# Sleep and Dreams > Beyond Dreaming >  >  A logical argument for the soul...

## Surrealist

Just follow these simple statements... taking care to understand each one before preceding to the next, and tell me what you think.

1. Thought cannot experience thought.
 2. Our minds experience thought.
 3. Therefore our minds are not thought.

 A. If we have an only physical mind, then only thoughts can manipulate thoughts.
 B. Since our minds are not thought...
 C. ...and our minds can manipulate our thoughts...
 D. ...then our minds are not only physical.

Now to expound on what each one means a little further... now that you see what the conclusion from it all is.

1. Thought, in the way I use it here, means your internal monologue that happens as you think through things... particularly they mean the electronic impulses that get interpreted by your brain as that monologue(and not the monologue itself). Thoughts can't experience thoughts in much the same way as a camera can't take a picture of the inner workings of itself. This is a core, fundamental part to the whole argument.

2. This is a no-brainer... you must experience thought... if you didn't, then you wouldn't even know that you're thinking. Simple enough.

3. This one is a little more complex. Because thought can't experience thought, but you _do_ experience thought, that means that your mind(the observing "you" that I'm talking about) isn't made of thought. This is a solid, logical conclusion from 1 and 2. Believe me... I took logic courses and was the teachers pet... ha ha...

A. This is basically stating what scientists collectively believe nowadays... They say that all that is you is just the result of electronic impulses in your brain. Your thoughts are electronic impulses... and even the illusion that "you" are "you" and that "you" observe these thoughts is just made of electronic impulses. The thoughts manipulating thoughts means that when you think about something, and come to a conclusion that makes you angry, then your thoughts are manipulating (causing to change) your thoughts. This is what scientists say... that your mind is just a closed loop, which never really changes based on your will... your will is just an illusion brought upon by thought, which is just purely physical. So basically what they are saying is that only thoughts manipulate or change your thoughts... no new thoughts are created without being created by previous thoughts. Think about it... if a new thought popped into your head without a previous brain-chemical reaction that caused it, where did it come from? Not your brain of course... so this is what scientists are backed into a corner into saying.

B. This is reiterating 3 to make it flow a little better.

C. Now this is the most controversial of them all. 
Quantum dynamics says that merely the act of observing something causes it to be changed (and hence manipulated). We've come to the conclusion that every single person alive observes their thoughts (or I at least hope so)... so everyone alive manipulates their thoughts just by observing them. Of course... people do this in other ways... I mean, but that is the controversial aspect. You can't observe thoughts without having the choice to change them or follow them... hence you are constantly manipulating your thoughts.

D. Now... since scientists say that only your brain[thoughts] influences your brain[thoughts] (i.e. your brain is a closed system), but our minds (which are not thoughts) can influence our thoughts... then the scientists assumption that the mind is purely physical is false... and our minds have a non-physical aspect.

Hope you've enjoyed this mind(ha ha)-bending thought experiment... comments are appreciated.

----------


## roguext22

wrong statements.. but i greet you very much that you analize.. it helps you to understand more and more.. rather than to ask for others lol.. for answers..

----------


## Surrealist

> wrong statements.. but i greet you very much that you analize.. it helps you to understand more and more.. rather than to ask for others lol.. for answers..



I implore that you expound on what you mean by "wrong statements..." as I am very curious. Dissent is appreciated as with negative and criticizing remarks.  I ask that, if you do not agree with the argument to explain why. Understanding doesn't just come from thinking on your own, as you know, but also by understanding other's positions on what you have thought.

----------


## roguext22

the more you analize it by yourself..the more you get better understanding ( point of view )
I was analizing about who am i.. and i have come to sweet understanding.. at least im happy with it..and its clear for me.. and i dont care what other thinks about it..  :smiley: 
it begun with..

a = a ! ( its something like Thought cannot experience thought. ** like thought is not equal to though.. maybe )
then dog is a dog .. dog will always act, respond as a dog, he will never act as a cat..Even if lion will attack a dog, the dog run away as a dog, not like a cat..

and human being acts like a 1000 different people...one time he acts angry in that situation, hurts someone..then he thinks that he acted wrong..so he acts in same situation differently..

so human being is always different, in a change ( i will name it as a MAYBE he will change and become and act like a soul.. but its only notice.. )
human is like body who thinks and forgets everything..always..thats why he acts, responds differently always..
if he just find in some way that he is a soul...

hm.. understood anything?  :smiley:

----------


## Surrealist

> the more you analize it by yourself..the more you get better understanding ( point of view )
> I was analizing about who am i.. and i have come to sweet understanding.. at least im happy with it..and its clear for me.. and i dont care what other thinks about it.. 
> it begun with..
> 
> a = a ! ( its something like Thought cannot experience thought. ** like thought is not equal to though.. maybe )
> then dog is a dog .. dog will always act, respond as a dog, he will never act as a cat..Even if lion will attack a dog, the dog run away as a dog, not like a cat..
> 
> and human being acts like a 1000 different people...one time he acts angry in that situation, hurts someone..then he thinks that he acted wrong..so he acts in same situation differently..
> 
> ...



Yes... I understand. Most of what you said is just a small part of my original post. You have come to pretty much the same understanding as I have, but have not bothered to define every little bit of it and make a solid argument out of it.

----------


## roguext22

i read few more times your post.. well i must agree you are right in most of it..
my analizing is not to make argument that im right that soul exist..but to find how i can become a soul... I hate just to believe, so i dont believe in anything.. i take some believe as a maybe, and if i like that believe, i go to finding a way to experience, or understand, or become it..
but i prefer even more simple things.. like i wrote a  = a  :smiley: 
so.. a soul is a soul.. and you are not a soul..
you are something of many...many different decisions for same situations, then your mood is different..

----------


## Surrealist

> i read few more times your post.. well i must agree you are right in most of it..
> 
> ...
> 
> so.. a soul is a soul.. and you are not a soul..
> you are something of many...many different decisions for same situations, then your mood is different..



Well... why I can't agree with what you said is simple: you are saying that we are merely the product of many decisions we have made... all different in different circumstances, but all leading to the person you are now.

I don't know if I don't agree with you, particularly because I can't tell whether or not you are speaking against free will or not. It seems you are, but I am not sure. So, I might or might not agree with you, but I find it hard to understand you fully. You descriptions seem ambiguous at times.

----------


## Carôusoul

> Just follow these simple statements... taking care to understand each one before preceding to the next, and tell me what you think.
> 
> 1. Thought cannot experience thought.
>  2. Our minds experience thought.
>  3. Therefore our minds are not thought.
> 
>  A. If we have an only physical mind, then only thoughts can manipulate thoughts.
>  B. Since our minds are not thought...
>  C. ...and our minds can manipulate our thoughts...
> ...





Define "Thought". Then we'll play.  ::sniper::

----------


## roguext22

are you kidding?   ::D: 
if you dont know and understand what the thought is..then i cant help you

----------


## Carôusoul

> are you kidding?  
> if you dont know and understand what the thought is..then i cant help you



Are you kidding?


I'm not. I understand what the dictionary and accepted definition of thought is. But I don't think that is quite what is being used here. I want to hear what the OP means by a thought in the context.

For example he may already be asserting it is a non-physical entity, [among other possibilities] which is assertions on the premise, which could undermine his original argument, I need to know what he means by thought, because it means something different to everyone, it isn't as  simple a definition as "chair".


It isn't a matter of understanding anything, foo'.

----------


## Surrealist

> Define "Thought". Then we'll play.



I thought I had defined it pretty precisely in my OP, but...

Thoughts in this context mean any electronic manifestation of your internal brain chemistry. Anything... whether it be an emotion, a "thought"(as in your internal monologue or what have you), or anything that your brain cooks up that gets jumbled around up there as a piece of electronic information.

The statement A is exactly what most scientists believe nowadays... it fits exactly with their belief in naturalism. They believe that everything is caused by physical interaction... and that there is nothing that happens that can't be shown to have a natural cause. Therefore... what they extrapolate from that is that only thoughts(the electronic impulses in your brain) can manipulate thoughts(_other_ impulses in your brain). This means that no matter how much you _think_ that you are in control of yourself... you actually aren't, and everything you observe is just an illusion created by your brain and its chemistry. I'm sorry I couldn't come up with a better word for you, but as you said... it matters not the word, but the _meaning_ of the word as used in my context.

"Mind" here refers to the "you" that actually _knows_ that you're thinking. They are two distinct entities... in much the same way as a rich man and his money. He knows he _has_ money, and that he can use it... but he's not "the money."

EDIT:
In effect... I've used the scientist's way of thinking to prove their way of thinking wrong, and in so doing, proving my theory correct... and all just by thinking about it and using cold, hard logic. I'm sure everyone's thought about this on these lines before(or so I hope), but many people don't like there to be a non-physical part to themselves... for whatever reasons they have.

----------


## Surrealist

I'm double-posting because I think that this is ridiculous. I've gotten two people to respond... one, a person who agrees with me anyways, and two, a person who clearly(based on posts in other threads) doesn't agree with me. The one that doesn't though hasn't responded since I last re-defined the terms that I've already defined... and I re-defined them exactly the same as they had been.

What many people on here might not realize is, with this argument still standing, the soul isn't just a well-supported idea... it's a logical fact. I'm just  surprised that I can't find anything like this on the Internet myself. Of course, there are some that are real similar, but all of those have really big logical holes in them.

Now, while it might seem like I'm egging on you non-believers out there into some kind of flamewar, I'm really not. Your defense might be, "Well, he already _'knows'_ that there is a soul, so why even try to convince him otherwise?" This is all fine, except that it isn't the whole truth. While I might know that I'm right, that's just because I came up with this argument that has still remained unchallenged for almost 2 years in all the forums and blogs I've posted it in.

The only reason I can think of why some skeptic hasn't shot it out of the sky yet is because they find that they can't. Can _you_? If you can, then put me out of my misery by slaughtering it right here, on this thread.

It's not a matter of me winning or losing... I'm putting it up here to test it, to make sure that it is viable. I could really care less if somebody proves this wrong, it really won't hurt my feelings in the least bit... I'll actually applaud you for it.

...Just thought I'd make my intentions clearer...

----------


## roguext22

:smiley:  1. i feel deeply inside, that i have a soul ( logically this sentence is absurd.. )
2. then i read carefully your definitions and so on, i can agree with them ( also it is easy to find them absurd.. )
3. i am the human being, who is very much interested in experiencing the fact about soul..not just to discuss it.. The big thing which doesnt let me to experience is apathy, lazyness..  :smiley:  
And i will write here if you add something new here, or just post..  :smiley: 
Other people simply dont care about this..  :smiley:

----------


## Surrealist

> 3. i am the human being, who is very much interested in experiencing the fact about soul..not just to discuss it.. The big thing which doesnt let me to experience is apathy, lazyness..  
> And i will write here if you add something new here, or just post.. 
> Other people simply dont care about this..



See... I haven't posted this to _discuss_ the soul, but to state that it exists as fact. Other people _should_ care about this, especially if they are the skeptics who like to debunk people such as me... left standing, this argument goes against their very principles. This argument, in itself, _proves_ the existence of a non-physical soul... without any other evidence or anything.


I just find it sad that no one has challenged it so far. No one has even so much scratched at its surface. I guess I'm sad because I expected more from this forum...

----------


## roguext22

yes, no one is interested in real things..most are only here for sleeping, dreaming, lucid dreaming..

By the way - i feel the fact i will read that the soul exist, doesnt give me any credit, it doesnt touch me..that fact.. But it can be as a support to experience that fact..

----------


## Carôusoul

Alrightyy then. Sorry about the lack of response; Time zones and school  :wink2: 

I like your approach to these things; the cold hard logical way is the way.

Your argument is valid. I can say this; deductively, it makes perfect sense. My concerns are with the premises.

Either way, we'll see how this pans out. I don't want to be hostile; in fact I want to believe in a soul; I just can't right now, thanks to that darn logic. 

