The Fine-Tuning Argument: A Ball at the base of a Mountain

[truthreality]

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is not a science. Psychology is not either.

Says who? You?

Psychology is routed in the scientific method.

If CBT is more effective than alternatives, then WHY is it more effective?

Lol. Because it gets the most results from patients.

There is no legitimate scientific theory to CBT.

Yet it's techniques are the result of theory and research.

If an alternative were shown to be more effective, a good bartender giving as successful results, there would be no change in the practice of CBT.

Because the two alternatives are unrelated. CBT deals with completely different methods of elevating one's moods then a bartender. Changes in medication don't necessary change the practice of CBT either. Also, there is no reason that if we found something new from successful bartenders that CBT wouldn't change. Your what if makes no sense.

CBT deals with changes in mood due to one's thought process.

Bartenders provide a beverage that changes one's moods due to intoxication.

Also this is a horrible example because alcohol has shown only to worsen mental illnesses. It will never be an effective substitute to cognitive behavior.

CBT is descriptive and not producing an explanation. It is not capable of being falsified as an explanation.

If a theory cannot be falsified, it's not scientific.
If a field is defined by an unfalsifiable theory, that field is not scientific.
If a position is based on an unfalsifiable theory, the position is not scientific.

Falsifiability is the single most important property of science and scientific thinking.

Cognitive behavior is capable of being falsified. If we find that thoughts have no effect on a person's moods, we can conclude that cognitive behavior is false. The exact opposite has been shown.

Psychology does not possess a scientific theory of mind and so cannot be held to be scientific evidence supporting fine tuning arguments.

Again this is an incorrect statement. Psychology is grounded in the scientific method.

[truthreality]

Get a biology textbook or look it up on Wikipedia. It's not my job to teach you biology.

That's ok. I understand evolution.

The issue here is you can't provide a sufficient explanation.

Human evolution is a process. You are unable to describe the process sufficiently. You can't even give a summary of the process. You are unable to put the pieces together.

This is why people have a problem when you say humans evolved from animals. There are many gaps in this theory. Until these gaps are filled it will remain a controversial topic.

Look, I'm going to need some links here. Without knowing what they are proposing I'm not in a position to argue.

I told you what they are proposing, cognitive behavioral therapy. Thoughts affect our moods. The basic premise is change your thinking, change your mood.

Of course it makes sense. It is quite obvious that the mind is a function of the brain. There is no evidence whatever for the mind's being independent of the brain in any way.

Let me preface by stating that I am in no way stating there is no relationship between the mind and brain. I am simply denying your false claim that the mind is completely dependent on the brain. My point is the brain does not control the mind in all respects. Your contention that it is quite obvious that the mind is completely dependent on the brain is false. It is not quite obvious. That's why neuroscientists are researching this topic heavily.

This article http://www.science20.com/searching_m...and_mind-87984 states that studies have shown that eight weeks of meditation measurably changed certain regions of the brain. Meditation deals with the mind. Evidence shows we can change our brain, not just by physical activities such as running. Even diseases such as obsessive compulsive disorder can be changed with psychotherapy which deal with changes to the mind. We can even overcome incredibly deep seeded habits as well.

Software is entirely a result of the physical states of the hardware...

In order for a computer (PC) to work both software and hardware must work. If neither work then the computer (PC) fails.

To add to this analogy to the brain and mind. Viruses in software can affect hardware.

Software is not entirely the result of physical states of hardware. New software can be created without changing hardware.

The relationship between software and hardware is a complicated relationship. People take 4 years to study it.

That's exactly my point. The relationship between the mind and brain is also a complicated relationship. To say that the mind is run by the brain is an incorrect statement. Software is not run by hardware but rather the user. There is connection between hardware and software but hardware does not determine the programs created by the user.

Similarly to some extent the mind is run by the brain. However, the mind is also under my control, the user.

Which stem from changes in the brain.

This article http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...terview&page=2 states that changes in the mind affect changes in the brain before the mind changes the brain.

I have the ability to create a thought. Research shows that thoughts determine our moods to a large extent. The thought I create is from my own free will. The brain is not in my control, but my mind is.

