Monday, August 15, 2011

My reply to Dr. Novella: part 3

Continuing with my critique of Dr. Novella's dogmatic materialism: (Novella in regular font in blockquotes. Me in italics in blockquotes)




It gets worse...:

Changing the brain’s function (with drugs, electrical or magnetic stimulation, or other methods) will change mental function.

Sometimes yes, most times no. There are all sorts of induced changes in brain function that have no effect whatsoever on mental function. I’ve had MEP stimulation as an experimental subject, and while it made my arm twitch, it had no effect on my mental function. Magnetic fields change brain states, without necessarily changing mental states. Anti-epileptic drugs change brain states, and often do not change mental states (they are often well-tolerated by patients). Some seizures change brain states on EEG without discernible changes in mental states (so-called occult electrographic seizures).

This is a similar “resolution” confusion to what Egnor made above – and again he entirely misses the point. I could summarize what he is saying as this: if you change the brain a lot, you change the mental state a lot. If you change the brain a little, you change the mental state a little, and it may too subtle to be obvious or even notice. 



Brain states are changed constantly by innumerable things-- electromagnetic fields, medications, etc. Novella claims that 'every single prediction of materialism-- such as changing brain function will change mental function-- is verified by neuroscience.'


My assertion is simple: not every change in brain state causes a change in mental state. This may be a consequence of the limitations of our science, or it may be a consequence of the actual relationship between brains states and mental states, or it may be a combination of the two.

But Novella commits himself to an absolute claim-- that all mental states are caused entirely by material brain states. The fact that many changes in brain states do not cause a change in mental states counts against his claim.


...He next argues that antiepilepsy drugs do not always change brain states. So why, in his version of reality, does it sometimes change brain states?

Changes in brain states sometimes, but not always, change mental states because brain states sometimes, but not always, cause mental states. That is a basic prediction of Thomistic dualism. The more basic the level of function, the more intimate the connection between matter and mind. Higher level functions-- intellect and will-- are more loosely connected to brain states, because intellect and will are immaterial acts. They are potentiated and supported by material brain states (perception, imagination, etc), so they will often be affected to some degree by changes in brain states, but they are not intrinsically material.


It's not true that every patient on anti-seizure drugs notices some effect on cognition. Some do, some don't. Dose-related effects on drugs on some aspects of cognition don't prove that the brain is the cause of the mind, without remainder.
Egnor also notes that some seizures do not cause noticeable changes in mental states. Which seizures would those be? Perhaps they are focal seizures that occur only in a small part of the brain, and not a part that would cause obvious signs. 
Many seizures in non-eloquent (cognitive) regions of the brain are clinically silent, and can be detected only by EEG testing. This is evidence against Novella's dogma that the mind is entirely material.

There will be no documentable mental phenomena in the absence of brain function.

I don’t know, and neither does Novella. There have been tens of millions of people (at least) who have had near-death experiences in which they had mental experiences during cardiac asystole and lack of brain perfusion.

If neither of us know, then there aren’t any clearly documented cases.
There are many clearly documented cases of NDE. Whether the documentation amounts to scientific proof of the phenomenon is a matter of opinion (I don't think that the reality of NDE's has been 'proven', but the evidence is substantial).
If there were – we would know. Egnor here is using speculative and controversial claims as a premise – not exactly solid ground. I have written about NDE before and won’t repeat it here. I argue that the evidence does not support the conclusion of mental activity without brain activity. Egnor, however, is intent on repeating his non sequitur and following up with a straw man.
I am pointing out the obvious: Novella's assertion that "there will be no documentable mental phenomena in the absence of brain function" is refuted by documented NDE's. There is a lot room for differences of opinion here, but Novella's dogmatic assertion is not in any way verified by the evidence.



I don’t know if any of these are real. Neither does Novella. But his statement that there are “no documentable mental phenomena in the absence of brain function.” is rank b.s. There are tens of millions of people who’ve had these experiences, and many have been documented and corroborated.
Are they all nuts? Are they all lying? Are they all deluded? Dr. Novella thinks so, but his opinion is based on his bias, not on any evidence.


Again – if we don’t know whether or not they are real, then they are not evidence – not documentable phenomena.

Of course they're evidence. Evidence comes in all sorts of degrees of credibility. But there is massive evidence for the reality of NDE's, most notably with corroborated NDE's (NDE's in which people know things that they could not have known through ordinary means).

I also never stated and do not believe that all patients who experienced an NDE are “nuts,” “lying,” or “deluded.” I think they had profound experiences during a life-threatening event. I just further think that these experiences can be explained as brain experiences, the effects of hypoxemia and hypercapnea mixed with memories from the period of recovery.
Novella invokes theories to dismiss the experiences of millions of people. His evidence is minimal (and he provides none), and he provides no evidence for corroborated NDE's.

Again, rather than take the scientific approach that NDE's are widespread phenomena that are so far inadequately explained except as genuine (in some cases), he invokes materialistic dogma and dismisses out of hand the massive evidence for the reality of NDE's.

When the brain dies, mental function ends.
Ditto. If Novella has scientific evidence proving that there is no afterlife, I’d love to see it.
This is an attempt to shift the burden of evidence. I also further never said that I can prove there is no afterlife.

Yes. You. Did. That's the point of your assertion:  "When the brain dies, mental function ends." You claim that this conclusion is validated by neuroscience.

You are wrong, for two reasons:

1) Neuroscience has little traction on such metaphysical questions.

2) To the extent that neuroscience can address the afterlife, there have been millions of NDE experiences that at least suggest the existence of an afterlife. There are theories both ways, but you grossly misrepresent the science when you assert that your statement "when the brain dies, mental function ends." is in anyway validated or settled by science. It is not. The question remains wide open, with a large amount of evidence favoring the reality of an afterlife.
My position is that there is no evidence for an afterlife, nor is there any evidence for mental activity in the absence of brain activity. If Egnor thinks he has such evidence, I’d love to see it.

Millions of people have had NDE's, and upwards of 20% are corroborated, meaning that there are independent checks on the experiences of the person that support the reality of the NDE. That is evidence. It is not randomized controlled evidence, so it may not be true. But it is massive, and materialist dogma won't make it go away.





Egnor finishes up with a typical rant, partly writing:

As for Novella, his “proofs” are a tangled mess of scientific/ideological assertions that actually make the case opposite the one he thinks they do… if they are to be taken seriously at all, which they shouldn’t be.

Several of his claims, coming from a practicing neurologist, are simply lies.

He keeps putting the word “proofs” in quotation marks. That implies that I used the word “proof” when writing about it. I didn’t (at least not in the article he links to)- I used the phrase “clearly establishes” which I stand by.

Same damn thing. Same overt misrepresentation of the science.