As demonstrated by Hume, the best way to prove your argument beyond any reasonable doubt is to try and defeat it in every way you can; If it can stand up to this, you have suceeded.




We'll do this working backwards from your last post on the subject.






> Thoughts in this context mean any electronic manifestation of your internal brain chemistry. Anything... whether it be an emotion, a "thought"(as in your internal monologue or what have you), or anything that your brain cooks up that gets jumbled around up there as a piece of electronic information.



OK. That's the best definition of a thought I can hope for at this stage.






> They believe that everything is caused by physical interaction... and that there is nothing that happens that can't be shown to have a natural cause. Therefore... what they extrapolate from that is that only thoughts(the electronic impulses in your brain) can manipulate thoughts(other impulses in your brain). This means that no matter how much you think that you are in control of yourself... you actually aren't, and everything you observe is just an illusion created by your brain and its chemistry.



Indeed, I agree with this; our minds are essentially brain chemistry; this is best proved by alsymers patients I have studied and other mental disabilities acquired during life.





> "Mind" here refers to the "you" that actually knows that you're thinking. They are two distinct entities... in much the same way as a rich man and his money. He knows he has money, and that he can use it... but he's not "the money."




{the following in bold is copied from other parts of my analysis, and applies perfectly to this quote on why the mind is not a distinctly seperate entity..Read on...}


*
this is your misconception of a mind. A mind isn't some nice overseeing entity to the crazy little thoughts milling around below. No.

The mind is a word. A word reffering to the collection of billions of trillions of impulses, which create different combinations millions of times a second to create what we call  thought processes. These thought processes are thoughts, constantly moving, changing and affecting each other, influenced by all sorts of foreign things I have detailed above. This collection, is us.

Now, What is the mind. The mind is nothing.
The mind is language. The mind is a word we use to vaguely encapsulate everything going on in our brains that give us the experiences we have, the thoughts we have and our interpretation of stuffz.

The mind is not a single thing in itself though. That's the main point. The mind in essence refers to the collection of billions of electrical impulses which formulate to create thoughts. There is nothing other than this; going back to your point on materialism. So all the mind is, is nothing special, just a collection of electrical signals, which when combined in such a way as our brain does it, create that coherent mess we call ourselves and our thoughts. Note; these are not two seperate things. They are all made up of trillions of thoughts per second and foreign influences.

Hence; the mind is merely a collection of electrical impulses. These impulses of course can create brilliant works of art and can come up with responses to poorly thought out knock downs of logical arguments, but in essence these are not things themselves, they are made up of billions of smaller processes going on.* 







Ok, though; this post, I accept, apart from the comments I have made I think you're on the right track. What may have slightly more problems to it is the argument itself.













> Just follow these simple statements... taking care to understand each one before preceding to the next, and tell me what you think.



K.







> 1. Thought cannot experience thought.
> 
>  2. Our minds experience thought.
> 
>  3. Therefore our minds are not thought.



I have a feeling this is the section in which the flaw is; and I am sure there is a flaw; otherwise I would have been convinced upon first reading.







> 1. Thought cannot experience thought.



WOW. This is a MASSIVE, MASSIVE assertion. 

OK step 1: What is experience?? What do we know of experience?

 Experience, as far as we know it; is entirely sensory. ALL of our experience comes from our sense data. Sight, Smell, Touch, Taste, Hear.

Hence, the mind cannot experience in the accepted sense of the term, because there are no senses involved.

The obvious comeback to this point is clearly:
" ahh but I am experiencing my mind right now. When I think of my girlfriend, that is an experience seperate to senses, yet an experience nonetheless!"

The problem with this comeback is that, yes, there ARE senses involved. You would have never seen your girlfriend in the first place without sense.

 You would have no conception of anything whatsoever. In fact there would basically be no "you". Not even a monologue of thought; you are without language or conception of anything to possibly monologue about.  This person would not essentially be anyone. Just a body. So here we see, any experience of thought is entirely based on some kind of sensory input to the brain.

Where is the soul in all of this? Does this person have no soul because they have no experiences? No, it seems more likely there is no soul to start with; just a montage of our sensory experiences culminating.

So when you say "thought cannot EXPERIENCE thought", what exactly do you mean here by experience?

How would thought experience thought, if it could??! It doesn't make sense. It's like saying, well a rock can't experience a rock. No, it can't, it has no way of doing so. Thoughts are not like little sensory things that can see the other thoughts doing their thang off somewhere else. Brain neurons are all interconnected, so it isn't as simple as just we have a load of thoughts seperate from each other, milling around like a herd of sheep in a pen. Its probably something more like a gooey mess of sheep bits all mixed up.


2: OK, so, lets assume thoughts can in some abstract way experience things. Which they cannot [when was the last time you saw an electrical impulese experience something]. So lets say they can. Why on earth does this mean they cannot experience each other in this way?! 

Descartes tells us as basic foundational rationalism that "I think therefore I am". You probably understand what this relates to and means [if not just ask]; and so you can probably see how this causes problems for the idea that thoughts cannot experience themselves.

Well according to Descartes that is just what we are doing when we consider "I think therefore I am".


Now the next point I believe is the main failing here:





> 2. Our minds experience thought.



Now, What is the mind. The mind is nothing.
The mind is language. The mind is a word we use to vaguely encapsulate everything going on in our brains that give us the experiences we have, the thoughts we have and our interpretation of stuffz.

The mind is not a single thing in itself though. That's the main point. The mind in essence refers to the collection of billions of electrical impulses which formulate to create thoughts. There is nothing other than this; going back to your point on materialism. So all the mind is, is nothing special, just a collection of electrical signals, which when combined in such a way as our brain does it, create that coherent mess we call ourselves and our thoughts. Note; these are not two seperate things. They are all made up of trillions of thoughts per second and foreign influences.

Hence; the mind is merely a collection of electrical impulses. These impulses of course can create brilliant works of art and can come up with responses to poorly thought out knock downs of logical arguments, but in essence these are not things themselves, they are made up of billions of smaller processes going on. 

So, "the mind experiences thoughts"? No. The mind is not seperate to thoughts itself. The mind is thoughts. And thoughts can experience thoughts; as detailed far far above.


In fact when you claim "the mind experiences thoughts" you are in fact proving your argument wrong; because the mind in essence is a collection of billions of thoughts. 





> 3. Therefore our minds are not thought.




See above.






> A. If we have an only physical mind, then only thoughts can manipulate thoughts.



No. Why should this be so? If my brain is jolted with electrical charges, my thoughts fuck up big style, and I am not me as i am now, because the electrical impulses that make who i am now up have been fucked about with. 

So right there is something foreign which is by no means thoughts manipulating thoughts.. no?





> B. Since our minds are not thought...



They are. Stop thinking of these as seperate big things. Mind is merely a label given to a coherent mass of thought processes in electrical energy.





> C. ...and our minds can manipulate our thoughts...



Of course, thoughts can manipulate themselves. Just as a society of people manipulates itself, working off each other.





> D. ...then our minds are not only physical.



See much of above text.






> 1. Thought, in the way I use it here, means your internal monologue that happens as you think through things...



I think we should forget this part, as thoughts a clearly not JUST an internal monologue.





> particularly they mean the electronic impulses that get interpreted by your brain as that monologue(and not the monologue itself). Thoughts can't experience thoughts in much the same way as a camera can't take a picture of the inner workings of itself. This is a core, fundamental part to the whole argument.



Much better. Your comparison here is completely invalid. There is no way you can compare something quite as complex as a thought to something as blisteringly simple as a camera. 

A thought exists only for a split second as a certain combination of billions of certain impulses at the right time responding to sense stimuli and previous experience and other combinations of impulses elsewhere. 

It just.. cannot be compared to a camera. Seriously.

It is so hard for us to really "get" what thoughts are. Because we are but thoughts. Maybe if we had some kind of external being [OH hai there OBE's!] to observe ourselves we could make better judgements about the correlation fo thoughts to brain, but it is currently so hard to comprehend, so we simplify it, as you have done here.












> 2. This is a no-brainer... you must experience thought... if you didn't, then you wouldn't even know that you're thinking. Simple enough.



Refer to the beginning of my post [well, near the beginning]. Experience and thought really are NOT simple.





> 3. This one is a little more complex. Because thought can't experience thought, but you _do_ experience thought, that means that your mind(the observing "you" that I'm talking about) isn't made of thought. This is a solid, logical conclusion from 1 and 2. Believe me... I took logic courses and was the teachers pet... ha ha...



Your logic is very good. I commend this. It is just the premise upon which you build the conclusion I find flawed. 

As I said earlier, your argument does work. But that doesnt count for anything if the premises are false.







> A. This is basically stating what scientists collectively believe nowadays... They say that all that is you is just the result of electronic impulses in your brain. Your thoughts are electronic impulses... and even the illusion that "you" are "you" and that "you" observe these thoughts is just made of electronic impulses. The thoughts manipulating thoughts means that when you think about something, and come to a conclusion that makes you angry, then your thoughts are manipulating (causing to change) your thoughts. This is what scientists say... that your mind is just a closed loop, which never really changes based on your will... your will is just an illusion brought upon by thought, which is just purely physical. So basically what they are saying is that only thoughts manipulate or change your thoughts... no new thoughts are created without being created by previous thoughts. Think about it... if a new thought popped into your head without a previous brain-chemical reaction that caused it, where did it come from? Not your brain of course... so this is what scientists are backed into a corner into saying.




Your commiting some serious straw man here. [look it up on google, if you dont know what it is]. 


And I entirely agree with the scientists. Bear in mind my earlier comments. Your brain is NOT A CLOSED OFF LOOP AND SCIENTISTS DON'T SAY IT IS! SENSE DATA PLAYS A MASSIVE ROLE AND FEEDS STRAIGHT INTO YOUR BRAIN AND THOUGHT IMPULSES. So right, their is another foreign influence to thought. 

[had to stress that.]

This foreign influence doesnt have to be an invisible, inprobable piece of fantasy, like say, the soul.. how about the world? Just as exciting to me. This perfectly goes hand in hand with the idea of a guy with no senses too. [see above, far.]

It would be nice if there was a soul though. Shame.



Sorry how are scientists backed into a corner? Never ever ever be biased against science. I know its tempting in this age of that bad bad evil science. But science is literally the search for truth of reality, through testing and observation, the best way we know how. Don't ever knock that.







> C. Now this is the most controversial of them all. 
> Quantum dynamics says that merely the act of observing something causes it to be changed (and hence manipulated). We've come to the conclusion that every single person alive observes their thoughts (or I at least hope so)... so everyone alive manipulates their thoughts just by observing them. Of course... people do this in other ways... I mean, but that is the controversial aspect. You can't observe thoughts without having the choice to change them or follow them... hence you are constantly manipulating your thoughts.



OK. this fits snugly with my earlier comments on thoughts manipulating and changing themselves, like a closed society can. [bad analogy. forgive me]. 

Equally, never forget sense input, which plays a mssive role. As I have shown, there would be little to no thoughts or consciousness without it  :smiley: 





> D. Now... since scientists say that only your brain[thoughts] influences your brain[thoughts] (i.e. your brain is a closed system), but our minds (which are not thoughts) can influence our thoughts...




Again this is your misconception of a mind. A mind isn't some nice overseeing entity to the crazy little thoughts milling around below. No.

The mind is a word. A word reffering to the collection of billions of trillions of impulses, which create different combinations millions of times a second to create what we call  thought processes. These thought processes are thoughts, constantly moving, changing and affecting each other, influenced by all sorts of foreign things I have detailed above. This collection, is us.

Ultimately, this, is the mind.

----------


## LucidDreamGod

I have thought very similer things and tried to prove to myself before that there must be something besides my physical body, I still doubt it but only because it seems so unusual and unlike anything I know now, and the way the brain is used and works is still not fully understood by science, and I'm not a real deep thinker about the atonomy of the brain, I always thought because that people soemtimes say we have the astral body, the ethreal body (or whatever it's called) the energy body, and the physical, that all these bodies are copies of eachother in diffrent forms.