Put simply, free will is an illusion.

Really?

I am using free will to write this sentence. In the next sentence I am going to say free will. Free will.

[truthreality]

Why is this a ridiculous statement? Any contention made without evidence to support it can be dismissed without evidence. I don't evidence to disprove God because there is no evidence for god. I don't need evidence to disprove leprechauns or unicorns because there is no evidence for either.

Actually Hitchens statement is a ridiculous statement.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

If a witness claims that her next door neighbor is a murderer should police officers just dismiss her claim due to lack of evidence at the moment? That would be stupid.

[truthreality]

A wrong answer in a calculus problem is not at all equivalent to a theory that doesn't explain the existing evidence. In science theories that do not explain observations are wrong because they do not explain observations. There is no process to review to see why the theory was wrong. It is wrong because its predictions didn't match the observations.

It is the same thing. A theory is an analytic way for understanding, explaining and making predictions about a given subject matter. It's a similar process to solving a calculus problem. Instead of a subject matter, we have a problem in calculus. A subject matter can be a problem.

Given a calculus problem if we lack understanding of the problem, or we fail to explain or make the correct prediction, we have an incorrect problem.

It does help to review a theory that is wrong because we have to learn why we chose to make a certain prediction. This will help us in our next prediction.

[arX]

If a witness claims that her next door neighbor is a murderer should police officers just dismiss her claim due to lack of evidence at the moment?

Do you expect police to believe a murder accusation without being provided any supporting evidence?

[truthreality]

Do you expect police to believe a murder accusation without being provided any supporting evidence?

Are you kidding me?

Police are required to take assertions seriously regarding murder regardless of supporting evidence.

When someone calls 911 and says they are in danger immediately 911 operators send help.

If they just said "no, we don't have evidence so we are going to dismiss your assertion" our country would be in serious danger.

Let me guess, Hitchens is one of your prophets? Is he the the Messiah?

It's so funny how many similarities atheists share with theists.

I love how you atheists are defending Hitchen's statements just like a Christian defends Jesus's statements.

[arX]

Are you kidding me?

Police are required to take assertions seriously regarding murder regardless of supporting evidence.

When someone calls 911 and says they are in danger immediately 911 operators send help.

I kid you not, and you haven't answered my question.

Where, upon investigation, there is no evidence present to support such claims, what do you expect the police to do?

[truthreality]

I kid you not, and you haven't answered my question.

The issue here is you are grouping a claim by an individual who is in danger with a court trial.

I am not referring to a trial where the alleged criminal is being put on trial. Obviously evidence is necessary then.

Where, upon investigation, there is no evidence present to support such claims, what do you expect the police to do?

Did my example go over your head? Your over complicating it.

If I contact the police telling them my next door neighbor is a murderer and he is trying to harm me, are they going to just dismiss my claim due to lack of evidence? No they are going to send help. It's police protocol.

[arX]

Did my example go over your head? Your over complicating it.

If I contact the police telling them my next door neighbor is a murderer and he is trying to harm me, are they going to just dismiss my claim due to lack of evidence? No they are going to send help. It's police protocol.

Why are you assuming that the "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" line of reasoning stops with the phone call?

It should be assumed by any rational person that, even if the caller was too troubled to give an explanation of why they feel threatened, there can be potential evidence for investigation once police are at the scene.

[truthreality]

Why are you assuming that the "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" line of reasoning stops with the phone call?

It should be assumed by any rational person that, even if the caller was too troubled to give an explanation of why they feel threatened, there can be potential evidence for investigation once police are at the scene.

Lol. You are interpreting Hitchen's word and providing a logical explanation in favor of it just like a Christian interprets Jesus's words and provides a logical explanation in favor of it.

I am criticizing Hitchen's statement just like an atheist criticizes Jesus's statement, without much thought, and you are responding exactly like a Christian.

I love it.

[arX]

I'm glad that I've provided you material to wank over, but you have not addressed my rebuttal.

I am criticizing Hitchen's statement just like an atheist criticizes Jesus's statement, without much thought,

Ah.