In any case – he follows with pure ad hominem fantasy. I will let the reader decide who is making unsupported ideological assertions, and who is being loose with the facts

Let the reader decide: is the mind-brain problem solved, or not?
________________________________________________________________________


So let's sum up at this stage of the debate.

It is important to  understand that this debate is about Novella's assertions, not about the broader issue of understanding the relationship between the mind and the brain. Novella is asserting that the debate over. He asserts that neuroscience "clearly establishes" the truth of materialism.

My reply is that the relationship between the mind and the brain is primarily a logical question, not an empirical question. Neuroscience can be interpreted any number of ways. The profound philosophical questions-- how do we account for intentionality, for qualia, for subjective experience, for Chalmers' hard problem of consciousness, for the explanatory gap, for personal identity, for free will, for incorrigibility, for restricted access, which are all profound technical issues in philosophy of the mind-- are not answered and will not be answered by half-educated doctrinaire materialists who are innocent of the actual issues in the mind-brain problem.

It is perhaps the deepest problem in modern philosophy, and it will not be answered in the Journal of Neuroscience. Anyone stupid enough to believe that it will be answered by science-- let alone that it has been answered-- has no role in the real debate.

I have noted that I believe that the Aristotelian-Thomist hylemorphic framework- Thomistic dualism-- is the most satisfactory philosophical framework to understand the mind and the brain. Philosophers of the mind have many perspectives, ranging from dualism of various sorts (Cartesian, property, epiphenominal, functional, hylemorphic) to variants of materialism (eliminative, identity, behaviorist). Hard materialism of the eliminative and identity type is increasingly a minority perspective, well on it's way to becoming a fringe, for the obvious reason that the mind is not material.

Novella is, of course oblivious to all this. He's dogmatic, and has a materialist point to prove. It's worth noting that even informed materialists don't usually try to base their arguments on empirical neuroscience. They understand that the issue in the mind-brain problem is philosophical, not empirical.

Let's return to Novella's claims, and deal with them on his own terms. He makes two broad and quite extreme assertions, both outside the bounds of serious thinkers on the mind-brain problem:

1) Every single prediction of materialism has been verified by neuroscience.

I reply:

It is not true of any scientific theory, and it is certainly not true of materialism and neuroscience. Novella asserts that every mental state is reducible completely to a brain state. In fact, there has not been even one reduction of a specific mental state (a thought) to a brain state-- even incompletely-- in a hundred years of neuroscience. No serious thinker on this issue-- even passionate materialists-- asserts that every single prediction of materialism has been validated by neuroscience.

Novella's claim that 'every prediction of materialism is verified' is delusional.

2) Each of six materialist theories about the mind-brain relationship has been "clearly established" by neuroscience.

I have pointed out that for higher thought-- intellect, judgement, will-- there is--again-- not one complete reduction of mental to material for any specific thought.  Not one. Many materialists believe that the causal arrow from brain to mind is true, but no serious thinker on this issue claims that materialism has been "clearly established" by neuroscience.

Novella admits:

"We do not yet have a detailed enough model of the brain nor the ability to measure brain activity with sufficient resolution or calibration to come anywhere near such a task."

What more needs to be said?

49 comments:

  1. Just because every detail of brain activity hasn't been mapped doesn't mean you can conclude there is more to the mind than the brain. Just because you don't know all the names of your ancestors doesn't mean they didn't exist or that some generations were magically skipped.

    M.E. said: "The fact remains that most of what we would consider mature traits-- honesty, acceptance of responsibility, planning ahead-- have no specific correlation with a brain state as yet determined by science."

    Yet every one of those traits can be and has been altered by PHYSICAL changes to the brain. If they existed outside the brain, this would not be possible. But alteration of these traits and abilities is not only possible, it happens daily.

    Michael Egnor, please name a single human ability or single human personality trait that has never been altered by physical effects on the brain - drugs, stroke, trauma, shock, etc.

    I can name a few that HAVE been demonstrated to be physical manifestations of the brain: personal identity, spatial awareness, proprioception, judgement, ability to plan, ability to multi-task, sense of time passage, basic sensory perception, level of religiousity, musical ability, artistic ability, mathematical ability, logic, atheletic skill.... Shall I go on?

    Because science hasn't mapped the brain in all its detail does not in ANY WAY change the fact that the brain causes the mind. Setting religious beliefs aside, it is the only conclusion that fits the evidence

    ReplyDelete
  2. Michael Egnor shows multiple fallacies. Appeal to authority, telling a story that is infinitely variable, insisting that philosophers using words only know more about the mind than neuroscientists, thinking than many cases of NDE of minimal credibility (are there really tens of millions of documented NDE? In one Dutch study only 18% of patients who were clinically dead and revived reported a NDE) equals one good case ...

    Don't ask him what his definition of matter is. From the previous thread. 'Here's my take: what exist in nature are substances, which are composites of matter and form. Matter is potency and the principle of individuation in a substance. Form is act and the intelligible principle in a substance'.

    Ludicrous and idiotic.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Rick,
    "Just because every detail of brain activity hasn't been mapped doesn't mean you can conclude there is more to the mind than the brain."

    Sure, and just because parts of the brain HAVE been mapped does not mean you can conclude there is NO more to the mind than the brain. Logic and reason are dual causeways, Rick.

    The truth is Dr Egnor's position is not just one backed by 'science' (as you describe it), but also by many other schools of thought based on thousands of years experience, teleology, philosophy, AND Science.
    Novella (yours?), on the other hand is based on the GROSSLY incomplete studies of physical scientists and their current rationale, guided by a monistic, reductionist philosophy: Materialism. Darwin and protoplasm come to mind. Very Chic, VERY trendy - but very unscientific claims. It is a hypothesis dressed as LAW. In In other words: Pretentious BULLSH!T.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bach,
    "Ludicrous and idiotic"
    Is not how an educated or well rounded person would describe the principles that lead to modern science, philosophy etc. 'Idiot' is not the word for Aristotle or Aquinas.
    The word you may be looking for is 'profound', 'inspirational', or even 'foundational'...
    You may want to reconsider that.
    As for your take on NDE's, I can only assume you are some sort of research specialist. Nose buried deep in books.
    Death is something I am uncomfortably familiar with. NDE's are a real phenomena.
    To try to piss away these experiences is the act of a frightened child. Your smarter than that, Bach. That is evident in your writing.
    You may disagree on the 'cause', but to deny the frequency and history of the event is just silly.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @crusadeRex

    Pretentious BULLSH!T

    Well said.

    It is remarkable to see the logical contortions that materialists are prepared to make to maintain their narrow-mindedness and force it on the rest of humanity.

    They are really a sorry bunch!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks Pépé,
    I just call it like I see it.

    @ALL
    Strange we should be chatting about brain function etc, and I come across this headline in the UK's DailyMail tabloid: "Miracle as worker is shot in the head with a nail gun... and lives"
    What do the regulars at EGNORANCE make of this case?

