary evidence as such, inventing ad hoc explanations. You can't have it both ways; if evidence of an impaired brain generating an impaired mind is evidence that mind is caused by the brain, then evidence of an impaired brain not impairing the mind is evidence that the mind is not caused the brain.It says nothing about missing a Limbic system or hippocampus both required for emotion and memory. I assume you did notice that he only had an IQ of 75,If something happens very slowly over quite some time, maybe over decades, the different parts of the brain take up functions that would normally be done by the part that is pushed to the side,SourceRecent neuroscience studies suggest that intelligence is related to how well information travels throughout the brain,”
I did support it. I said you can look at a galaxy and based on what we know, the light that we see from that galaxy is many millions of years old. Do I really need to support a 13.7 billion year old universe? Or are you asking me to support that mind (I assume human mind for this argument) only recently come into being? My support is the evolution of the brain. If you should assert that mind exists without brain, then please feel free to support that.Please support that assertion.
You act as if an inference from a materialists perspective isn't valid. Please support. But, as I pointed out, we know how fast light travels, we know that light reaching us today from outer space took a specific amount of time to reach us. this light is generated by a gazillion suns clumped to form galaxies. Please tell me your not a creationist, if so, we can stop here.Exactly how would you argue that anything "actually" existed before mind existed, other than as an inference from the materialist perspective?
I'm not going to do your cosmological homework for you. If you don't accept light speed, say so and give support for why you don't accept it.Asserting it is not arguing or demonstrating it. You're just asserting that mind (btw, in idealism, a god would be considered the ultimate "mind").
totally incoherent. Support that sub atomic particles are indeterminate "until observed". A machine could observe and store the information. You would never have to observe it, yet the record of measurement would still be there until you observed it, then you would be seeing the past record.The fact that subatomic phenomena are apparently indeterminate until observed argues that the universe cannot have any meaningful form or history whatsoever until an observer is available to collapse potential into actualized states.
We're still waiting for the logically supportable part. your OP was incoherent (to me) and full of fluffy thinking. I admit I can't argue well against Idealism because I never studies this philosophy, but many others have had their rejections of it, You can Wiki Idealism to see objections.It is logically supportable. In fact, idealism is the only reason one can expect to make any truthful statements via logic whatsoever, as I've shown in the O.P.
Doesn't matter if mind (brain) gets inserted into the process, the fact remains that now the mind is listening to something that happened before the mind was aware of it.Uh, no. The verification of the sound wouldn't occur until an agent with a mind listened to the recorder. This inserts mind into the process.
And maybe you don't realize that materialism shows no evidence of a god. God only exists in mind, our mind that requires a brain. Please support how mind can exist in real time without brain.Again, you seem to not realize that under idealism, "god" is expressed as a mind.
Instead of me pointing out your errors about idealism (for instance, your concept that some things happened "before mind existed"), I'll start another thread about idealism and how it is both coherent and directly implied by modern undertsanding of quantum physics. You might familiarize yourself with "quantum collapse" and "delayed choice" experiments and evidence in the meantime, because I'll be supporting the idealist view through that evidence (as well as through logical argument).
If you wish more evidence that mind exists independent of brain, I've provided extensive additional evidence in this thread.
What we are left with on this thread are rebuttals against my argument that materialism is necessarily incoherent (note: even if you could support your view that idealism is incoherent, you wouldn't have supported that materialism is).
What I am left with to address here (on-topic) is the following:
No, it's a direct example.that was a strawman and you know it.
If the brain isn't evolving via law and chance, how is it evolving?But after re-reading parts of our conversation, its occurred to me that you are confusing chance (the chance that we might even be here) with the brain that has evolved.
If it is not by law and chance that we learn/know things, then how is it? Are you invoking a deliberate agency that is not bound as an effect from lawful (natural law) and chance causes?After the brains evolution, its not chance that we learn/know things, we learn by experience, physical experience, not all of that experience is or can be true to everyone, but some of it is.
[QUOTE=Judicator;642624]When seeking survival critical objects, it is obviously advantageous to know where they truly are, rather than any number of false locations.
Asserting it isn't demonstrating it or arguing it. I can equally assert that false correlations can produce survival, and back it up with evidence such as the the many false-correlations that exist in the predator-prey relationship.
If you haven't provided a means of deliberacy, how can you claim to be using it? Until you can show how materialism can produce deliberacy, you haven no means by which to deliberate discern truthful statements.I believe he was looking for an example of a statement which we have no means of deliberately validating?