Like the physical body is modeled after the astral, but the body changes because of the physical world, which purhaps means that the astral body would be modeled after the physical, I'm not sure but it makes sense, even if the physical body did all the work, that the astral body if there was oen could be just a copy, and conscious could be the soul.

----------


## Carôusoul

> I have thought very similer things and tried to prove to myself before that there must be something besides my physical body, I still doubt it but only because it seems so unusual and unlike anything I know now, and the way the brain is used and works is still not fully understood by science, and I'm not a real deep thinker about the atonomy of the brain, I always thought because that people soemtimes say we have the astral body, the ethreal body (or whatever it's called) the energy body, and the physical, that all these bodies are copies of eachother in diffrent forms.
> 
> Like the physical body is modeled after the astral, but the body changes because of the physical world, which purhaps means that the astral body would be modeled after the physical, I'm not sure but it makes sense, even if the physical body did all the work, that the astral body if there was oen could be just a copy, and conscious could be the soul.





Or maybe the fact that "people sometimes say" we have an astral body isn't quite enough to make it true!

----------


## LucidDreamGod

Hence why I said I doubt it

----------


## roguext22

> Hence why I said I doubt it



that means he misread your sentences, like mine.. 
its party time  ::banana::

----------


## Carôusoul

> that means he misread your sentences, like mine.. 
> its party time



Shut up and try responding to my main post, idiot.

----------


## Surrealist

> Shut up and try responding to my main post, idiot.



Now, now... let's not get hostile here...  :wink2: 





> The mind is not a single thing in itself though. That's the main point. The mind in essence refers to the collection of billions of electrical impulses which formulate to create thoughts. There is nothing other than this; going back to your point on materialism. So all the mind is, is nothing special, just a collection of electrical signals, which when combined in such a way as our brain does it, create that coherent mess we call ourselves and our thoughts. Note; these are not two seperate things. They are all made up of trillions of thoughts per second and foreign influences.
> 
> Hence; the mind is merely a collection of electrical impulses. These impulses of course can create brilliant works of art and can come up with responses to poorly thought out knock downs of logical arguments, but in essence these are not things themselves, they are made up of billions of smaller processes going on.



*
And herein lies the one, major flaw in your argument. You start off right off the bat by stating that the mind is just a word, and that it is nothing but electrical impulses... that it is not separate from the brain.* This is the thing which I am going about proving, and you have not proved it wrong by showing my argument illogical... you have just simply stated that it is wrong. Not trying to be a party-pooper here, but you haven't done this in the correct way. I am forced to dismiss everything you have just stated here, since this is just a disagreement to my conclusion, and not a logical way to undermine it at all.



> I have a feeling this is the section in which the flaw is; and I am sure there is a flaw; otherwise I would have been convinced upon first reading.



We'll see...  :wink2: 





> Experience, as far as we know it; is entirely sensory. ALL of our experience comes from our sense data. Sight, Smell, Touch, Taste, Hear.
> 
> Hence, the mind cannot experience in the accepted sense of the term, because there are no senses involved.



Here is where you really start to take a dive. 

Experience is defined as:




> *5**:* the act or process of directly perceiving events or reality



Do you(your mind... the you I'm talking about) directly _perceive_ your thoughts as they run through your head? I thought as much... I'm not talking about merely "seeing" or "smelling" or "tasting" or "feeling" anything... I'm talking about actually _perceiving_ that you are doing such. The mind I refer to _is_ separate in this instance because I'm talking about two entirely different events, and separating them as such. What's wrong with identifying two distinct phenomena and calling them two different things? You have fallen into a rut by categorically denying that they are separate... you can't do that without sounding very illogical indeed. I hope you realize this point.





> The problem with this comeback is that, yes, there ARE senses involved. You would have never seen your girlfriend in the first place without sense.
> 
>  You would have no conception of anything whatsoever. In fact there would basically be no "you". Not even a monologue of thought; you are without language or conception of anything to possibly monologue about. This person would not essentially be anyone. Just a body. So here we see, any experience of thought is entirely based on some kind of sensory input to the brain.



What you fail to realize is that senses are involved, but not in the way in which you would love them to be. Senses are the "thoughts" I'm talking about... they are just electrical impulses in your brain. Thoughts aren't what I am saying the "mind" is though. You have to admit that you _perceive_ thoughts, right? You perceive the act of seeing... if not, then your brain would just see, and you wouldn't even know it. Your brain would see, calculate, and tell your body what to do based on what it sees without "you" even there to experience it at all, am I right? So the part of you that actually _perceives_ it all, that is what I am saying is your mind. I am splitting them up... I have this right because _I_ have created the argument, not you. You have no right to come in and re-define all my terms. You must deal with them in the way I've presented them.





> Where is the soul in all of this? Does this person have no soul because they have no experiences? No, it seems more likely there is no soul to start with; just a montage of our sensory experiences culminating.



Don't get too ahead of yourself...





> So when you say "thought cannot EXPERIENCE thought", what exactly do you mean here by experience?
> 
> How would thought experience thought, if it could??! It doesn't make sense. It's like saying, well a rock can't experience a rock. No, it can't, it has no way of doing so. Thoughts are not like little sensory things that can see the other thoughts doing their thang off somewhere else. Brain neurons are all interconnected, so it isn't as simple as just we have a load of thoughts seperate from each other, milling around like a herd of sheep in a pen. Its probably something more like a gooey mess of sheep bits all mixed up.



Your rock example is spot-on... I applaud you for this. You realized what I said in my OP... specifically:




> Thoughts can't experience thoughts in much the same way as a camera can't take a picture of the inner workings of itself. This is a core, fundamental part to the whole argument.



Sensory "thangs," as you put it, are just thoughts themselves. As I defined it, remember, sensory inputs are just electrical impulses. Not even sensory thoughts can experience other thoughts. They are all the same thing: electrical impulses.

Now, whether they are a gooey mess of interactivity or not, it doesn't change my argument one bit. I've already mentioned in statement A that, according to scientists, only thoughts can manipulate thoughts... you seem to be trying to turn my own statement against me... to try to make it seem like I'm contradicting myself. I think your problem lies in the fact that you are trying to redefine "thoughts..." I won't stand for people trying to remake _my_ argument into a easier one that they can actually tackle. Let my argument stay the way it was.





> 2: OK, so, lets assume thoughts can in some abstract way experience things. Which they cannot [when was the last time you saw an electrical impulese experience something]. So lets say they can. Why on earth does this mean they cannot experience each other in this way?!



Umm... I almost don't know how to respond to this, because it is so illogical... no offense. Please take note:

You yourself said that there would be no way that thoughts can experience thoughts:




> How would thought experience thought, if it could??! It doesn't make sense. It's like saying, well a rock can't experience a rock. No, it can't, it has no way of doing so.



Don't start contradicting yourself too much... it undermines your attempt at a rebuttal.





> Descartes tells us as basic foundational rationalism that "I think therefore I am". You probably understand what this relates to and means [if not just ask]; and so you can probably see how this causes problems for the idea that thoughts cannot experience themselves.
> 
> Well according to Descartes that is just what we are doing when we consider "I think therefore I am".



No... you are taking what he said grossly out of context. Where in this statement is the word "thought" or anything like it in the sense that we are using it here? The word "mind," is that anywhere to be found? I believe what you are seeing in his statement is this:

I think (which he means is him "experiencing" everything around)
therefore I am (therefore I have a mind).

It's just a very watered down version of my own argument... don't try and take a smaller version of my argument to try and debunk it, that would be highly illogical to try and do. 

Take note:
*Not only that, but this is just somebody's opinion about the issue. This isn't a cold, hard fact in itself. I'm sure you could find many other quotes from modern scientists who all say that there is no non-physical mind, but those are all just opinions too. Let's leave opinions out of this, since opinions in no way can be logical premises.*





> *Hence; the mind is merely a collection of electrical impulses.* These impulses of course can create brilliant works of art and can come up with responses to poorly thought out knock downs of logical arguments, but in essence these are not things themselves, they are made up of billions of smaller processes going on. 
> 
> So, "the mind experiences thoughts"? No. The mind is not seperate to thoughts itself. The mind is thoughts. And thoughts can experience thoughts; as detailed far far above.
> 
> 
> In fact when you claim "the mind experiences thoughts" you are in fact proving your argument wrong; because the mind in essence is a collection of billions of thoughts.



I have bolded the main pitfall of yours in your quote above. You are trying to redefine things again. I already told you that I'm not going to stand for it. Redefining what a mind is, and then saying this proves my argument wrong, is a very, very illogical way to debunk it. I'm almost at a loss for words at how appalling this is to me. Wow... 

Let's look back at *my* definition of "the mind" for a second:




> Mind" here refers to the "you" that actually _knows_ that you're thinking. They are two distinct entities... in much the same way as a rich man and his money. He knows he _has_ money, and that he can use it... but he's not "the money."



There you go... the "you" that actually _knows_ what is going on through your brain. That part of you that goes away when you're asleep and not dreaming, and then turns back on when you awake. The part that misses out on all those hours of nothingness that are actually practically _filled_ with electrical impulses. "The mind" doesn't experience any of those impulses... because you are asleep. This is the mind I am talking about.... stick with it, for your sake.

Now, as you can see, I am not proving myself wrong in statement 2. I am reinforcing the fact that you can experience yourself thinking. This is a fundamental thing that all humans share (or so I hope)... it isn't something you can trivialize away like it is nothing.





> No. Why should this be so? If my brain is jolted with electrical charges, my thoughts fuck up big style, and I am not me as i am now, because the electrical impulses that make who i am now up have been fucked about with. 
> 
> So right there is something foreign which is by no means thoughts manipulating thoughts.. no?



But... if your brain is jolted with electricity, then an electrical impulse is now sweeping through your brain. According to the agreed definition, it is a thought. So, we still have thoughts manipulating thoughts... sorry...





> They are. Stop thinking of these as seperate big things. Mind is merely a label given to a coherent mass of thought processes in electrical energy.



You should really try to stop doing this... it's unbecoming of you. Merely stating that the mind is such doesn't make it true. You believe _everything_ you are told in school, eh? So because some teacher told you that our mind is nothing but electricity that gives you the right to state that as a fact that debunks my argument? Please... just stop doing this... this is the most pathetic way you could possibly try to debunk me with. I won't even respond to this style of attack anymore... it's just too silly.





> Of course, thoughts can manipulate themselves. Just as a society of people manipulates itself, working off each other.



Just when I got done writing the response to your previous quote, I saw this. It's one and the same... you are redefining "mind," and then using that definition to try and debunk me. Incredible attempt at twisting logic I must say, but it is nonetheless illogical.





> Much better. Your comparison here is completely invalid. There is no way you can compare something quite as complex as a thought to something as blisteringly simple as a camera. 
> 
> A thought exists only for a split second as a certain combination of billions of certain impulses at the right time responding to sense stimuli and previous experience and other combinations of impulses elsewhere. 
> 
> It just.. cannot be compared to a camera. Seriously.
> 
> It is so hard for us to really "get" what thoughts are. Because we are but thoughts. Maybe if we had some kind of external being [OH hai there OBE's!] to observe ourselves we could make better judgements about the correlation fo thoughts to brain, but it is currently so hard to comprehend, so we simplify it, as you have done here.



They can't be compared to a camera, eh? You have agreed with this statement before. I really hate to use your own quotes against you so much, but here it is:




> So when you say "thought cannot EXPERIENCE thought", what exactly do you mean here by experience?
> 
> How would thought experience thought, if it could??! It doesn't make sense. It's like saying, well a rock can't experience a rock. No, it can't, it has no way of doing so.



So you _yourself_ compare them to a rock? Is this any better? You've already agreed with this statement a little ways back in your post, so why are you trying to debunk it now? You make no sense... sadly...