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Rick K:

    {Michael Egnor, please name a single human ability or single human personality trait that has never been altered by physical effects on the brain - drugs, stroke, trauma, shock, etc.}

    An isolated inability to calculate using the number 6.

    An isolated inability to say "squash".

    The list is endless.

    There are some functions that are discretely linked to matter, there are some that aren't as tightly linked.

    Some functions, such as intellect, are inherently immaterial, and while they may correlate with matter to some extent, and may even depend on matter for expression, are not themselves material.


    Materialism is a crude fallacy.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Rick K:

    Explain one propositional thought-- subject and predicate-- you pick it-- and explain it materialistically.

    Full explanation: exact anatomy and physiology and how they produce the thought.

    There are an infinite number of thoughts. If you can't explain one, then materialism's track record is zero divided by infinity.

    Your ideology is bullshit. It's not science and it's not even respectable philosophy.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Because science hasn't mapped the brain in all its detail does not in ANY WAY change the fact that the brain causes the mind. Setting religious beliefs aside, it is the only conclusion that fits the evidence


    ____________________________________________

    Funny ... Placebo effect is pretty a three step phenomena.

    I believe > Causes effect in brain > Causes effect in the body.

    Now a materialistic take, the "I" is just a function of the brain or part of the brain. So deep down I believe shouldn't interfere in anyway with anything. But it does.

    by the way... one thing you people that defend mind is a function of the brain... correlation does not equals causation.

    Anyway Rick, wishful thinking is not a valid argument for real, what do you thik will be found ?

    that we gonna find functions that will reveal everything that minds do, and that the data of today is worthless ??? is that it ??? because if so, you must argument, give good reasons that this new data will share more knowledge and that it will prove once and for all that your materialistic view is correct.

    Funny, the placebo effect pretty muchs screws the materialistic model, unless I add some new rules to matter.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Just because every detail of brain activity hasn't been mapped doesn't mean you can conclude there is more to the mind than the brain. Just because you don't know all the names of your ancestors doesn't mean they didn't exist or that some generations were magically skipped.

    _______________________________________________

    Absence of evident is not evidence of absence yes. but just because you believe that only materialism answers the question, that does not make it so.


    Well let me see... what if I go take a look at the papers about the brain, neurology and neurosomething XD; what would I find...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Through google.

    First paper: Can only read first page because I need to be logged in to Athens to read it all ><!

    Visual perception of spatial relation in the external world is something extremely complex

    Clinical neurology has been trying to pinpoint focal lesions to the brain that relate to disorientation of visual perception

    Visual disorientation is not a common symptom from focal lesions to the brain

    Visual disorientation was correlated to huge traumatic damages to the brain (Both Hemispheres ) like gunshots during wars and lesions so small it shouldn't have any sympton at all ( So if I didn't read it wrong, you can produce vision disorientation from large injuries to the brain, to small injuries to the brain )

    Agnosia wasthought to be the cause of such disorientation but, further analysis shown that patients without object-agnosia could produce such symptom. ( Agnosia is to lose the capability to recognize objects, people, sounds, smells, even though your senses were just fine )

    There was a case of a patient who couldn't tell you which object is further or closer, but have perfect consciousness of lighe and shade and had binocular vision.


    _________________________________________

    Now unfortunately this is only page number one, have no idea what else the neurologist was about to say. If his information is correct, Dr Egnor point that some correlations are not that tight to the brain seem pretty correct.

    I think oleg did showned a paper on how some of our habilities tend to spread as we grow older, but the small injuries case is ... well it is very enigmatic. As far it goes Dr Egnor's point seem to be corroborated. Dr Novella... I think never said that brain would have function areas. Like right hemisphere section 89/a * no such thing does not exist XD * is what causes you to have that perception or feeling.

    But such idea does not seem to be true for this case.

    Link:

    http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/64/4/244.extract

    Having Athens Login is a must btw!

    ReplyDelete
  12. I remember watching people surviving knife stuck in the heads XD. is really hardcore how our brain works.

    ReplyDelete
  13. just to add a comment that has nothing to do with any of us or the blog.

    I was taking a look at Evolution News and Views just to see the latest feuds XD and I looked at THIS!!!!

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/08/darwinists_driven_to_the_edge049341.html

    THISSSS PEOPLE ... is going to far ahhahahaha

    ReplyDelete
  14. LOL Edward, I read that one this morning too.
    Talk about 'unhinged' :P

    ReplyDelete
  15. Crus,

    Go back and read Michael's definition of 'matter'. It isn't profound. It's just meaningless gobbledegook.

    When I was commenting about NDEs I was mainly doubting his claim that there were tens of millions of cases of NDEs, and I noted that according to one study of patients who had clinically died and then been revived, 18% had NDEs, so that means 82% didn't. It also means that to have tens of millions of documented cases (call it for calculation purposes 20 million) would need 100 million documented clinically diagnosed deaths and resuscitation. I pointing out the hyperbole. The true figure is a handful of cases per year, perhaps. And I think that all of them are explained by physiological factors such as hypoxia and hypercapnia with variable sequential shutdown of parts of the brain. The ones that remember a NDE are the ones with better circulation so they remember the experience better because their brains didn't shut down as much. The ones with religious overtones had temporal lobe firing before shutdown (and temporal lobe epilepsy often has religious auras; some people think that St Paul had temporal lobe epilepsy explaining his epiphany on the road to Jericho, the religious writer Karen Armstrong-writer of the very good 'the Case for God'-entered a convent due to the religious feelings caused by her TLE, and when it was treated, she left, perhaps, or she just got older and outgrew her religious fervor).

    Actually, what about temporal lobe epilepsy as a case of brain definitely affecting mind? You can't get much more 'mind' than religious auras.

    Michael's viewpoint is just untenable.

    Steve Novellas explanation is 'brain causes mind'. It's a good explanation, logically and scientifically, because it can't be varied without destroying it. To disprove it, you need to point out one case where changes in the mind weren't caused by changes in the brain, not the reverse.

    Michael's explanation is that sometimes changes in the brain cause changes in the mind and sometimes they don't. That, logically and scientifically, is a bad explanation, because it is infinitely variable. It is impossible to disprove. Popper's aphorism that a theory that explains everything explains nothing applies here.

    It also has the problem that it doesn't say what the mind actually is. It doesn't make any predictions.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I was impressed that people could go that far. C'MON people! I am ready to see that kind of "logic" in conspiracy theory circles * That particularly XD I love *

    Why I should see there ? Well conspiracy theories often hinges on espaculation. I mean go around the net lookin at all coinspiracy theories and try to analyse their model one by one. Somethings are really hard or near impossible to confirm.