[Jack]

The idea that the mind is independent of the brain is not a ridiculous assertion. The relationship between the mind and body is a challenging problem in science. It is often referred to the mind-body problem. This is a field that is currently under intense investigation.

(emphasis added)

Currently this idea is under investigation in science.
I am not stating the mind and brain are not connected. I am stating the mind works independently of the brain and has just as much impact on the brain as the brain has on the mind. I am shocked you are not aware of this.

(emphasis added)
Are you backtracking or attempting to clarify? Earlier you said, “The existence and study of mental illnesses such as depression have led scientists to conclude that the mind and body(including the brain) are separate.” You never provided evidence of any scientist claiming that the mind and body are separate so I have no idea which scientist you’re referencing. Are you now claiming you disagree with “scientists” you made an unqualified reference to? BTW-the mind-body duality is interesting to philosophers, not neuroscientists.

You know what is funny is that this entire time I have been saying there is a significant relationship between the mind and brain. There is no doubt there is a significant relationship between the mind and the brain.

What’s funny is reading back through your posts and observing unsubstantiated opinions that wander from claiming the brain and mind are separate, they’re somehow independent but related to there’s a significant relationship between the two. Perhaps you’d like to pick one horse to ride.

David Burns (professor at Stanford University school of medicine), Aaron T. Beck (professor at University of Pennsylvania school of medicine), William Glasser (Psychiatrist)

Oh yeah, that’s better. Now all we have to do is read everything they’ve ever authored or coauthored and search for even the slightest indication they agree with your contentions.

The brain is the hardware and the mind is the software. Software without hardware makes a computer is useless, hardware without software makes a computer useless. This is not the best example but it will suffice for now based on science limited understanding of the brain and mind.

Here’s where this analogy fails: A computer with no software can still be powered up, it will turn on and all the hardware can be determined to be functioning properly. Software by itself is just lines of symbols. It can’t do anything. It has no function or purpose until it’s installed on a hardware platform. In fact software is always written with a specific hardware platform in mind. A program written for the PC won’t execute on a Mac. Code written to run on the Android architecture won’t run on iOS without modifications to the code. Software without hardware is completely useless. Hardware without software won’t function at its full potential but it will run.

Changes in mental states affect changes in the physical/chemistry of the brain and behavior.

So now you’re agreeing that changes to the brain affect the mind (behavior)? Still haven't picked a horse?

Here is a common sense rebuttal to your statement.

Do we have control of the brain? No

Do we have free will and the ability to choose? Yes

How is this possible if we are simply governed by our brain?

Because the brain produces the mind (the cumulative output of the brain’s functions) which in turn gives us the illusion of free will.

That's ok. I understand evolution.

This conclusion is not supported by the evidence.

The issue here is you can't provide a sufficient explanation.
Human evolution is a process. You are unable to describe the process sufficiently. You can't even give a summary of the process. You are unable to put the pieces together.

Who cares if he can. Evolutionary biologists can and have.

This is why people have a problem when you say humans evolved from animals. There are many gaps in this theory. Until these gaps are filled it will remain a controversial topic.

“People” don’t have a problem, theists and others who don’t understand evolution are the vast majority of those who insist there are gaps and have their favorite gap-filler at the ready.

Let me preface by stating that I am in no way stating there is no relationship between the mind and brain.

Well, you did, then you sort of did, then you didn’t. I’m no longer sure what point you’re arguing from or which horse you're riding.

I am simply denying your false claim that the mind is completely dependent on the brain. My point is the brain does not control the mind in all respects.

Your point is an opinion, one you have repeatedly failed to support with any evidence beyond your contention.

Your contention that it is quite obvious that the mind is completely dependent on the brain is false. It is not quite obvious. That's why neuroscientists are researching this topic heavily.

If they are and have yet to reach a reliable conclusion, which seems to be what you suggest, then how can you say “the mind is completely dependent on the brain” is false? How does that which you claim does not justify one opinion justify yours?