> Your logic is very good. I commend this. It is just the premise upon which you build the conclusion I find flawed. 
> 
> As I said earlier, your argument does work. But that doesnt count for anything if the premises are false.



Well, I'm glad... but you really haven't shown my premises to be false, as I have stated numerous times and given many, many examples above. Please, read over them again and again until you are perfectly sure that you understand me correctly.





> Your commiting some serious straw man here. [look it up on google, if you dont know what it is].



I am not committing a straw man by creating a premise. I said, "If we have an only physical mind, then only thoughts can manipulate thoughts." This is true. If our minds are only just physical, then only the electric impulses can manipulate the electric impulses. This is hard fact right here, no straw man... I think you just got slightly offended because I described what you think exactly.





> And I entirely agree with the scientists. Bear in mind my earlier comments. Your brain is NOT A CLOSED OFF LOOP AND SCIENTISTS DON'T SAY IT IS! SENSE DATA PLAYS A MASSIVE ROLE AND FEEDS STRAIGHT INTO YOUR BRAIN AND THOUGHT IMPULSES. So right, their is another foreign influence to thought.



Sense data is just electrical impulses, which by the definition I have laid out are just thoughts. You can't keep doing this, you know, *redefining my words to try and make arguing against me easier*... sorry, I had to stress that... it really is beginning to irritate me how illogical you are being.





> OK. this fits snugly with my earlier comments on thoughts manipulating and changing themselves, like a closed society can. [bad analogy. forgive me]. 
> 
> Equally, never forget sense input, which plays a mssive role. As I have shown, there would be little to no thoughts or consciousness without it



This is your rebuttal to the explanation for statement C? Surely, all that you might have thought helped you out in debunking this statement really hasn't. I really implore you to come back into this thread with a lot more patience, a lot more logic, and just a tad bit more humility. I mean, if no one in a debate humbles themselves, then no one even looks at their own arguments logically, am I right?





> Again this is your misconception of a mind. A mind isn't some nice overseeing entity to the crazy little thoughts milling around below. No.
> 
> The mind is a word. A word reffering to the collection of billions of trillions of impulses, which create different combinations millions of times a second to create what we call thought processes. These thought processes are thoughts, constantly moving, changing and affecting each other, influenced by all sorts of foreign things I have detailed above. This collection, is us.
> 
> Ultimately, this, is the mind.



And you've done it again... for the last words in your post you attempt _again_ at trying to redefine the words I use in my argument. You can't go blithely milling about my argument and looking for words to redefine to make arguing against it easier. Not to mention the illogical quality of it, but it is just plain _wrong_.

Please, don't do this again. I only want to debate the validity of this argument with someone who can do so logically and maturely. I don't really care what your beliefs are... beliefs don't take down an argument, after all. Beliefs are like opinions, they have no logical truth or falsity to them. Look it up.

*Just stating that the mind is nothing but electrical impulses (over and over and over again, might I add) doesn't disprove my argument.* After all, that is exactly what I am using in my argument in statement A. I have defined repeatedly, over and over, what the mind is in my argument.

I must say, in the end, you have not debunked my argument. *I say this because the only way in which you have believed to have done so is by redefining the words I use.* Since this isn't a valid, logical way to try and show my argument invalid, you have failed to do so.

----------


## Carôusoul

> Now, now... let's not get hostile here... 
> 
> *
> And herein lies the one, major flaw in your argument. You start off right off the bat by stating that the mind is just a word, and that it is nothing but electrical impulses... that it is not separate from the brain.* This is the thing which I am going about proving, and you have not proved it wrong by showing my argument illogical... you have just simply stated that it is wrong. Not trying to be a party-pooper here, but you haven't done this in the correct way. I am forced to dismiss everything you have just stated here, since this is just a disagreement to my conclusion, and not a logical way to undermine it at all.
> We'll see... 
> 
> 
> Here is where you really start to take a dive. 
> 
> ...




hm.

----------


## Surrealist

> Arghh, you haven't understood what i was sayinngggg. Im annoyed. im gonna have to write it all again in response to this. in clearer terms maybe.
> 
> the apparent places i have contradicted myself and etc, are not, ill explain individually, but. urgh. tired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also. you said lets not get hostile here, but this is a pretty hostile post. But, whatever ill respond.
> 
> watch this space.



I have not gotten hostile... I have just pointed out all the places where your logic has failed. An argument about the logical validness of an argument can't go without pointing out where others have failed in their logic.

I understood everything that you are saying... oh, and please... I hope to God that you don't try and redefine things yet again. It could get quite annoying to have to read it all over again if that is the case.

Put it this way... *the only way that you can logically take down my argument would be to actually take it down using my definitions for the words I used in it.* Really... don't try it again... I'll just post more of the "annoying" blather again to illustrate your incompetence to understand what I have just said.

EDIT:
I see that you have edited your post that I quoted above to all but "hm." Maybe it was in response to this post, or maybe not... or maybe it was because you have finally understood what I was saying. In all possible circumstances though, I find it interesting. Please elaborate.

----------


## roguext22

okay.. i see you are quite interested in this conversation surrealist....

The best is to experience through :: feel, see, know something about soul...
the Maybe's ( many )
*memory:: we always forget everything... at night, we are not aware whats going on near our body..
so at night it could be possible to become aware who we are not - the body.. maybe..
* feeling:: we rarely feel ourself, our body..and so we never feel our soul...
so it could be possible ( maybe )
* seeing:: rarely people are developed 3rd eye - so they can see auras..

----------


## RedfishBluefish

Ah.
But such chemical reactions can be very easily manipulated by things such as large amounts of UV light (eg. in the ozone layer), increased ambient temperature (which accelerates the process), and all other kinds of radiation (eg. visible light in solar cells, X-rays plus nuclear radiation - alpha, beta, and gamma rays - in living organisms).

----------


## Surrealist

> Ah.
> But such chemical reactions can be very easily manipulated by things such as large amounts of UV light (eg. in the ozone layer), increased ambient temperature (which accelerates the process), and all other kinds of radiation (eg. visible light in solar cells, X-rays plus nuclear radiation - alpha, beta, and gamma rays - in living organisms).



But all those are chemical reactions manipulating the current constant chemical reaction.

UV light causes chemical reactions.
Increases in ambient temperature causes chemical reactions.
Radiation is a chemical reaction process.

Can you see now how I have effectively debunked this particular type of objection? I hope so...

Even a photon hitting your eye is a chemical reaction that manipulates the current constant chemical reactions happening in your retina.

It's pretty iron-clad now. Thanks for your help... like really, I'm not being facetious.  :smiley: 


*EDIT:*
Basically, you can see how this statement is now more apparent:
*A. If our minds are only physical, then only [electrical impulses or chemical reactions] can manipulate [electrical impulses or chemical reactions].
*
You can see now the relation of the "then" part and the "if" part now, can't you?

You probably can now see how I was confused and kept trying to say that you can't manipulate a chemical reaction that doesn't exist(i.e. creation of one). I was only getting so confused because I was thinking about an entirely different meaning of "chemical reaction," and you obviously were thinking of another.

----------


## RedfishBluefish

> UV light causes chemical reactions.
> Increases in ambient temperature causes chemical reactions.
> Radiation is a chemical reaction process.



Aye, but that's the other sort of "chemical reaction".
After all, the "main" chemical reaction was already taking place when these things occurred. So either these things have directly manipulated the chemical reaction or they have caused "small" chemical reactions, which I still consider to be manipulation. Including when the "small" chemical reactions manipulate the "main" one by contributing to it.

And I don't see where you got that rule "only [thoughts] can manipulate [thoughts]" from anyway. I mean, if the source of consciousness was a well-known particle, and consciousness-causes-collapse were true then any observation by one of those particles would manipulate your brain in the same way.

And I still don't see what physicality has do to with it. Does it matter if the stuff of consciousness is a particle or form of energy we already know of? Surely the only difference between physical and nonphysical things is whether they have mass/energy/electrostatic attraction. You don't know that the source of consciousness doesn't have those properties, because it's probable we can't observe them because our position inside the awareness is inherently limited, like it's impossible for one trapped inside a room to tell you what color the outside walls are painted.

And I don't see why you feel the need to add a soul in to explain consciousness if a well-known material thing is proposed as conscious. Surely you just say "X is the source of awareness" and that's as far as you need to take it?





> Even a photon hitting your eye is a chemical reaction that manipulates the current constant chemical reactions happening in your retina.



I wouldn't describe a collision as a chemical reaction of any sort.

----------


## Surrealist

> Aye, but that's the other sort of "chemical reaction".



It doesn't matter at all... they are still chemical reactions. Do you see it now?





> After all, the "main" chemical reaction was already taking place when these things occurred. So either these things have directly manipulated the chemical reaction or they have caused "small" chemical reactions, which I still consider to be manipulation. Including when the "small" chemical reactions manipulate the "main" one by contributing to it.



Oh yes... these other chemical reactions manipulated the constant chemical reaction. This is still [thoughts] manipulating [thoughts].

It doesn't matter what _type_ of chemical reaction they are... it would still be chemical reactions manipulating chemical reactions.





> You don't know that the source of consciousness doesn't have those properties, because it's probable we can't observe them because our position inside the awareness is inherently limited, like it's impossible for one trapped inside a room to tell you what color the outside walls are painted.



Exactly, but I'm not talking about the "source" when I use Leibniz's Law... I'm just talking about "subjective experience" by itself. Leibniz's Law specifically shows that subjective experience isn't "electrical impulses or chemical reactions."





> And I don't see why you feel the need to add a soul in to explain consciousness if a well-known material thing is proposed as conscious. Surely you just say "X is the source of awareness" and that's as far as you need to take it?



But a well-known material thing would have properties that are different than the properties of subjective experience... do you see the problem here?

Basically, any material thing you could come up with I could add to the symbol [thought]. _Anything_...

I hope you realize now that physicalism is indeed dead.

----------


## RedfishBluefish

> Leibniz's Law specifically shows that subjective experience isn't "electrical impulses or chemical reactions."



Does that matter? So subjective experience isn't an "electrical impulse or chemical reaction", and an electron isn't an electrical signal.




> But a well-known material thing would have properties that are different than the properties of subjective experience... do you see the problem here?



Yes. And that's that you're not talking about the source of awareness, which is what you were when you used Leibniz's Law.





> It doesn't matter at all... they are still chemical reactions. Do you see it now?



So your definition of chemical reaction includes small things and big things...
Then you still have this problem:




> You know what's also impossible? Manipulating a transient instantaneous event while it's happening.
> Example:
> Two atoms bump into one another. The different electrovalencies of the two atoms causes one to take an electron from the other's outer shell. Either it happens or it doesn't. A nearby electric field could prevent this from happening or reverse the reaction once it's happened, but there's really nothing to change when it's happening.

----------


## Surrealist

> Does that matter? So subjective experience isn't an "electrical impulse or chemical reaction", and an electron isn't an electrical signal.



Alright... I'm glad that you agree with my statement #3(which is a conclusion). We've gotten _that_ far, now haven't we?

*EDIT:*
You are trying to say that an electrical signal isn't an electron.

If I say that something isn't an electron, then it couldn't be an electrical signal either, now could it?

 But... as you can see:




> Yes. And that's that you're not talking about the source of awareness, which is what you were when you used Leibniz's Law.



...You've forgotten that there is a whole other half to my argument. You obviously missed that part, or you don't want to discuss it.

In either case, the first half of my argument establishes that subjective experience _isn't_ "electrical impulses or chemical reactions..." and then the second half establishes that because it isn't that, then it isn't physical.

You can't just say, "oh, see, the first half of your argument doesn't show how it isn't physical," but disregard the second half of it which does.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see your reasoning.





> So your definition of chemical reaction includes small things and big things...
> Then you still have this problem:



I don't have any problem whatsoever.