    AND THIS... I mean people really think that Cars is a ID trojan horse ??? ARE YOU KIDDDING ??? damn!!!!

    I would believe that Men never reached the Moon before I believe this XD seriously.

    Let me give yoou a good reason why it is not a Trojan Horse. IT IS A CARTOON MADE FOR KIDS, THAT NEVER ADDRESSES SCIENCE IN ANYWAY.

    The creator is a NASCAR... guess what the main car-character of the cartoon is ... a NASCAR LIKE CAR!!!!! We don't need to go conspiracy theory to explain this one people O_O SERRRRIOUSLY!!!!

    _____________________________________

    Unbe the freaking livable. I mean I could see me saying that about governments or more political organizations. SEE PEOPLE ... they wanna brainwash YOU !!!! but this was over the edge. I mean, all I could think about as an answer for this people is: Madness ... THIS IS SPARTA!!!

    ReplyDelete
  17. The true figure is a handful of cases per year, perhaps

    _____________________________________

    Do the math dude. 18% times everybody that dies during a year. That must be hundreds of thousand. A bit more than just a handful.

    --------------------------------------

    And I think that all of them are explained by physiological factors such as hypoxia and hypercapnia with variable sequential shutdown of parts of the brain.

    ______________________________________

    They suffer from bery similar illusions, like tunnels of light, or seeing themselves outside of their bodies, or meeting people they knew while they were alive.

    A brain suffering from no control model, would never make these many similar cases. Basically saying it falls short as an explanation that is all.

    ------------------------------------------

    The ones that remember a NDE are the ones with better circulation so they remember the experience better because their brains didn't shut down as much.

    __________________________________________

    Is it really ??? even thouht the electrical pulses in their brains were ... well zero. Their brains weren't all shut down really. Anyway ... there was a blind women who had a NDE... she SAW stuff during ther NDE and she was blind from birth. Definately, I see the logic of materialism allll around it.

    ---------------------------------------------

    and temporal lobe epilepsy often has religious auras

    ______________________________________________

    I remembering hearing that they created the God Helmet for that. But so far the results are just falling short.

    -----------------------------------------------

    Actually, what about temporal lobe epilepsy as a case of brain definitely affecting mind? You can't get much more 'mind' than religious auras.

    _______________________________________________

    You do realize that Dualism involves mind and brain being correlated in a receiver transmission way??? Like your voice and the cell phone. Dualism is not Mind causes brain and THAT IS IT. It has other dynamics.

    ----------------------------------------------

    Steve Novellas explanation is 'brain causes mind'. It's a good explanation, logically and scientifically, because it can't be varied without destroying it. To disprove it, you need to point out one case where changes in the mind weren't caused by changes in the brain, not the reverse.

    _________________________________________

    Can you change your mind about a subject? like take control over your actions ??? I know people that can. what about Placebo effect or controlling the heart beat through the mind. So I think that it is refuted the materialistic model of the mind.

    ------------------------------------------

    Michael's explanation is that sometimes changes in the brain cause changes in the mind and sometimes they don't. That, logically and scientifically, is a bad explanation,

    ___________________________________________

    Funny I just posted a link about a paper that agrees with doctor Egnor, and I just wrote brain in Google academics. Looks like Dr Egnor's point is logically and scientifically coherent so far.

    ------------------------------------------

    Popper's aphorism that a theory that explains everything explains nothing applies here.

    __________________________________________

    Whaaa ? XD if the evidence point that mind and brain are not that well correlated... thennn they are not well correlated and certain types of Dualism could explain it.

    Popper's is only called upon when I use something that could account for anything. Like the Multiverse, God, or a particle that is Onipotent, Or eternal ad hoc to save a theory.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Edward and CrusadREX,

    Before you step too much farther off the edge, please note this quote from the author of the "Cars promotes ID" blog post:

    "Despite the many comments by folks who didn’t get it, the piece was intended as satire"
    -- Josh Berta

    Of course the Discovery Institute's failure to do its homework is not surprising, but you may not wish to follow them down the drain.

    ReplyDelete
  19. hahahaha ... Really ??? Satire ???

    Damn that is just some weirdest satire ever...

    What about the woman in the beginning of the text was it Satire too ???

    --------------------------------------------

    I remember seeing these hardcore satires, but they were never made by mocking the very person that does it.

    Are you sure he didn't just tried to play down his claim ???? Or maybe he wanted to critisize and them pretend he never did it ???

    ReplyDelete
  20. As I looked to confirm Berta's phrase. I found another comment...

    This isn't satire. This is trolling.


    yeahhh I think that sort of sums these hardcore satires.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Edward said: "Are you sure he didn't just tried to play down his claim ???? Or maybe he wanted to critisize and them pretend he never did it ??? "

    You can speculate all you want. I'm just giving you the facts. It took me 3 minutes to find that out, and the Discovery Institute never bothered to check - this much is clear.

    Since Josh Berta writes a humorous (and often satirical) blog about bad design, I'll let you be the judge. After you do your homework, what do YOU think he meant? After reading his material, do you REALLY think he's an over-the-edge Darwinist on an anti-ID rant against a children's movie?

    Is that what you really think, Edward?

    ReplyDelete
  22. I wouldn't put pass the darwinists... seriously XD.

    Well okay it was a satire, a very hardcore one that get's closer to trolling XD. I mean that reminds me of a youtube video that the guy made arguments for creationism... it was a satire. But it was so freaking real that... well it made it look like it was serious.

    Even because I wouldn't put pass the mot hardcore creationists, holding the Bible and quoting passages straight from it to refute Evolution.

    Seriously...I don't put pass people with these things XD

    ReplyDelete
  23. And Edward, regarding your earlier post - it's not 18% of all deaths. Read the post, Dude - it's 18% of cases where someone was RESUSCITATED after being clinically dead. How many is that, do you think?

    What do you think?

    Also, are you aware that many of the features of Near Death Experiences have been repeatedly recreated in a lab? Specifically, they were recreated when testing potential astronauts tolerance of extreme g-forces.

    http://www.near-death.com/experiences/triggers06.html

    Again - a PHYSICAL effect to the body (and brain) is the cause of something many people think is part of the "mind". Another problem for dualism, don't you think?

    ReplyDelete
  24. You know why I wouldn't put pass them ... Because MaryAnn Johansen is for real about her rant/criticism ....

    sooooo XD, I don't believe that darwinists are alll really calllm rational people. They are just, well, people.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "sooooo XD, I don't believe that darwinists are alll really calllm rational people. They are just, well, people."

    Hey great! You just knocked down a strawman - pour yourself an imaginary drink and celebrate.

    Now here's my prediction - the Discovery Institute will never print a correction to their blog post. They will never apologize for (intentionally or unintentionlly) interpreting satire as serious commentary. And their lack of response will simply add another data point supporting my assertion that the Discovery Institute is run by people who lack integrity.