This article http://www.science20.com/searching_m...and_mind-87984 states that studies have shown that eight weeks of meditation measurably changed certain regions of the brain. Meditation deals with the mind. Evidence shows we can change our brain, not just by physical activities such as running. Even diseases such as obsessive compulsive disorder can be changed with psychotherapy which deal with changes to the mind. We can even overcome incredibly deep seeded habits as well.

Your haphazard flip-flopping between the use of brain and mind suggests to me that you don’t have a very good idea of the difference between the two.

The relationship between the mind and brain is also a complicated relationship. To say that the mind is run by the brain is an incorrect statement.

Evidently you fully understand this “complicated relationship” if you can dismiss the claim that “the mind is run by the brain”.

Actually Hitchens statement is a ridiculous statement.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

If a witness claims that her next door neighbor is a murderer should police officers just dismiss her claim due to lack of evidence at the moment? That would be stupid.

Nice try but the contexts are not the same. Hitchens’ comment can be applied to scientific claims lacking evidence to support them.

Here’s a little something to consider, written by a neuroscientist:

My favorite creationist neurosurgeon, Dr. Michael Egnor, has written a rebuttal to my previous post criticizing the dualism of Deepak Chopra. His rebuttal is very revealing about the disconnect between dualists – those who think that the mind is something more than and separate from the brain, and materialist neuroscientists – those who think that the functioning of the brain is an adequate explanation for the phenomenon of mind. Egnor illustrates, although it seems inadvertently, that the real difference is that between science and philosophy.

In my original post I stated:
Deepak then plays the “false controversy” gambit. He wants us to keep an open mind “until the argument is resolved.” But there is actually nothing left unresolved. Deepak has presented no mysteries that cannot comfortably be explained within the completely material paradigm of neuroscience. His “invisible will” is nothing more than a trick of semantics – not an established phenomenon; not a genuine mystery to be solved. He says the material paradigm is “untenable” but has presented nothing that makes it so.

To which Dr. Egnor responds:
Is there genuinely “nothing left unresolved’ in our understanding of the mind-body problem? Are there “no mysteries that cannot comfortably be explained within the completely material paradigm of neuroscience?” The truth is that there remain enormous mysteries, and virtually nothing about these mysteries is resolved. The mind-body problem is perhaps the most active and contentious area of modern philosophy, and there is very little “resolved”. Of the many issues raised by philosophers, perhaps the most important is the “hard problem of consciousness” formulated by philosopher David Chalmers.

Dr. Egnor completely missed the context of my statement, which was a response to Chopra’s contention that there are actual phenomena (not just subjective experience) that cannot be explained by the brain and requires a separate will or mind. In his response Egnor confuses scientific questions and methodology with philosophical questions.

For example, if the brain causes the mind then: there will be no documented mental function in the absence of brain function; altering the brain biologically will alter the mind functionally; mental development will correlate with brain development; and mental activity will correlate with brain activity (this holds up no matter what method we use to look at brain activity – EEG to look at electrical activity, PET scanning to look at metabolic activity, SPECT scanning to look at blood flow, and functional MRI to look at metabolic and neuronal activity).

This evidence cannot be dismissed as the “easy problem” nor as mere correlation. Brain function correlates with the mind in every way we would predict from the hypothesis that the brain causes the mind. From a scientific point of view, the mind is a manifestation of the brain.

As I have discussed previously, one way to dodge the obvious conclusion from this evidence is to confuse the question of how the brain causes the mind with the question of does the brain cause the mind. We certainly have much to learn about exactly how the brain functions to produce all mental phenomena, but this in no way diminishes the fact that the question of whether or not the brain causes the mind is settled – it does.

The biggest problem with dualism is that the materialist neuroscience model explains all observed phenomena – there is nothing left for the dualists to explain. They are clinging to the notion of “qualia”, that subjectivity itself needs a separate explanation, but they have not made this case. Often they use mere semantics to make it seem as if something more is needed, but there isn’t. Further, the dualist hypothesis does not generate any hypotheses or predictions that distinguish it from the materialist hypothesis. Every prediction points to materialism as the answer.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/i...nist-rebuttal/