A continuous chemical reaction can be manipulated by another chemical reaction. You *yourself* gave examples of this... for example:





> UV light causes chemical reactions.
> Increases in ambient temperature causes chemical reactions.
> Radiation is a chemical reaction process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So _you_ acknowledged that chemical reactions(small ones) can manipulate other chemical reactions(big ones).

You seem to forget that we already settled this issue... or maybe you just don't want to let it rest with you losing this particular debacle.

----------


## Sandform

non-physical can not effect physical.

Physic problem to prove this.

A perfectly level plane lies within a vacuum.  A perfectly spherical object rests on top of this plane and is not moving.  Unless some sort of force is applied it will never move.  Some sort of energy is necessary to move it.  Energy is physical.

So now we arrive at the conclusion that in order for your hypothesis to be true non-physical creates physical.  Which you say can not be done.  Also not to forget, the law of conservation of energy states that this is impossible as well.

----------


## Surrealist

> non-physical can not effect physical.
> 
> Physic problem to prove this.



Physic problems proves this? Ha ha ha... don't make me laugh _too_ hard.

*No empirical evidence that you could possibly have can prove that the non-physical can't effect the physical.* This is only your assumption. To illustrate:




> A perfectly level plane lies within a vacuum.  A perfectly spherical object rests on top of this plane and is not moving.  Unless some sort of force is applied it will never move.  Some sort of energy is necessary to move it.  Energy is physical.



This doesn't prove that non-physical things can't manipulate physical things. I can have a cup of water sitting on my desk forever, and not moving, but it doesn't prove this. You're getting quite silly.





> So now we arrive at the conclusion that in order for your hypothesis to be true non-physical creates physical.  Which you say can not be done.  Also not to forget, the law of conservation of energy states that this is impossible as well.



The Law of Conservation of Energy doesn't prove this wrong either.

If something is non-physical and can manipulate the physical, it obviously has at least some energy to do so.

Just because you say: _"oh, well this non-physical thing must have energy, so it has to be_ physical_ energy..."_ doesn't debunk my argument.

Might I quote this again for you... I'll even highlight the relevant parts:




> Perhaps the chief objection to dualism questions how two utterly different properties can interact with one another. *In other words, it seems implausible to imagine how a mind lacking any material properties could interact with a body lacking any immaterial properties.*
> 
> ...
> 
> Nonetheless, I do not believe the problem of causal interaction is devastating for dualism. *Since this objection does not show that it is logically impossible for such interaction to take place, it only highlights an epistemic problem-niamely that we do not know how such interaction takes place.* The problem of interaction, however, raises no ontological impossibility for dualism.



You are arguing a completely dead end here. This is even _more_ of a dead-end than all your other attempts combined.

You can't use an argument from ignorance to debunk a rational argument, yet this is _precisely_ what you are doing.... let me show you:




> The *argument from personal incredulity*, also known as *argument from personal belief* or *argument from personal conviction*, refers to an assertion that because one _personally_ finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or alternately that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.



You are saying, in effect:
*I don't see how the non-physical can interact with the physical, so it must not be true.*

That is, to be more specific, the logical fallacy of an "argument from personal incredulity."

_Quite an irrational way to try and debunk a rational argument._


*EDIT:*
Basically, you are trying to use a logical fallacy to debunk a logical argument. You assert that:
"Non-physical things can't interact with physical things."

You then try and use this to prove my argument wrong. But all you have is your personal belief that this is true. You have no empirical evidence whatsoever to back up that claim. Neither do you have a logical argument to back it up. I can't even imagine what you were thinking when you tried to use this tactic.

----------


## O'nus

Surrealist, perhaps it is in response to others hostility or just a mis-translation in text, but you come of chauvanistic in your rebuttals sometimes.

ie:




> . You have no empirical evidence whatsoever to back up that claim. Neither do you have a logical argument to back it up. I can't even imagine what you were thinking when you tried to use this tactic.



Just to keep that in mind while debating as it only reinforces your opposition as an opponent rather than a person whom you are trying to mutually enlighten.

I think the word "soul" is very misleading here as well.  

Furthermore, Surrealist, your argument suffers from parsimony and should utilize Ockham's razor.  Your argument, from what we had concluded earlier, is a branch off from the Cogito.  The foundationalistic characteristic of this is what causes the confusion and debate and so I would humbly advise more parsimonious structures.

This is also my way of saying to others that you ought to examine the cogito in relation to this to best understand it.

~

----------


## lotto

> Basically, you are trying to use a logical fallacy to debunk a logical argument. You assert that:
> "Non-physical things can't interact with physical things."
> 
> You then try and use this to prove my argument wrong. But all you have is your personal belief that this is true. You have no empirical evidence whatsoever to back up that claim. Neither do you have a logical argument to back it up. I can't even imagine what you were thinking when you tried to use this tactic.



Let me first state that I have not read through this entire thread in detail, though I've browsed it. So forgive me if I jump to conclusions about the opinion of people.

Anyways, I can here and now state that actually *proving you wrong is impossible*. Until we know everything about the world we reside in (which I beleive we never will), nothing can be proven to be false. However, a theory (in this case your theory about there being a soul) has to have proof to convince me and many others, lack of proof against it is not enough. 

In fact, I have a theory of my own:
*I rule the world. I decide everything that happens in our universe, and I created it to begin with.* 

Now prove to me that my theory is wrong, please.

----------


## Surrealist

> Surrealist, perhaps it is in response to others hostility or just a mis-translation in text, but you come of chauvanistic in your rebuttals sometimes.



Well, I am not showing "superiority" in my posts.

While I _do_ try to illustrate how absurd it is, this is to help the poster realize just how off-the-wall his argument is. I'm not saying: _you're not as smart as me_ or anything of that nature. I'm merely pointing out a great, big fallacy in his reasoning(and since he hasn't seen it yet, I'm trying to show him how continuing on this illogical rant is absurd).

If you were in a logical, rational debate with someone and they kept trying to use utterly illogical fallacies to back up their claims, then you would be rightly justified in pointing this out. Not only that, but you'd be rightly justified in questioning exactly what he was thinking to begin with for him to bring it up.

*Basically, all I'm saying above is:*
If someone keeps bringing up a fallacy to back their position up, then I am rightly justified in questioning their thought process. I can't conceivably see how someone would use them, so I'm extremely curious as to why he thinks them justified.





> Just to keep that in mind while debating as it only reinforces your opposition as an opponent rather than a person whom you are trying to mutually enlighten.



Eh... he already established that with his repeated attempts at mocking me and trying to belittle me. I merely question his thought process that he uses to justify illogical fallacies. This isn't _anything_ like what he's already done to me.

I could indeed give numerous examples of his hostility to me... it's quite funny, actually.





> I think the word "soul" is very misleading here as well.



Nah... I've stated many, many times that the definition for "soul" that I'm using is this:




> 1*:* the immaterial essence ... of an individual life



This is the very _first_ definition from the dictionary. I think the word "soul" fits extremely well. Not that I don't see your position; obviously other people would automatically think that I'm talking about a _religious_ type of soul... but I'm not.





> The foundationalistic characteristic of this is what causes the confusion and debate and so I would humbly advise more parsimonious structures.



I agree wholeheartedly... but see, the problem was that I didn't quite know exactly _how_ to be parsimonious without first seeing how people didn't understand it. I tried to anticipate this as best I could from the start, but everyone has their own way of looking at things... which makes it hard to anticipate _everyone's_ misunderstandings.







> Anyways, I can here and now state that actually proving you wrong is impossible.



Allllright... but I think you misunderstand something, because:




> Until we know everything about the world we reside in (which I beleive we never will), nothing can be proven to be false.



That simply isn't true. _Plenty_ of things can be proven false! All reasonable scientific theories have to be falsifiable. We'll go on though:




> However, a theory (in this case your theory about there being a soul) has to have proof to convince me and many others, lack of proof against it is not enough.



I have plenty of proof. I do believe that you have just skimmed this thread... in which case you wouldn't be aware of the massive amount of proof I have for each premise.

Since all my premises are falsifiable, and they each have their own sufficient amount of proof, then my conclusion stands as truth.





> In fact, I have a theory of my own:
> I rule the world. I decide everything that happens in our universe, and I created it to begin with.
> 
> Now prove to me that my theory is wrong, please.



Your theory is unfalsifiable.

Unlike my conclusion(which is unfalsifiable as well) you have no argument to back your's up. You don't have a logical argument with all premises being falsifiable that has, as a conclusion, that "I rule the world. I decide everything that happens in our universe, and I created it to begin with."

I hope you understand all of this... it's all been talked about before, but in so many other ways.

*EDIT:*
Basically, what I am trying to say is:

All my premises are able to be proven false.
If you prove a premise false, then my argument is then unsound.
If my argument is unsound, then I am not proving the existence of a soul.
Then it would just be belief, and not fact.

*But!* If you can't prove a falsifiable premise false, then that makes it pretty rock solid true. If all my premises are this "rock solid true," then my conclusion is as well, since it is a sound argument.

----------


## lotto

> Unlike my conclusion(which is unfalsifiable as well) you have no argument to back your's up.



Here lies the issue. I don't agree with your argument. I'm not gonna repeat everything said in the first page of this thread, but your argument isn't convincing me.

"C. ...and our minds can manipulate our thoughts..."

If you mean "mind" as in our "soul", our "selves", then I'd say no. Free will is an illusion, we are in fact just along for the ride. 

Ah well, I'm tired, and this discussion is never, ever going to end, since we all have our beleifs, and that isn't likely to change. Jesus, we might as well be discussion religion.

Goodnight.

----------


## Surrealist

> Here lies the issue. I don't agree with your argument. I'm not gonna repeat everything said in the first page of this thread, but your argument isn't convincing me.
> 
> "C. ...and our minds can manipulate our thoughts..."



I feel like re-posting stuff, so here it goes:

[Our minds] refers to "that which _is_ subjective experience."

Since we _do have_ subjective experience(at least I hope that _you_ do), then that means that we are "observing" these electrical signals.

If we are observing them(which we are constantly), then we manipulate them. This follows directly from the dual-slit experiment.

The dual-slit experiment has the inevitable conclusion that *observation = manipulation...

*



> If you mean "mind" as in our "soul", our "selves", then I'd say no. Free will is an illusion, we are in fact just along for the ride.



Unlike you, I have evidence to support my position. Pretty rock-solid proof, actually. Just look above!





> Ah well, I'm tired, and this discussion is never, ever going to end, since we all have our beleifs, and that isn't likely to change. Jesus, we might as well be discussion religion.



Nah... this thread never dies because I have a solid, logically sound argument proving that we have a soul. People who vehemently oppose this fact like to try their hardest to bring my argument down. This is because if they bring my argument down, then my conclusion would only be a simple belief.

My conclusion from my argument isn't just a belief though, as you are so keen to try and state.

----------


## lotto

> Since we _do have_ subjective experience



This is not a fact. Explain why this is.

----------


## Sandform

> You then try and use this to prove my argument wrong. But all you have is your personal belief that this is true. You have no empirical evidence whatsoever to back up that claim.




Wrong, it is empirical evidence you twit.  It is not a "personal belief" ask any physicist in the world.  In order for energy to be effected, energy must be used, if the nonphysical is to effect the physical, it must create energy to do this, which violates the law of conservation of energy. 

This *completely* puts your argument to rest, and it is not necessary for anyone to try to argue with you any longer.

The point is, if something is in action, only another energy can effect its action, thus it is impossible for something that is not energy to effect something that is energy.  
Your only clinging to beliefs here.





> Just because you say: "oh, well this non-physical thing must have energy, so it has to be physical energy..."



What you don't understand, is that to interfere with something, energy is required, this energy must remain after it is exerted, and thus this violates the law of conservation of energy.

If an action of the brain is in place, energy is needed to effect this action from going from a different path than originally intended.  Your claims are finished, I'm sure you'll reply with something trying to discount what I've said, but you can't, and if you try you will only be made a fool.  Because we've gone from you trying to make a logical argument, to you just trying to cling to some silly little argument you seem to "think" you made up yourself, when in reality you've just been stealing it from other people.