    Let's see how that prediction plays out, shall we?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Is this the beginning of an epidemic of logorrhea? So much words, so little contents!

    ReplyDelete
  27. Rick.

    Imagine 18 percent of everybody that comes back. I remember reading something close to those figures in other places. Now say that you extrapolate that to all cases of death.

    Let's say it remains 18%... maybe it doesn't, but the extrapolation right now isn't all that bad. I think I have read that Bach is saying that NDE's are not all that well documented or that they don't really happen so often or seomthing like that. 18% is still alot, even if it is just for the people who comes back.

    NDE is not exactly considered part of mind function, but rather a phenomena that accurs during death.

    Yeah see I remember reading about how the brain as it loses it oxygen supply it could create these images. But see when you suffer from G effect loing enough you die. So these people are dying for real. Is not a way to reproduce by going around death but rather create a situation where a person is dying and detect those NDE or in this case G-LOC right ? So when they stop the centrifuge effect the brain goes back to nominal functions and you recover consciousness. But remember if I were to maintain the centrifuge effect those men would die.

    I guess you are confusing stuff. Dualism has all sort of dynamics in the Mind brain problem. Affect the brain will affect ther mind and affect the mind you will affect the brain. That would be the model in wich dualism *transmission type* would indicate.

    -------------------------------------------

    Let me put endnotes.

    Look Like a said, there are different forms of dualism and non-dualism. The evidence is that brain state correlates to the NDE.

    Now correlation does not mean causation. See often the materialists say that there is only two option, either is Mind> Brain or Brain> mind.

    but that is not really it, there is also Brain <> Mind Like a double relation. So our mind states will correlate to mind states.

    What would produce a person to see a tunnel a light?

    Or the feeling of Floating?

    Or the others phenomenas ?

    Now we can tweak with the brain until we find certain areas that cause, then say that these NDE cause these areas to activate creating these experiences. The question is... if the brain starts losing consciouss because of lack of oxygen, I would be able to tell you exactly what the patient will say about his NDE if he can remember it.

    but than see the point Dr Egnor was making, that some mind states, or many mind states do not have a tight correlation to brain states. What if I were to tell you that patient #3 is gonna talk about his family after the NDE and he talks about his family and a Tunnel of light. You know like I fail to predict according to the lost of oxygen activating certain areas in the brain.

    Another problem is why people simply don't have a completely screwed up experience, since the whole brain is have a convulsion o sorts.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hey great! You just knocked down a strawman - pour yourself an imaginary drink and celebrate.

    Now here's my prediction - the Discovery Institute will never print a correction to their blog post. They will never apologize for (intentionally or unintentionlly) interpreting satire as serious commentary. And their lack of response will simply add another data point supporting my assertion that the Discovery Institute is run by people who lack integrity.

    Let's see how that prediction plays out, shall we?

    _______________________________________

    Sorry for the strawman. but that is what I often hear in internet talks, and you were asking me if I really believed that he was for real.

    What about MaryAnn's post, shall we analyse it ???


    * well I guess the Discovery Institute does not know, send them an email, it might work *

    ReplyDelete
  29. Edward,

    RickK has answered most of your objections so I'll just address some of them.

    The failure of the 'God helmet' is probably due to inadequate technology and differences in people. Richard Dawkins was apparently disappointed by the effects. Some people have their epileptic attacks precipitated by flickering lights, some don't. Some children have their petit mal seizures caused by cycling down a tree lined street at a certain speed, with flickering shadows, others don't. It depends on the person.

    People can change but it's always due to changes in the brain, because memories have changed or been added. You could change my mind that God doesn't exist by providing good evidence that he does. And then my change in mind will be explained that you've added to my hippocampus the memory of a very good proof. Or are you suggesting that memories are immaterial too?

    Placebo effects are only good for subjective symptoms. Meditation reducing heart rate involves the difficult task of banishing all anxiety causing thoughts, which is difficult; 'Dont think of an elephant!'. What did you think of?

    Michael's claim is a bad explanation. Your pointing out that you've found papers stating that some brain lesions don't cause changes in mental state doesn't prove anything, because it doesn't disprove the counter hypothesis that all changes in mental state are due to changes in the brain. As I said to do that you'd have to find a case where changes in mental state aren't due to changes in brain. And that still applies if the change in brain is subtle not detectable by our current crude technology.

    Of course, his explanation could be true, but accepting it becomes just personal preference, some brain lesions affect mind, some don't isn't disprovable because it's infinitely variable.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Edward,

    I'm going to have to comment again. I still think that NDEs are poorly documented. To have a good case, you'd need a person to be clinically diagnosed as dead, revived and to immediately give an account of the NDE. So any purported case not occurring in a hospital with monitoring of cardiac and brain function, with failure of resuscitation or recording of the NDE immediately doesn't count. Even the slightest delay in recording any memory causes changes in the memory. 'The Invisible Gorilla' gives examples of cases where eyewitnesses in the same car can't agree about what they saw in a crime almost immediately after the event. Memories get edited whenever they're recalled, so what you remember of an event is your memory of the memory the last time you recalled it.

    Memory is very unreliable, as shown also by false memories (have a look at the book 'Discovering Satan' which recounts how a policeman managed to create false memories of his abusing his children to relieve the conflict that his children couldn't be lying).

    Someone who has a NDE has hours or days to rework their memories and to fit in with their beliefs. I'm not saying that NDEs don't occur, I'm just saying that they're not well documented, certainly not tens of millions of them.

    ReplyDelete
  31. The failure of the 'God helmet' is probably due to inadequate technology and differences in people.

    ________________________________________

    Or maybe the technology is just fine. Do you know what the God Helmet is like, because I have only heard of it. I have no idea what are it's capabilbities. but of couore you might be right.

    -----------------------------------------

    People can change but it's always due to changes in the brain, because memories have changed or been added.

    ___________________________________________

    Correlation is not causation. All we know is that we change and so our brain. Do you thoughts causes the chemicals in your head or your head's chemicals sauses your thoughts ???

    --------------------------------------------

    You could change my mind that God doesn't exist by providing good evidence that he does.

    ____________________________________________

    It is impossible to know if you would change your mind, after all according to you, we are just matter with rules. The memories will just be stored and should play no effect on how your brain works, so in another words... there is a good chance you will never change your mind with evidence of without it. According to a fully materialistic model of the brain.

    -----------------------------------

    And then my change in mind will be explained that you've added to my hippocampus the memory of a very good proof. Or are you suggesting that memories are immaterial too?

    ____________________________________

    Sorry, I am not saying such thing, but I do remember someone telling me that we have cutted the rats brains until it was a worthless piece of meat, but they still had memory. But right now I am thiking of a Fully Material mind and Memory and of course brain.

