Is the mind immaterial?

Is the mind immaterial?

Attached: download (2).jpg (1280x1024, 232K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_naturalism
youtube.com/watch?v=2rShg5AsbIQ
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Brain damage. Checkmate dualcucks

I think this is an inherently problematic question. If you answer yes then this immediately undermines the idea of materiality, because our whole basis of interaction with the material world is through mind, and we only know it as mental experience, so the whole world is only immaterial as far as we know, and we can only theoretically posit an actual "material" world out there beyond our experience, so to speak. If we answer no then we can't account for subjective experience, consciousness. How can materiality have a point of view, as we seem to? In what sense is consciousness or awareness a thing in any material sense? Both answers seem inadequate.

What is the mind? No matter
What is matter? Never mind

Ok, basically what I'm driving at here, just to add is simple: if we posit mind as immaterial then we have no knowledge of anything material. If we posit it as material than we have no knowledge of anything immaterial and couldn't meaningfully ask that question.

Well, why? Why can't an immaterial mind have knowledge of anything material?

Mind is material but the theory of material so far is inadequate to explain it

Because mind is the "organ" of experience, it is the state of experiencing. All it knows is the content of its experience, which is what mind is itself, and mind is immaterial. So all it knows is itself.

mind could be an emerging property of an arrangement of matter, but it's ultimately immaterial

I used to think this, but I don't think that matter can cause something immaterial. Matter in the brain just seems to correlate with the mind, not cause it.

Unless reality has a complexity of layers to it. Saying a tool is broken does not prove that there is not a person who could use the tool if it were not broken. So the debate is "where is the controller of the tool?" Materalist think in line with the metaphysical assumptions of materialism and theist think according to their own line of reasoning. But what is proof for one is not proof for another. Humans are the sovereign decider... or if they believe in absolute determinism then they don't decide, don't matter and don't even really exist.

>emerging property
The latest material fag cope

Material is mind.

Except brain damage affects your subjective experience. Getting drunk or high effects your subjective experience. You're not just driving your body around and the controls get wonky. Deep fundamental parts of your personality can be affected by brain damage see some of the books by Oliver Sacks

So? You return to your line of reasoning such as that the person is only the body. I would then reply that the body is part of our capacity. altering the theme of the bodies capacity to be a material being in a material universe does not debunk that there is a me that exist outside the material expression of this world. It even adds a lot of flavor for me to experience a body that is corruptible. A perfect thing that an incorruptible mind might seek to experience.

Getting drunk only happens within your subjective experience. The drink in your hand, both the drink and the hand that holds it, these are only in your subjective experience. You can't prove one way or the other in this debate. It depends on a lot of starting assumptions.

Exactly. If the person with brain damage was still fully himself, retaining his personality, intellect, memory, reasoning faculty, and in short, his entire subjective experience of himself the same way as before, only his body didn’t respond well, then you could argue along the lines of and it would indeed constitute a powerful argument against materialism and for the “soul”.
But it is as , and thus quite the contrary it is proof against the soul and for materialism.

There is no mind at all. It's completely unreal. Enjoy the cave and never ending illusions.

Show me a mind without a brain

A shadow is immaterial, that doesn't mean it's beyond the rules that govern reality.

Do you really want that question answered :)

Show me a mind

I can fuck my internet connection with a microwave oven, same thing as chemically altering your consciousness.

yes but it supervenes on the material

Show me a mind,,self, psyche

Except in the analogy the you is not the internet connection it's your computer. And if you fuck up your computer with a magnet it's pretty clear there isn't some other computer controlling it that is not affected.

Well, probably not, because the non physical can't effect the physical due to causal closure. But the mind and intentionality could easily be emergent properties. Or the mind could be so subjective that it's irreducible, as Searle thinks.

Have to kill you first. Guess you will eventually get there and then in time you would even realize that you died. Then unless the spirit of your skepticism was very powerful you will accept that there was more than just your material body. You will then notice the souls body is better and was what was united to your material body. Carbon copying is a thing in the other world but you will continue to transform into the fullness of yourself. what you freely become is what shapes your soul. Thus the corruptible body must be removed when it has served it's purpose.

>If you answer yes then this immediately undermines the idea of materiality, because our whole basis of interaction with the material world is through mind, and we only know it as mental experience, so the whole world is only immaterial as far as we know, and we can only theoretically posit an actual "material" world out there beyond our experience, so to speak.
but of course this is true
"material" is itself a concept, which originated from the mind
we can't indicate anything "outside ourselves", as far as we're concerned there is no "outside ourselves"

>Or the mind could be so subjective that it's irreducible
What does this mean?

Show me your dick pics

Solipsism is scary. I just can't accept it.

>"material" is itself a concept, which originated from the mind
People forget that so often. It takes a man as based as Hegel to remind one that matter is an abstract metaphysical concept.

its about what you can accept desu, its just how it is
you believing that shit has an existence "in itself" in any way, shape, or form, is an act of faith

According to Searle, the mind, or consciousness, is purely physical and dependant on neurobiological processes; but it's a higher level phenomena with its own subjective ontology and therefore not reducible to the point where you can eliminate mental states or intentionality.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_naturalism

>you cant know nuffin
yes thank you, very original

And you don't seem to understand

It seems pretty egotistic. Do you also think that the world vanishes when you're not looking?

Who are you strawmanning?

And i guess by your line of reasoning it is only a stones throw away from debunking me when I take a nap too? Just because i can change does not mean I'm only the change. You decide what to accept by the criteria you think is good or true. This is already proof of a law of the spiritual world.

Death is compared to sleep for a reason. When you don't dream there is no you.

Only materialist can come to that conclusion. A break in a certain kind of experience is not proof that i cease to exist.