Earlier I stated that the physical could be doing it, "you" just don't know how, now we've arived to a point where your saying the non-physical can be doing "I" just don't know how.

----------


## Surrealist

> This is not a fact. Explain why this is.



 ::shock:: ...... :boogie: 

So you are denying that you have subjective experience? I'm sorry, but that would make you the very first fully-conscious human being without subjective experiences on record.







> Wrong, it is empirical evidence you twit. It is not a "personal belief" ask any physicist in the world. In order for energy to be effected, energy must be used, if the nonphysical is to effect the physical, it must create energy to do this, which violates the law of conservation of energy.
> 
> This completely puts your argument to rest, and it is not necessary for anyone to try to argue with you any longer.
> 
> The point is, if something is in action, only another energy can effect its action, thus it is impossible for something that is not energy to effect something that is energy.
> Your only clinging to beliefs here.



No... it _doesn't_ put my argument to rest. Let me repost that one quote that you seem to love to ignore:




> *Perhaps the chief objection to dualism questions how two utterly different properties can interact with one another.* In other words, *it seems implausible to imagine how a mind lacking any material properties could interact with a body lacking any immaterial properties.* This is a difficult question for dualists to face, and I would concede that no plausible explanation for how causal interaction occurs between mind and body has been given. Indeed, the question of causal interaction is the "hard problem" for dualism.
> 
> Nonetheless, I do not believe the problem of causal interaction is devastating for dualism. *Since this objection does not show that it is logically impossible for such interaction to take place, it only highlights an epistemic problem-niamely that we do not know how such interaction takes place.*



You are just simply saying, "oh, it is so inconceivable that something non-physical can interact with something physical that it must be impossible!"

If something were non-physical, wouldn't it have some energy? You are simply saying that energy is only physical, *but you can't state that non-physical energy does not exist... this is your chief problem.*

*So... just because you say that non-physical energy doesn't exist, that doesn't make it true.*





> What you don't understand, is that to interfere with something, energy is required, this energy must remain after it is exerted, and thus this violates the law of conservation of energy.



Not if this non-physical thing has a non-physical source of energy! You are simply saying that non-physical energy doesn't exist.

_You are arguing something which is so utterly illogical, that you can't even see it._ I can't _possibly_ imagine how someone can use an illogical fallacy with such determining conviction... that is, unless they are cornered and can't find any other way to argue. This is to illustrate:

1. You claim that for the non-physical to interact with the physical, energy is required.
*So far, so good... I totally agree with this!* 

2. You claim that the non-physical would then have to _create_ this energy.
*Nope.... here is where you use a straw-man. The non-physical would not have to create energy if it already possessed a source of non-physical energy. No where have you proven that non-physical energy does not exist.* You also haven't proven that energy can't transfer from the non-physical to the physical.

So you are using two fallacies now... a *straw-man*, and an *argument from ignorance...*

----------


## Sandform

> *You are arguing something which is so utterly illogical, that you can't even see it.*[/I] I can't _possibly_ imagine how someone can use an illogical fallacy with such determining conviction...



Really? you've been doing it for quite some time...

You don't seem to realize that your assertion that the physical can not produce what you seem to believe is not produceable by physical means is far more non-logical than my statement that a non-physical thing can't interact with physical things.

And it is a little bit ironic that your quotations come from a bias informative area, and it is also ironic that you intend to skip over a bit of the quote yourself...that of 





> This is a difficult question for dualists to face, and I would concede that *no plausible explanation for how causal interaction occurs between mind and body has been given.*



You are a failure.

----------


## O'nus

Surrealist;

If everyone is misunderstanding you, perhaps you should re-consider your argument structure and presentation.

And it is not the case of "everyone is simply incapable of understanding and I am the only smart one".  My point is just that others would feel subordinated by the hostile responses and being in the position of presenting an argument, I would hold it most noble to maintain your nobility of...

Aw forget it.. I hope you get what I mean, I just lost the urge to explain any further.

~

----------


## Surrealist

> Really? you've been doing it for quite some time...



Ha ha ha... I've been doing it for quite some time when all of my posts have been backed up by evidence and hard facts, and all your posts come from meaningless fallacies? Give me a break...  ::roll:: 





> You don't seem to realize that your assertion that the physical can not produce what you seem to believe is not producible by physical means is far more non-logical than my statement that a non-physical thing can't interact with physical things.



No see... your statement isn't supported by a logical argument. You have only your statement, which is a belief.

My argument is supported by facts and evidence, which all converge to produce a rational, logical conclusion.

The fact that you don't believe that a non-physical energy source exists doesn't disprove my argument whatsoever. It's just a belief that you are using to try and attack a logical fact.

It would be like me saying: "Oh, I don't believe that animals can gain complexity by random mutations..." and then using that as evidence against Evolution. Do you see how ridiculous your position looks? You are reduced to being like you must think all creationists are like... reduced to attacking facts with beliefs.





> And it is a little bit ironic that your quotations come from a bias informative area, and it is also ironic that you intend to skip over a bit of the quote yourself...that of



No... you see, he is giving the 100&#37; truth here. He is explaining that your position comes from a logical fallacy, and that it can't be used to prove dualism false.

You can't attack a logical argument with your beliefs, but that is exactly what you are doing right now. It's pathetic.





> You are a failure.



Nope... you are, because you can't see the fallacious nature of your own posts.







> Surrealist;
> 
> If everyone is misunderstanding you, perhaps you should re-consider your argument structure and presentation.
> 
> And it is not the case of "everyone is simply incapable of understanding and I am the only smart one". My point is just that others would feel subordinated by the hostile responses and being in the position of presenting an argument, I would hold it most noble to maintain your nobility of...
> 
> Aw forget it.. I hope you get what I mean, I just lost the urge to explain any further.



No... I perfectly understand you. Don't worry, I take no offense to your words. I agree, but how it was presented can not be changed. I reply to accusations of my argument being fallacious by pointing out how they are wrong. I always have remained cool and collected until someone(like Sandform) decides that to save face he must try and belittle me.

For example, I've already started presenting it in a better way in other places... and all coming from the experience here. Presented in this much better fashion, there are a _lot_ less irrational responses.

----------


## O'nus

Just saying this because you thought that I was being hostile when I was trying to be as sincere and civil as possible.

If we were in person, we would have never found ourselves questioning hostile overtones, I am willing to bet.

~

----------


## Surrealist

> Just saying this because you thought that I was being hostile when I was trying to be as sincere and civil as possible.
> 
> If we were in person, we would have never found ourselves questioning hostile overtones, I am willing to bet.
> 
> ~



Exactly... because in person we could _see_ that we weren't being hostile. I mean, little smileys help out with this, but they don't really show the _tone_ of the text.


Sandform, on the other hand, loves placing things like "little twit" and such in his posts... which is why I can only conclude that he is being hostile. And I can conclude, from his form of argument, that he is only being hostile because he must resort to using fallacies to support his view.


While I completely regret discussion with Sandform ending in hostility, I wasn't the proponent of it. I was only looking for rational debate, and not emotional debate.

----------


## RedfishBluefish

> My argument is supported by facts and evidence, which all converge to produce a rational, logical conclusion.



Incorrect. Your statement that the physical cannot account for awareness has no facts supporting it whatsoever. You can say you proved that "subjective awareness" is not "a thought", but that has not proved that (for example) "subjective awareness" is not a property of "a thought".
(See below for expansion)





> The fact that you don't believe that a non-physical energy source exists doesn't disprove my argument whatsoever. It's just a belief that you are using to try and attack a logical fact.



So you think non-physical energy exists?
Energy has mass, so either you think non-physical things have mass, or somehow "non-physical" energy doesn't have mass. That should allow for some interesting experiments to be done on the continuously changing mass of the human brain (as physical energy gets converted to "non-physical" energy as vice versa).





> I don't have any problem whatsoever.







> You know what's also impossible? Manipulating a transient instantaneous event while it's happening.
> Example:
> Two atoms bump into one another. The different electrovalencies of the two atoms causes one to take an electron from the other's outer shell. Either it happens or it doesn't. A nearby electric field could prevent this from happening or reverse the reaction once it's happened, but there's really nothing to change when it's happening.



Please pay attention.





> *Exactly, but I'm not talking about the "source" when I use Leibniz's Law...* I'm just talking about "subjective experience" by itself. Leibniz's Law specifically shows that subjective experience isn't "electrical impulses or chemical reactions."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by RedfishBluefish
> 
> ...



Sometimes I think you don't read my posts before responding.
How are these incompatible?:
A is not B
A is the source of B

Clouds are not lightning.
Clouds are the source of lightning.

Awareness is not [a physical object].
[A physical object] is the source of awareness.





> The dual-slit experiment has the inevitable conclusion that *observation = manipulation...*



That's only one far-from-proved interpretation among many.

----------


## lotto

> The dual-slit experiment has the inevitable conclusion that [B]observation = manipulation...



As stated before me, this is a theory.





> So you are denying that you have subjective experience? I'm sorry, but that would make you the very first fully-conscious human being without subjective experiences on record.



Oh, but it's my brain that has subjective experience, not "me". All this experience is stored in axons throughout the brain.





> Since we do have subjective experience(at least I hope that you do), then that means that we are "observing" these electrical signals.



No it doesn't. Another part of our very physical brain is "observing" these electrical signals, not our "soul".

To conclude, there's no reason for us to exist in "non-physical" form, since existing in physical form works on it's own. You can't seriously deny the fact that our brain would function just fine without the interference of "non-physical" sources.

----------


## Idolfan

I think it's _obvious_ that the soul exists, otherwise how come we're not just machines, how come we are actually _experiencing_ a life inside this body.

What confuses me is that with that argument comes the question: Could the brain be so advanced it could trick us into thinking that we had souls? It sounds like a really stupid question because I could bet the life of every person alive that I had a soul, but still there's no proof of it. Can our brains "trick" us into thinking we exist? It can do a load of cool other stuff so it's only logical. Maybe I just beleive I have a soul and I am experiencing this life but actually I'm still just an organic machiene? Look at jaberwakky, IT beleives it is real but it's just an AI programme! It doesn't have the POWER not to beleive it isn't real, just like humans. You don't know whether I perceive my life in the same way you do so you can't know whether I am conscious of my existance or just like a robot?

Sorry guys I'm really tired and dizzy and I think I've got low blood pressure... really weird stuff comes out of my gob when I'm like this...

----------


## O'nus

> I think it's _obvious_ that the soul exists, otherwise how come we're not just machines, how come we are actually _experiencing_ a life inside this body.



You can only be certain of that about yourself.  This is the point.  I cannot prove to you that I have a soul so much as you cannot prove to me that you have a soul.





> So you think non-physical energy exists?
> Energy has mass



Studies launching in May of this year are trying to explore the energy without mass.

Search google for "energy without mass" and CERN for the large hadron collider (LHC) that is being launched this year.

Conspiracy theorist will say that the launch has been postponed these years because of people like the Vatican and other fundamentalists because they do not want the soul to be simply another scientific fact.

~

----------


## polmc

> As stated before me, this is a theory.
> Oh, but it's my brain that has subjective experience, not "me". All this experience is stored in axons throughout the brain.



In a time where books like "The Soul is in the Brain", are bestsellers. In a time where soul has become a useless term where the only thing that matters is matter (that is empirical phenomenon), in a time of soulless psychology, the symptoms come from the "inside": anorexia, hysteria, psychosis, anguish crisis, *depression*, addiction, panic, phobias, compulsions... and from the "outside: phenomenon of mass destruction such as nuclear threat (weapons of mass destruction), globalization (imperialism), increase of starvation and poverty, and now the imminent threat of the disappearance of life as we know due to climate change.... 