    See things like GOOD or BAD do not apply necessarily here. Maybe Your brain correlates material evidence as a good evidence or maybe your brain corrletas that good evidence is one that comes from people that agree to your point of view. To the point that maybe the addition of the memory may have no effect in "your" decision. I think that the first question would be. Is there "you" in a materialistic model? If so, how is it?

    -----------------------------------------

    Placebo effects are only good for subjective symptoms. Meditation reducing heart rate involves the difficult task of banishing all anxiety causing thoughts, which is difficult; 'Dont think of an elephant!'. What did you think of?

    ______________________________________________

    Of something that is not an elephant XD ???
    I don't have all that trouble getting rid of thoughts seriously XD.

    You see Bach Blacebo effect is a bit of a problem. People do get better with placebo effect. Well then, how could a placebo effect occur. You know it's dynamics. We have first to see what "You" are in order to answer this question.

    --------------------------------------------

    Michael's claim is a bad explanation. Your pointing out that you've found papers stating that some brain lesions don't cause changes in mental state doesn't prove anything,

    ______________________________________________

    No I stated that some lesions caused problems of perception. Was not trying to prove Egnor's point but rather the evidence that the Neurologist spoke of, if correct, would just mean that Mind and Brain are not necessarily tightly related, that was what Dr Egnor was pointing.

    -----------------------------------------

    because it doesn't disprove the counter hypothesis that all changes in mental state are due to changes in the brain.

    ____________________________________________

    Like I said wasn't trying to refute the claim XD really.

    ReplyDelete
  32. As I said to do that you'd have to find a case where changes in mental state aren't due to changes in brain.

    ____________________________________________

    Correlation does not mean causation. there is just correlation, and if Dr Egnor is correct, some mind states do not have a very clear mental state.

    ------------------------------------------

    And that still applies if the change in brain is subtle not detectable by our current crude technology.

    ___________________________________________

    If mind is brain function there will be certain amounts of forces and fields that produce it. Too small actions from the brain will not be detected by the mind. Waiting for more accurate readings doesn't exactly save the day.

    ---------------------------------------------

    Of course, his explanation could be true, but accepting it becomes just personal preference, some brain lesions affect mind, some don't isn't disprovable because it's infinitely variable.

    ______________________________________________

    That applies only to theories not evidence. Evidence points to a correlation that is totally askward... well that is the evidence. The theory is the one that can't have all these terribly awkward things.

    Even thought to fasify a theory that can't be tested is just have a better alternative theory. You is not really impossible to falsify the Immaterial Brain. Actually I bet you know this, because you have been talking about that the Material Model can answer it all so it must be closer to truth than the Immaterial models like Dualism.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I still think that NDEs are poorly documented. To have a good case, you'd need a person to be clinically diagnosed as dead, revived and to immediately give an account of the NDE. So any purported case not occurring in a hospital with monitoring of cardiac and brain function, with failure of resuscitation or recording of the NDE immediately doesn't count

    Well man as an EndNote, I really think that they could work things to fit their beliefs. But a blind person create vision... nahh man that is not possible. That person has never saw a single Photon in her life, it couldn't be able to create vision during the NDE.

    I mean what if we found materialists who had NDE... people like you tend to think of death as the end, they would most likely try to forget the NDE. So if we find one....

    _____________________________________

    You do realise that the person in question almost died... you want them to talk about an NDE right after coming back from a brain dead state ??? That sounds sort of unpractical really.

    But even so what if the person talks about it 20 minutes later ??? So the person will have his memory completely changed, and somehow it will be similar to another person's NDE ??? or have like basic characteristics of NDE ??? I dunno man it doesn't sound all that good, another thing, you just have to interview hundreds of NDE'ers to get a better picture, just like a polica investigation.

    -------------------------------------------

    ReplyDelete
  34. sorry I made a terrible mistake Bach XD. got things mixed

    ReplyDelete
  35. Edward,

    Four separate comments! Please do something about your spell check.

    I can well imagine that as a materialistic atheist I could very well have a NDE experience, but because I don't have any religious beliefs they wouldn't be overlaid with religious themes. I'd still imagine a tunnel with a light at the end because that's the most common cause of what I'm experiencing, the progressive diminution of peripheral vision as my brain shuts down. I might see distortions that I'd interpret as figures but I'd be unlikely to recognize them as Jesus. I accept that NDEs exist, I just think that the religious component comes from the subject's religious beliefs. I predict that a Hindu would have a different themed NDE to a Christian, although the actual sensations would be similar. And don't forget that 82% of people don't have NDEs so they're not invariable in intensity, even if the quality is much the same.

    Have a look at 'the Invisible Gorilla'. The authors cite the case where a couple in a car observe a man leave a doorway and stab another man cycling past on the sidewalk as they are stopped level waiting for the traffic lights to change. The passenger immediately phoned 911 and was put on hold before being able to make the report. The couple immediately after weren't able to agree with a single detail of what happened; for example the races of the assailant or the victim, where they were, the length of time it took for the emergency operator to answer, ... Witness accounts are very unreliable.

    Another thing, you don't understand how the brain works. No one sees a photon. The photon causes depolarization in a photoreceptor in an eye which sends a signal to the brain which is then interpreted and sends a image to the mind. You're not aware of all the processes that are accomplished. It's not even necessary to have photons to have a visual image. Scientists have connected cameras to screens mounted on the backs of subjects which cause skin stimulation and the blindfolded subjects see what the camera sees. The stimuli to the brain goes to the parietal cortex, nowhere near the occipital visual cortex, but the mind still sees an image, doesn't feel one.

    How the blind from birth experience the world I have no idea, I find it too terrifying an idea. My version of horror would be to be blind and deaf, as Helen Keller was from the age of 19 months. I'd imagine that the blind would have a sort of mental imaging similar to vision using their intact senses and the idea of a tunnel would still apply. Also when a sighted person is hearing a blind person's NDE, there's two levels of interpretation going on, with the blind person's describing what was experienced and also within the sighted listener making sense of what is being reported to a person who does have vision.

    And you still don't get the point about memories. They are not set in concrete. Whenever you retrieve a memory you're changing it according to what you believe at the time. Recall isn't perfect, so to fill in the gaps you invent plausible details. I can be convinced that there's a God. Just provide me with the evidence and I will add the memory to my hippocampus. In 10 years, the memory of the proof mightn't be as clear, but I'm fairly sure that the conviction that the proof was pretty good.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Four separate comments! Please do something about your spell check.

    ____________________________________

    Sorry, I go about the comments writing so fast I miss a bunch of stuff I am really sorry.