Sleep is a biological process in which the “soul” is temporarily “turned off”, only to be turned on again a few hours later, but it is the material side which seems to be dictating when the soul is turned on or off, so I don’t know how that is an argument in favor of your position...

Imagine a dreamless sleep from which you never wake up. Just that is death.

Well i guess nihlistic forms of religion can also come to that conclusion. To reduce God to oneness does away with all the things that are, which is a negative mysticism. I'm going for the positive revelation cause i like myself and others.

That is a very comforting belief to hold. Eternal rest sounds great, way better than the lame beliefs many religious folk hold.

Close to the idea that you don't care that you didn't exist before you were born so why should you care that you won't exist after you die.

>The cradle rocks above an abyss, and >common sense tells us that our existence is >but a brief crack of light between two eternities >of darkness. Although the two are identical >twins, man, as a rule, views the prenatal
>abyss with more calm than the one he is >heading for

Material is that which has mass and volume, or that which is made up out of atoms. Because the mind is the activity of the brain it is still directly coextensive with matter. Put another way, material things are nouns but the mind is a verb, an activity, activities are behaviors of things, but lack the properties of the things they manifest from.

Pointless gibberish. The wind is a movement of air particles does that mean it's coextensive with matter? Wind is certainly an activity or behavior of the air. Is the wind not material phenomenon?

>the controller is broke therefore the player doesn't exist
Retard

More like the controller is broken and the player suddenly becomes retarded. In your case it came broken from the factory.

It's not pointless you're just an idiot.
Let me explain it more simply then. The mind is not a thing, but the activity of the brain. Only things are material. Mental activity does not have mass or density or volume, so it isn't materialist, but that is only because it is not a thing, but an activity of a thing.
Your wind analogy is not interesting, a software/hardware analogy is more revealing. Can you attribute everything to software (activity on hardware) that you can to hardware? No, they are different, and software is not material either in the strict sense of having mass and density and extension.
I'm just going by the strict definition of matter in classical physics.

Why not? Is it because you expect the soul to be a certain way? What if souls are some kind of organized nonlocal reality in relation to the body? How would a soul be like in relation to a body if the soul does not experience time the same way that the body does? But when the soul partakes of the body it experiences the body, obviously. The body might not be able to fully comprehend the nature of the soul, but why should i believe i am only my body? What if we are normally not allowed to remember ourselves other than what the body manages to remember? It is not obvious at all that we might be immortal beings. Only the material expierence of reality is very obvious. But atoms were not always obvious to us. Neither were microscopic creatures. One day man might more fully discover the spiritual world too.

Holy shit do you think software can do something that can't be traced back to the hardware? I legit have CE/CS degree and let me assure you that everything that happens in software follows directly from the physics of the hardware.

It sounds like a belief that can help some types with their development. There are pros and cons to most things. The more multiplicity of souls the better. "More, more" is what the divine darkness and ungrund utter.

Spirit is more free and not real in the same way that matter is, though matter is also one type of expression of spirit. Spirit is a more fundamental part of reality. Matter is the software and the hardware is very strange. God and souls are the hardware. Matter is just an complex idea put into motion by what is more fundamental to it. Matter is like the souls clothing or food or toy. It is divine entertainment. It is the divine canvas wherein God larps.

Yes, in that, materially speaking, the mind, or rather, the soul, is nothing. It is nothing but a perspective found within a given being, a little point in the universe that has been equipped with a brain and a body, enabled to feel and move, and to dream and think. And one day the equipment fails its user and the user returns to experiencing and expressing nothing.

Yes. Physicality is a shadow of the sun, the mind knows no sun or shadows, it has it own.

Meh I don't really care whether the material in materialism is physical or spiritual it's still materialism not dualism. The real question is deterministic or nondeterministic and without dualism to beg the question we have to be one or the other. And neither are compatible with what we think of as consciousness and free will either everything we do has a reason or we just do shit randomly. Computers are better at picking random numbers than we are they catch people cheating on their taxes that way.

Complete determinism is lawful evil and complete indeterminism is chaotic evil. Both suck.

Mind is an immaterial process grounded in a fully material organ

Yes the universe actually has a soul.

>The real question is deterministic or nondeterministic
Depends what you mean. I believe we are agents that determine reality. We have free will and ultimately that means we are what shapes reality. You only think it must be impossible because of the idea of physical laws but truth is there are so many extremely complicated functions that are impossible to ever observe and things like that lead to holes in reality that can be filled by whatever likes to. Even more the possibility that you literally change the entire universe when you choose to act is not actually such a farfetched and insane idea it doesn't even require many assumptions the only assumption is that your experience is not an illusion but is in fact truthful. When you choose to do something you are enacting your will freely and this is the only assumption that needs to be made

I believe its more like this:
Individual mind < "physical world" < universal mind
The physical world is really just the involution of the universal mind/absolute, so it exists in some sense, just not independent of mental substance.

The thing about consciousness is you can never develop a philosophical or theoretical proof of it simply because if you could successfully convert the entirety of consciousness into information then you lose what it means to be conscious there would not be a being experiencing anything it would only be bits of information and nothing more. You can't understand consciousness entirely through information you have to experience it you have to BE conscious to understand it.

youtube.com/watch?v=2rShg5AsbIQ

Literal retard. You don't seem to understand

It doesn't have to be control. It can simply be influence. It could just be entanglement.

Are you retarded or just being obtuse?

Great, another retarded physicalist bait thread
>confusing the mind with its interface
Case in point

Yes. Just as a "kick" is immaterial. The mind is a concept representing something real that the brain does. Just as a kick is a concept representing something real that the leg does.