In such an inhospitable time in which Heidegger's predictions about technique's dominion over human thought seem to have come true, in such times when I see a phrase like yours, it just makes realize how f*cked up we are...

----------


## Surrealist

> Incorrect. Your statement that the physical cannot account for awareness has no facts supporting it whatsoever. You can say you proved that "subjective awareness" is not "a thought", but that has not proved that (for example) "subjective awareness" is not a property of "a thought".
> (See below for expansion)



Hahaha... I don't need to _show_ that it isn't a property. All my argument requires is to show that they are not the same. As I have already mentioned, the second half of my argument demonstrates this _non-physical_ quality.





> So you think non-physical energy exists?
> Energy has mass, so either you think non-physical things have mass, or somehow "non-physical" energy doesn't have mass. That should allow for some interesting experiments to be done on the continuously changing mass of the human brain (as physical energy gets converted to "non-physical" energy as vice versa).



Really? Well, considering that the energy needed to alter the state of one lone electrical impulse is so small, I hardly think it would be detectable enough for interesting experiments to come from it.





> Sometimes I think you don't read my posts before responding.
> How are these incompatible?:
> A is not B
> A is the source of B
> 
> Clouds are not lightning.
> Clouds are the source of lightning.
> 
> Awareness is not [a physical object].
> [A physical object] is the source of awareness.



You don't seem to follow the logic well enough. You see, the first half indeed has this problem, but it is taken care of by the second half. You can't just throw out the second half of my argument and say, "oh, well the first half doesn't demonstrate how it isn't physical, so that means it isn't!"





> That's only one far-from-proved interpretation among many.



Interpretation? Well, I'm sorry, but interpretations don't debunk logical arguments...







> As stated before me, this is a theory.



No... they have theories on _why_ it happens, but as far as "observation = manipulation" goes, it is a direct empirical truth that comes from the experiment.





> Oh, but it's my brain that has subjective experience, not "me". All this experience is stored in axons throughout the brain.



Well, you can _say_ that your brain is responsible all you want, but this doesn't attack my argument whatsoever. Since my conclusion debunks this statement, you have to attack the premises in order to prove your point.





> No it doesn't. Another part of our very physical brain is "observing" these electrical signals, not our "soul".
> 
> To conclude, there's no reason for us to exist in "non-physical" form, since existing in physical form works on it's own. You can't seriously deny the fact that our brain would function just fine without the interference of "non-physical" sources.



You are making the mistake of attacking the conclusion instead of attacking the premises. You can't just say, "oh, you're conclusion is wrong," and then try and back that up with evidence. You misunderstand exactly how a logical argument works.

You see, I have a bunch of premises that show how the conclusion _has_ to be true. To show that the conclusion _might not be_ true, you have to show how the premises are wrong. You haven't done this.







> I think it's _obvious_ that the soul exists, otherwise how come we're not just machines, how come we are actually _experiencing_ a life inside this body.



Which is the core of my argument. Subjective Experience...







> In such an inhospitable time in which Heidegger's predictions about technique's dominion over human thought seem to have come true, in such times when I see a phrase like yours, it just makes realize how f*cked up we are...



[/quote]
Yeah... exactly... my problem is I wonder how someone could be so dogmatic of a view(that all that exists is physical matter) without any evidence for it whatsoever.

----------


## O'nus

Just to emphasize again:

Experiments will be launched in May 2008, at CERN, for energy without mass.

~

----------


## Sandform

You are such a tool, kinetic energy can't come from no where.

----------


## Lonewolf

> Just follow these simple statements... taking care to understand each one before preceding to the next, and tell me what you think.
> 1. Thought cannot experience thought.
> 2. Our minds experience thought.
> 3. Therefore our minds are not thought.
> A. If we have an only physical mind, then only thoughts can manipulate thoughts.
> B. Since our minds are not thought...
> C. ...and our minds can manipulate our thoughts...
> D. ...then our minds are not only physical.



.

Except you simply can't rationilize like that. That itself is faulty logic. Here are some examples of fallacies: 

Verbal fallacies: "A feather is light. What is light cannot be dark. Therefore a feather cannot be dark." 

'Fallacy of Four terms' looks like this: 

"Nothing is better than complete happiness. A ham sandwich is better than nothing. Therefore a ham sandwich is better than complete happiness.

Or the fallacy of the Undistributed Middle' looks like A=B & C=D, therefore B=D.
"All students carry backpacks. Therefore, my grandfather is a student."

I got this out of a conversational hypnosis book. I'm just saying you have to be careful before you try to do that kind of persuasion.

Thoughts can definately experience thought. Past experiences (which are buried thoughts) can affect what you are thinking right now.

Anyways, where did you get the idea that only our thoughts can manipulate our thoughts? Our feelings, emotions, and intuition can also. 

Our minds probably seem like its more than physical but that is because of the power of the subconscious mind. A quote: "You know more than you think."

----------


## O'nus

> You are such a tool, kinetic energy can't come from no where.



Who are you talking to?

Insults only demonstrate intellectual incompetence to formulate substantial responses.  Notice that your response is just as good as saying, "You are wrong" and that is all.  You do not offer contrary explanations or any other substantial point to consider other than blatant blind scrutiny.  

Furthermore, I have noted and explained how, in this year, studies will be commensed to show how energy has no mass.  Please consider looking into it.

Also, can you explain what created the big bang then?  This does not need to imply a "God" but it does imply that everything, including the initial big bang, may have been started by an initial spark of kinetic energy.  Motion is the mover her and once everything start moving (received kinetic energy) then, scientifically, it is possible to have had everything come from this.

I elaborated becaues I did not want you to jump to conclusions in believing that I am a theist when it is profoundly the contrary.  If you are going to respond, please at least give us something with substance to consider rather than a vapid one.

Lonewolf, he is making a difficult branch from the cogito.  The statement ought to be "synaptic transmissions cannot experience syanptic transmisisons" in the sense that your neurons, on an individual level, cannot _experience_ themselves but can, on an introverted level, examine the nature of themselves.

Does that help?


*Sandform*

Have you considered that what Surrealist is referring to as the soul is directly similar to energy without mass, etc?
~

----------


## Sandform

> *Sandform*
> 
> Have you considered that what Surrealist is referring to as the soul is directly similar to energy without mass, etc?
> ~



I was talking to Surrealist, he's been being an ass for a while now.  I offered a physics problem earlier that proved my statement.  I wasn't "just saying it."





> non-physical can not effect physical.
> 
> Physic problem to prove this.
> 
> A perfectly level plane lies within a vacuum.  A perfectly spherical object rests on top of this plane and is not moving.  Unless some sort of force is applied it will never move.  Some sort of energy is necessary to move it.  Energy is physical.
> 
> So now we arrive at the conclusion that in order for your hypothesis to be true non-physical creates physical.  Which you say can not be done.  Also not to forget, the law of conservation of energy states that this is impossible as well.



I was pointing out that the logic he conducts is that  something of one property can't produce something of the different quality with the law he brings up, which if he is allowed to use to argue, I should be allowed to use to counter argue.  Non-physical would not be the same as physical, in order to have effected something, this means it has created kinetic energy.  Just as if the ball moved, kinetic energy is created, if the electrical impulses are moved, then kinetic energy is produced.  With this it means his own logic counter argues himself.

----------


## RedfishBluefish

> I don't have any problem whatsoever.







> You know what's also impossible? Manipulating a transient instantaneous event while it's happening.
> Example:
> Two atoms bump into one another. The different electrovalencies of the two atoms causes one to take an electron from the other's outer shell. Either it happens or it doesn't. A nearby electric field could prevent this from happening or reverse the reaction once it's happened, but there's really nothing to change when it's happening.







> Originally Posted by Surrealist
> 
> Also, you can't manipulate a chemical reaction that doesn't exist yet... that would be absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> Ipso facto, you can't manipulate chemical reactions at all - they don't "exist", they happen then they're gone.



Please pay attention.

And what does only thoughts being able to manipulate thoughts have to do with the mind being physical?





> Originally Posted by lotto
> 
> As stated before me, this is a theory.
> 
> 
> 
> No... they have theories on why it happens, but as far as "observation = manipulation" goes, it is a direct empirical truth that comes from the experiment.



Incorrect, Surrealist. "Observation = manipulation" is not an empirical truth. See: many-worlds theory, copenhagen interpretation, decoherence, consistent histories, the penrose interpretation, the bohm interpretation, etc.
Consciousness-causes-collapse (the one you're using) is one of the least believed interpretations. See here:




> Interpretation? Well, I'm sorry, but interpretations don't debunk logical arguments...



(Or prove them)

----------


## lotto

> You are making the mistake of attacking the conclusion instead of attacking the premises. You can't just say, "oh, you're conclusion is wrong," and then try and back that up with evidence. You misunderstand exactly how a logical argument works.



I did "attack" the premises, the one stating "observation=manipulation". You just didn't listen.

----------


## Surrealist

> You are such a tool, kinetic energy can't come from no where.



Whew... where did this come from?

I'm not saying that energy comes from nowhere... you are obviously intentionally creating a straw-man here.

I'm saying that the non-physical energy transfers some over to the physical realm. You can't debunk this... and you can't use the _possibility_ that it might be false as evidence against my argument, because this would be an *argument from ignorance.*





> I was talking to Surrealist, he's been being an ass for a while now. I offered a physics problem earlier that proved my statement. I wasn't "just saying it."



No... you didn't give any evidence that non-physical energy can't cross into the physical realm. You have no facts or evidence to back this up... just silly conjectures. Conjectures are not facts that you can use to discredit a logical argument.





> Just as if the ball moved, kinetic energy is created, if the electrical impulses are moved, then kinetic energy is produced. With this it means his own logic counter argues himself.



This illustrates your straw-man argument even _better_!

You are saying that non-physical energy can't cross into the physical realm. This wouldn't require any energy to be created at all. I'm sorry, but I fail to see that you are making any kind of concrete rebuttal to my argument.







> Incorrect, Surrealist. "Observation = manipulation" is not an empirical truth.



No... you see, all your examples are _interpretations_ of the observable empirical truth that "observation = manipulation." All those examples are scientist's attempts at trying to explain _why_ this is the case. They do not question that it is true, they simply try to explain _why_ it is true.

You are creating an *argument from ignorance.*

Oh, and then you keep going on about chemical reactions,* like it wasn't settled in the first place.* *You see, chemical reactions can either be instantaneous ones, or constant ones*. Photons hitting your eye _creates_ an instantaneous chemical reaction(it doesn't _manipulate_ one)... this instantaneous one then creates an electrical impulse that travels down your optic nerve which manipulates constant chemical reactions happening in your neurons. *This is an electrical impulse manipulating a chemical reaction.* It's manipulating it, because it is a constant chemical reaction and the electrical impulse is temporarily changing the state of it. *Constant chemical reactions can exist(contrary to what you assert), and can be manipulated by other chemical reactions or electrical impulses while they exist.*








> I did "attack" the premises, the one stating "observation=manipulation". You just didn't listen.



Well... considering how you just said:

"This is just a theory."

That doesn't attack my premise. It _isn't_ a theory that _it happens_, it's a theory about _why_ it happens.

For example, scientists want to come up with all sorts of explanations _why_ "observation = manipulation," so they create theories to explain this. They don't deny that the empirical evidence _shows_ that "observation = manipulation." _That_ is empirical fact.







> Thoughts can definately experience thought. Past experiences (which are buried thoughts) can affect what you are thinking right now.
> 
> Anyways, where did you get the idea that only our thoughts can manipulate our thoughts? Our feelings, emotions, and intuition can also.



I realize that you haven't been an active participant of this thread, so you don't know all the discussion that has went on since the first post. You are quoting the first post, so I'll bring you up to speed:

"Thought" is just a symbol, symbolizing "electrical impulses or chemical reactions." I'm not talking about what you generally think of "thought" as. I'm using it merely as a logical symbol.