    ------------------------------------

    On religious beliefs playing a role on NDE's

    ____________________________________

    Well I don't remember hearing people saying the met Jesus after dying. I remember reading kids saying that Jesus saved them from peril. See I dunno man, not all religous beliefs goes in details about afterlife. I mean, re-encarnation for instance. I have heard people telling me that after you die, your memory simply is gone, so memory related NDE's would be a bit off for those beliefs. I don't know if beliefs shape the NDE's all that much. That is why I wanted to see a non-religous person's NDE.

    --------------------------------------------

    Hindus and Christians NDE.

    ____________________________________________

    I Personally I remmber reading that NDE's were studied in India. Never read any of their NDE's, actually have read very little accounts, so I must know the mossssst basic experiences of NDE's. I suppose that you could be carrect. However similar NDE's of two totally different religous backgrounds, could mean more than just, oxygen loss. See I remember very well this Indian doctor talking that he had a perfectly naturalistic explanation for NDE's. Was the Oxygen thing all over again. So I think that NDE's are very similar independent of our religion. Maybe our after NDE memories must be shaped a bit about our religiou believe, but I think that the basic "feeling" to it must be overall the same.

    ----------------------------------------

    Witness account

    ________________________________________

    Should I believe that what you say is correct ??? Don't you agree that the witness account is minimally reliable. Othersiwe as far as I know or you know, we can not trust what other people say. So basically I wouldn't be able to trut anything at all. Since my memory and other people's memory would be completely unreliable. Witness account is still valid as evidence, it is just low quality evidence, and becomes worst depending on the story that is told and the situation.

    Let me put this in a very larrrge example. We wouldn't be able to believe in what a scientist say after an experiment. or a small group. I could always say that they changed their memories and everything they say is not trust worthy. I know is not quite analogous to NDE, but that is not a overall rule of thought. Some might invent suff some might not. It is up researchers to investigate, is it not so?

    -----------------------------------------

    Vision and ther brain and the blind lady

    ________________________________________

    Look man, the story goes that she is blind. Image... I guess she has no idea what an image is. Unless you are about to say that somehow her eyes that can't see, saw something that she didn't know, and then it activated the image during her NDE. Which would be weird... It couldddd possibly happen I suppose but.

    About how Vision works, yeah I know we do not necessarily see a photon, but you caught my drift. She was blind, never had any image in her head. She saw things during the NDE.

    -----------------------------------------

    ReplyDelete
  37. Tunnel of Light

    _________________________________________

    I wonder if people that got their eyes shut have Tunnel NDE's. Because if so, then the explanation you gave would fall short.

    ------------------------------------------

    Convincing you of God

    __________________________________________

    I don't think I can convince you that God exists because you seem to be a faithful materialist, so it would just be my faith against your faith.

    I mean atheism do have a lot of bad arguments against God, and I feel that Theism is more consistent, but since you would probably come at me with positivism or something of the such I think that would not be a good estrategy.

    Now, I think the best question would be: What evidence would God leave Behind?

    I mean seriously ask yourself this question. What would God orrr the god you believe that should exist is suppose to leave behind. And go from there.

    Some atheists think that God=Utopy and they created the argument of Evil. Something think that such question doesn't matter because atheism is like a null hypothesis so it needs no argument for it ( yeah I am talking about Bertrand Russell. )

    So I guess if the quest is for real,I wonder what you expect God to leave Behind?

    ----------------------------------------

    Self and Materialism

    ________________________________________

    So something I asked you before. Does a Self exist in Materialistic model? If so how does it look like?

    See I suppose that the self must be a group of neurons. Now a group of neurons have very strict rules don't they? If so, that means your Self has no free will, no morality, it is prederminated to do everything it ever did or will do.

    So why to bother fighting for your own believes or asking me to prove that God exists? I mean maybe you were just meant to be a atheist. You had no choice and never will be. Maybe there is a collection of substance in your brain that make you and atheist and a collection of sucstances that make me a Theist.

    Why is there a illusion of desire, or what is being deluded to begin with? Since you neurons are completely devoid of any will or conscious of the environment.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Edward,

    Please check your spell check.

    If you don't know something then don't write it, check it out first.

    According to Nicholas Wade in 'the Belief Instinct' religion had its start in the trance states induced in ritual, which allows illusions and hallucinations to reign.
    NDEs are going to be vanishingly rare in primitive cultures with their inherent of cardiac defibrillators.

    A blind person having a NDE entails the blind person subjectively interpreting the experience, putting it into words, and the listener interpreting the words and subjectively interpreting them too. But the blind did experience something, and it did occur in her head.

    Scientists misinterpreting or even forging experimental results happens. That's why replication of experiments is an important part of science.

    And eyewitness accounts are unreliable, and need to be backed up with other evidence. There are too many people in gaol or worse executed because of confident and mistaken eyewitnesses.

    ReplyDelete
  39. (Sorry for posting anonymously, but this site is no longer accepting my Google account for some reason.)

    RickK said...

    And yet with all of this chatter, we still don't have a single example, a single sensation, a single feeling, a single characteristic of the "mind" that hasn't been induced, stopped or otherwise influenced by PHYSICAL events in the brain.

    M.E.'s "tight correlation" argument is a red herring. We don't have "tight correlation" between the damage done by earthquakes and their early warning signs. But nobody is arguing that there is an incorporeal, supernatural component to plate tectonics.

    And interestingly, we've made MUCH more progress in the past 50 years in improving the resolution of our brain/experience correlation than we have in our signal/earthquake correlation.

    The parallels between this argument and typical creationist anti-evolution arguments are numerous and amusing.

    So, returning to the original question. I've looked up several definitions of "mind", and here are the traits associated with "mind":

    - thoughts
    - attention
    - consciousness
    - awareness
    - feelings
    - memory
    - intellect
    - cognitive ability
    - talents (music, art, etc.)
    - beliefs
    - morality
    - sense of self
    - proprioception


    Name one of those that can't be influenced by a stroke or by a drug or by an electric shock or by magnetic stimulation.

    In fact, name one of those that can't be affected by drinking 7 pints of Guinness in a single evening.

    ReplyDelete
  40. RickK said...

    Sorry, CrusadREX - I missed your earlier post. Let me address it:

    "Sure, and just because parts of the brain HAVE been mapped does not mean you can conclude there is NO more to the mind than the brain. Logic and reason are dual causeways, Rick."

    Where's your data? If you can't show me which part of "mind" cannot be changed by physical causes, then on what do you base your "dual causeways" assertion?

    You said dualism is backed by " by many other schools of thought based on thousands of years experience, teleology, philosophy"

    Logical fallacy: argument from antiquity.

    By that argument, homeopathy is more valid than antibiotics, and bloodletting is more valid than both. As for philosophy - it is just science without a lab. Science WITH a lab yields much better results.