All we are left with, as it seems to me, is that something is keeping you from accepting materialism in favor of some god that is compatible with mind (which you've mentioned twice in our discussion but was not a part of the OP). All the evidence *I* see points to materialism, but that is not to say I may be wrong. Materialism makes perfect sense to me outside of the mind, whether mind is material or the result of materialism or whether there is some sort of duality and mind is something not material. I admit physical science has not done enough study to come to a conclusion. the fact remains that just because I couldn't refute your argument, doesn't mean it can't be refuted by someone better in debate and/or with more knowledge of it. It's obvious that other philosophers have not accepted it and offered refutations. (Nietzsche, Stove, Moore, Russel, to name a few)What we are left with on this thread are rebuttals against my argument that materialism is necessarily incoherent (note: even if you could support your view that idealism is incoherent, you wouldn't have supported that materialism is).
No, its a strawman, it attempts to use monkeys (and their minds) to refute the possibility of chance.No, it's a direct example.
Random mutation please see the links I provided in my last response on the brains evolution from reptilian brains. Also, an understanding of biological evolution should help. Do you accept evolution as the cause of why we are here?If the brain isn't evolving via law and chance, how is it evolving?
You may want to start a thread about determinism and Idealism?
Finding food, water, predators, mates, shelter, useful objects, tools. Finding your way back to known locations which contain any of the above. Figuring out if your tribe is stronger than another tribe. Figuring out if you are stronger than someone else
If you have false beliefs about the location of food, you don't find it and you starve. Same idea with water. Same idea with mates (your genes die off). If you mis-identify predators often enough you die too (eaten) etc etc.
Survival happens in spite of the minor errors in perception you mentioned, rather than because of it.
False correlations abound both in nature and in the minds of humans. All you are left with is trying to salvage a supposedly "high percentage" of true correlations by asserting that true correlations more often aid in survival; the problem is that your reasoning could be entirely erroneous because materialism doesn't provide for necessary or deliberate true correlations. You can only hope that your particular theory isn't genereated by whatever percentage of errors materialistic processes have built into your system, because you have no means of deliberately making such a distinction.
You might consider it an inappropriate analogy, but it certainly isn't a straw man. Without us making deliberate or necessarily true statements, how is what we are doing any different from monkeys banging on keyboards? Yes, I know it **is** different, but the reason I used the monkeys is to illustrate that when it comes to making true statements about the world, materialism offers no device by which we can separate what we are doing from what the monkeys are doing.No, its a strawman, it attempts to use monkeys (and their minds) to refute the possibility of chance.
Chance & Law = random mutation and natural selection. Materialist evolution works through chance (random) and law (natural laws, i.e., necessity).Random mutation please see the links I provided in my last response on the brains evolution from reptilian brains.
Irrelevant to the argument as to whether or not materialist evolutionary descriptions can produce a brain that works via anything other than chance and necessity (random factors and processes guided by natural laws).Also, an understanding of biological evolution should help. Do you accept evolution as the cause of why we are here?
Anyway, materialism generates a high rate of success precisely because it kills the failures.
In some sense I don't know if its necessary to provide anything more than a plausible claim, since for the claim "materialism is necessarily false" to be true, it has to be true in all cases for all possible worlds, so it can be disproven with hypothetical cases.
Also can you clarify what you mean by a "true correlation"? Correlations just take on values from -1 to 1, are you only considering correlations equal to 1 "true correlations?"
I think one of your mistakes is in the analysis of how physical laws produce true statements. You say that
First I think you made a minor error, "humans that make true statements" would just mean "humans that make some true statements," so it doesn't mean that humans would have to make true statements always. Did you mean to say "humans that always make true statements?""If physical law necessarily produced humans that made true statements, then all humans would make true statements all the time. We factually know this to not be the case."
Anyway, you flip the first statement to say "if its not the case that all humans make true statements all the time, then it's not the case that physical law necessarily produces humans which generate true statements" (contrapositive). So you took A=>B, flipped it to form ~B=>~A, and you know ~B, so you know ~A.
All you have here is then a really weak objection to materialism - namely that materialism doesn't necessarily generate true belief - not that it probably won't, or that it's likely that it doesn't, just a very minor skepticism equivalent to "well maybe you're wrong."
You then jump to the faulty conclusion that because we can't necessarily expect to have true beliefs, we can't expect to have true beliefs at all. Or, in other words "~(necessarily X), therefore ~X." I'd be interested to know why you assume that.
Also I think requiring that *any* epistemological theory necessarily lead to the truth (instead of reliably, or usually) is an extremely tall order and one that most would fail, leaving us with almost nothing we would call knowledge.