    You said: "Novella (yours?), on the other hand is based on the GROSSLY incomplete studies of physical scientists and their current rationale, guided by a monistic, reductionist philosophy: Materialism. Darwin and protoplasm come to mind. Very Chic, VERY trendy - but very unscientific claims. It is a hypothesis dressed as LAW. In In other words: Pretentious BULLSH!T."

    That's an emotion-charged rant, full of your assumptions and biases, but again sadly lacking in data or in any attempt to address my simple challenge.

    Show me the part of the "mind" that isn't influenced by physical events, and then we can have a rational conversation. Until then, please try to calm down a bit. I wouldn't want you to blow a vessel in your brain. Regardless of what you believe, I'm afraid it might affect your mind.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Spell check

    ________________________________________

    Sorry, no spell check in this computer. Why are you getting so angry all of a sudden ?

    -----------------------------------------

    Rituals

    __________________________________________

    I remember seeing that stuff on disovery channel. That even pre-historic men and women would eat toxic fruits to have epyphanies of some sort. Still what does that have to do with NDE's and what I said ??? I don't really see any connection man, sorry.

    -------------------------------------------

    Blind lady and her witness report

    ___________________________________________

    Look, like I said, I have no idea what she said exactly. As far as it goes you and I are especulating. And here brain was dead. No electrical impulses. I remember a researcher talkjing that the EEG, if I am not mistaken, was pretty much zero and people had NDE's during those times.

    --------------------------------------------

    Witness report

    ______________________________________________

    Like I said before. If we were to disconsider everything that is anecdotal as invalid we are fucked xD. And remember that Rick did showed a site where people could create NDE's by using g-force in a centrifugate.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Dual causeway
    ________________________________

    There is dual causeway if we have mind states interfering with body or brain. So... we have placebo effect, meditation. These things affect our body and are related to mind states.

    With a passive model of mind like brain produces mind and mind is only a function of the brain such things shouldnt exist. The brain is very objective, subjective ezperiences shouldnt exist but... they do.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Anon (Rick)
    "Sorry, CrusadREX - I missed your earlier post. Let me address it"
    No worries. Thanks for taking the time to read/respond.

    You answered:
    "Where's your data? If you can't show me which part of "mind" cannot be changed by physical causes, then on what do you base your "dual causeways" assertion?"
    You have mistaken my meaning. But no worries, I will clarify:
    LOGIC is a two way street, a double edged knife. If there is not enough data to conclude, there can be no conclusion made on data; Neither existentialist/spiritual nor materialist.
    No grand assertions can be made from such incomplete research.
    That is my point. I am not relating 'dual cuaseway' to brain motor / traffic, but immaterial thoughts and logic. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

    You then accuse me of a logical fallacy, where I have only made comparisons - not come to conclusions. I noted your ideas are based on current TRENDS and POPULAR hypothesis, and mine are far older and better tested. That is an observation. The fallacy is to assume because someone is dead they are dead-wrong.
    After hundreds of years, the philosophies and ideas stated above have borne out. Can you HONESTLY say that the monistic materialism you hold as 'scientific' truth will do so in say...500 years? I do not.

    You then assert:
    "That's an emotion-charged rant, full of your assumptions and biases, but again sadly lacking in data or in any attempt to address my simple challenge."
    There was no need to refute and no data to refute. You have no posited any sort of data or proof. The only thing worth noting was your lack of reason in your original post (top response). You obviously did not understand/mistook my response...fair enough. Now you have it reworded.
    Further, I am an emotional being and yes, I do react as such.
    But your argument is STILL pretentious (look it up) and it is still BULLSH!T.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Edward,
    "Sorry, no spell check in this computer. Why are you getting so angry all of a sudden ?"
    Don't apologize, mate. Your posts are FINE.
    I can read them on this piece of junk - so they must be. A typo here and there does not diminish the fact you are hammering these materialists to bits.
    They are just trying to find a way to snowjob you with details.

    ReplyDelete
  45. (sigh... why can't I log in with my google account???)

    RickK said...


    CrusadeREX said: " I noted your ideas are based on current TRENDS and POPULAR hypothesis, and mine are far older and better tested. "

    What trends? What popular hypothesis?

    I haven't once used the term "monistic materialism" - you have.

    I'm just looking for evidence that "mind" requires any more infrastructure than a functioning brain of sufficient capability. Since EVERY part of "mind" appears to have a physical manifestation in the brain, I see no need for more than the physical brain to explain mind.

    I just asked a simple question: Can you name any feature of what you call "mind" that hasn't been positively and demonstrably altered by PHYSICAL events/effects/influences?

    And please stop using the phrase "pretentious bullsh!t" as a way to avoid answering the question.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Rick the answer to your assertion is simple.

    Correlation NOT EQUAL to cause.

    You are just saying that, every mind state correlates to brain state .... well that is great, but then you conclude that the mind is caused by brain because there is a correlation. errr there is no way you can conclude that logically, I am sorry.

    You have all sorts of choices.

    1_Brain is all there is and there is no mind

    2_Brain produces mind and mind is passive

    3_Brain produces mind and mind can actively change brain states

    4_Brain connects with mind, so they are different, and mind is passive, so brain control mind only

    5_Brain connects with mind, so they are different, and mind can actively act upon the brain, it other words a 2 way street.

    6_Brain is passive and is freely controlled by the mind.

    ----------------------------------------

    Depending on the level of Ad Hoc I use in some of these models ... EVERYSINGLE ONE OF THEM will correlate mind and brain states. Even without Ad hoc 1 to 5 will still be correct according to the observation.

    Like Dr Egnor said... it is a question of logic. Or of using materialism as null hypothesis and pretend that the evidence points "beautifully" to it.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Actually it just came to me. I can make more models than those I wrote... sorry man, I am not a super computer.

    ReplyDelete
  48. RickK said...

    CrusaderREX said: "Correlation doesn't equal causation".

    Oh, so it's not the alcohol that impairs judgement.

    It's not the stroke that caused a loss of bodily awareness, or spatial orientation, or the myriad other alterations to "mind" that have been linked to stroke.

    It's not the drug that lowers inhibitions.

    It wasn't the lightning that turned Tony Cicoria into a musical prodigy.

    It's all just coincidence. What really happened in all those cases was the undetectable, incorporeal, only-definable-by-philosophy-not-by-science "MIND".

    Got it.

    Good argument.

    Now, I'll return to my original question. Please name one feature of "mind" that cannot be and has not been altered by physical events in the brain. Just one. And don't cop out like Egnor did by naming some example that is ridiculous in its specificity (although I did find the story of Daniel Tammet who had trouble doing math with the number 6 due to his synesthesia - so even Egnor's absurdly specific challenge is a failure).

    ReplyDelete
  49. Rick, I think you are confusing correlation with causation.

    Another things, the outside things actually hurted the brain than because of the correlation of the mind, screwed the mind working.

    Nice they have a relation.

    ReplyDelete