So, the argument, without symbols, looks like this:




> 1. [Electrical impulses or chemical reactions] can not [be subjectively aware of] [electrical impulses or chemical reactions].
> 2. [Our minds] can [be subjectively aware of] [electrical impulses or chemical reactions].
> 3. Therefore, [our minds] are not [electrical impulses or chemical reactions].
> 
> A. If [our minds] are only physical, then only [electrical impulses or chemical reactions] can manipulate [electrical impulses or chemical reactions].
> B. [Our minds] are not [electrical impulses or chemical reactions].
> C. [Our minds] can manipulate [electrical impulses or chemical reactions].
> D. Therefore, [our minds] are not only physical.



I'd appreciate, to save a lot of going around in circles, that you would just use this form... since it lacks symbols and is very hard to misinterpret. Do you see?

I also think you are confusing subjective experience with thoughts being able to bring up other thoughts. Subjective experience is a very specific thing.








> Insults only demonstrate intellectual incompetence to formulate substantial responses. Notice that your response is just as good as saying, "You are wrong" and that is all. You do not offer contrary explanations or any other substantial point to consider other than blatant blind scrutiny.



Thanks for the support, but I don't think that Sandform will ever be convinced that this is what he is essentially arguing like. I mean, his last four responses have had some kind of personal attack in them... and these four responses were after I showed how he is wrong.



*
To all that see this thread:*
My only conclusion about Sandform that I can see is that he is getting hostile because, like a wild animal trapped in a corner, he lashes out to try and protect himself(you know, his ego).

----------


## Sandform

> You are saying that non-physical energy can't cross into the physical realm. This wouldn't require any energy to be created at all. I'm sorry, but I fail to see that you are making any kind of concrete rebuttal to my argument.



I'm using your own law to contradict you, if my argument is a "straw-man" argument, then yours is as well.  X = Y only if X is the same as Y right?  Non-physical energy = physical energy only if non-physical energy is physical energy, which by definition it is not.  Your OWN logic counters your logic.  Kinetic energy is PHYSICAL.  Non physical energy IS NOT physical.  Since the law you bring up counter argues this, your own statements are just ridiculous.  If you say that non-physical can create physical, then you are not allowed to say the brain can't accomplish the tasks you are trying to say it can not.

----------


## Surrealist

> I'm using your own law to contradict you, if my argument is a "straw-man" argument, then yours is as well.  X = Y only if X is the same as Y right?  Non-physical energy = physical energy only if non-physical energy is physical energy, which by definition it is not.



This is _your_ straw-man. I'm not saying that non-physical energy isn't physical energy. I'm just saying energy is energy.

I'm saying that non-physical energy can transfer over to physical energy... they are still _both_ energy.





> Your OWN logic counters your logic.  Kinetic energy is PHYSICAL.  Non physical energy IS NOT physical.  Since the law you bring up counter argues this, your own statements are just ridiculous.  If you say that non-physical can create physical, then you are not allowed to say the brain can't accomplish the tasks you are trying to say it can not.



I'm not saying that non-physical energy creates physical energy at all... this is your *straw-man.

I'm saying that energy is energy, and it can change forms.* Pretty freakin' simple if I say so myself.

I mean, this is observed everywhere in science... you know, energy changing forms. It's a pretty established thing. So, I'm just saying that non-physical energy changes to physical energy. You can't come up with anything to prove this wrong. All you have is a belief that you attempt to use to prove a logical argument wrong.

Beliefs can't be used to debunk arguments. That would be irrational.

----------


## Sandform

> Beliefs can't be used to debunk arguments. That would be irrational



 ::roll::   Then your not allowed to use your belief that it is necessary for a nonphysical entity to exist for the brain to function the way it does.

----------


## Surrealist

> Then your not allowed to use your belief that it is necessary for a nonphysical entity to exist for the brain to function the way it does.



I'm not using beliefs to support my argument.

I'm using premises that all are supported by *facts.*

Your belief isn't supported by *facts*, so it can't be used to debunk my argument.

Neither can you say that my argument is only beliefs, because I support them all with fact. You are simply delving into the realm of incoherency now.

*I don't "believe" that a non-physical entity is required... I prove that it is required by rational deduction.*
You are apparently overlooking that glaring detail.  ::roll::

----------


## RedfishBluefish

Okay - "observation = manipulation"
I might as well point out that that applies to any observation, including ones that don't involve anything non-physical - ie. even in a completely physical world, your brain can still be manipulated by you (the observer).

"Small" chemical reactions cannot be manipulated at all, then?
And not even by observation?

----------


## Surrealist

> Okay - "observation = manipulation"
> I might as well point out that that applies to any observation, including ones that don't involve anything non-physical - ie. even in a completely physical world, your brain can still be manipulated by you (the observer).



Yeah, sure, but when you come to the conclusion that the mind isn't electrical impulses or chemical reactions... a lot of things can be deduced from this:

1. Since the only physical things that can change the state of electrical impulses or chemical reactions are only those two things, then if you can demonstrate that something else can manipulate them... you have sufficiently shown that it is non-physical.

2. I show how our minds, which are not electrical impulses or chemical reactions, _do manipulate_ these things. Since our minds _aren't_ the only physical things that can manipulate them, then it follows that our minds are not physical.

Pretty straightforward.





> "Small" chemical reactions cannot be manipulated at all, then?
> And not even by observation?



It doesn't really have any bearing if they can or can not. I have shown that my "chemical reactions" in my argument encompasses both continuous and instantaneous chemical reactions.

You just can't seem to admit that this has been settled like 5 different times.

Chemical reactions happening in your brain are the constant variety. Electrical impulses manipulate them all the time, billions of times a second. When they manipulate them, it causes them to release neurotransmitters, which them go to create a chemical reaction that manipulates the constant chemical reaction in the neighboring neuron. This constant chemical reaction then creates an electrical impulse.

So... the conclusion? Chemical reactions can be manipulated if they are the constant variety. Instantaneous chemical reactions _can not_ be manipulated... only created(which isn't manipulation).

This particular thread of reasoning has been totally debunked. Like... _really_ debunked.

----------


## RedfishBluefish

> Since the only physical things that can change the state of electrical impulses or chemical reactions are only those two things...



...and any observer!

Look, what you're saying is "observation = manipulation" and only [thoughts] can manipulate [thoughts] - therefore only [thoughts] can observe [thoughts] (because any other observation would cause manipulation, which you say is impossible).
You still have not explained how physicality relates to premise A, and neither have you proven that premise A is true.

And I thought the reason physicists thought "observation = manipulation" was because of the interaction between the object and apparatus. Obviously the apparatus is physical.

----------


## dr. mike

http://toprelaxationtechniques.blogspot.com/

----------


## Surrealist

> ...and any observer!
> 
> Look, what you're saying is "observation = manipulation" and only [thoughts] can manipulate [thoughts] - therefore only [thoughts] can observe [thoughts] (because any other observation would cause manipulation, which you say is impossible).



Nope... you're getting it all screwed up...

observation -> manipulation

not manipulation -> observation

Things can manipulate things without observing them... I mean, cmon, this happens all the time!

*So... I'm saying that only [thoughts] can manipulate [thoughts]... I'm not saying anything about "observing" here. Whew... man.* Just because you can yell out... "and any observer!" unfortunately doesn't make my premise false. To illustrate... we'll answer your quote below:





> You still have not explained how physicality relates to premise A, and neither have you proven that premise A is true.



lol... I did. This is how:

Since the only physical thing that can manipulate [thoughts] are [thoughts], then if I show that something else manipulates [thoughts], then I show that that thing is* not* physical.

Since I demonstrated how our minds are not [thoughts], and I demonstrated that our minds *do* manipulate [thoughts], then I've shown that it isn't physical.

The fact that the only physical thing that can manipulate [thoughts] are [thoughts] is a pretty well-documented scientific fact. It's pretty straightforward.





> And I thought the reason physicists thought "observation = manipulation" was because of the interaction between the object and apparatus. Obviously the apparatus is physical.



No... they have _no idea_ why observation equals manipulation... they just know that it is true. The reason why there are so many different interpreting theories about it shows this.








> http://toprelaxationtechniques.blogspot.com/



A lurker whose only post is a link to a website...

Maybe he is posting this link to help those that are getting a little too angry over this thread, or it's just some clever(or not) ad placement.

----------


## Surrealist

Oh, I came up with this little argument and thought I'd post it on here to see what people who look to debate rationally about things think about it. Namely, I'd like to see what _O'nus_ thinks about it.

People who just irrationally try and bash my first argument are people I'm *not* looking for criticism from. I guess I'd have to accept it anyways, but you know, don't expect me just to _agree_ with you because you disagree with it. You'll have to respond rationally, of course.

The argument:
*1. Properties can't manipulate anything.
2. Our non-physical minds can manipulate things.
3. Therefore, our non-physical minds are not properties.*

I _believe_ that this demonstrates how my argument argues for _substance_ dualism instead of _property_ dualism. I believe that this is so because if our non-physical minds are not properties of physical things, then they are completely separate from them altogether.

While my argument _does_ establish dualism, it only, before this post, established no particular _kind_.

----------


## polmc

> Look, what you're saying is "observation = manipulation" and only [thoughts] can manipulate [thoughts] - therefore only [thoughts] can observe [thoughts] (because any other observation would cause manipulation, which you say is impossible).



What you're saying is a fallacy, just like Surrealist pointed out. Check your logic again!

----------


## Surrealist

> Originally Posted by RedfishBluefish
> 
> Look, what you're saying is "observation = manipulation" and only [thoughts] can manipulate [thoughts] - therefore only [thoughts] can observe [thoughts] (because any other observation would cause manipulation, which you say is impossible).
> 
> 
> 
> What you're saying is a fallacy, just like Surrealist pointed out. Check your logic again!



Exactly... thanks for a second opinion on this. To be precise, it is the straw-man fallacy:




> A *straw man* argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. Often, the straw man is set up to deliberately overstate the opponent's position.



You can see that many, or actually all, of the attributes that characterize a "straw-man" are in RedfishBluefish's quote.

To point out exactly why: RFBF took "observation = manipulation" and overstated it to extend the other way. Basically just flipping it around to "manipulation needs observation" and saying that _that_ is what I'm saying, when it is not. It makes it easy to refute, sure, but it isn't my argument being refuted.

----------


## RedfishBluefish

eh?

I said: if observation = manipulation, and a [non-thought] observes a [thought], then a [non-thought] manipulates a [thought] - which violates your premise.

BTW - I've been on holiday and now I'm back! Let the wars continue!  :smiley:

----------


## Surrealist

> eh?
> 
> I said: if observation = manipulation, and a [non-thought] observes a [thought], then a [non-thought] manipulates a [thought] - which violates your premise.



No... it doesn't violate my premise, it actually only uses it.

You see... if the only physical things which can manipulate [thoughts] are [thoughts]... and a [non-thought] manipulates a [thought], then this [non-thought] must be non-physical. That is what my premise states, which is why it is an "if...then" type of premise. If you prove the "then" part false, then logically speaking, the "if" part must be false as well.

You see, you have only discovered what I meant to be there in the first place. Obviously [non-thoughts] manipulate [thoughts], that would be "our minds..." but because of this, going along with my premise, that would make the [non-thoughts] non-physical.

You've just stumbled upon the core of the deductive model of my argument, that's all.

I mean, I understand what you're trying to say... that our minds observing "proves" premise A wrong, but it doesn't. It just confirms that the "if" part is false as well.

*
In a logic course, they illustrate it this way:

If A, then B.
Not B.
Therefore, not A.

That would be a textbook example of a perfectly logical argument. It's actually touted as a "form." For example, when you look at a truth table illustrating an "if...then," it looks like this:
*



```
A         B         If A, then B
----------------------------------
T         T               T
T         F               F
F         T               T
F         F               T


```


*
You see, the only impossibility that exists is for the B to be false and the A to be true at the same time. This forces us to choose the only other option which has B as false, and that is the one where A is false as well.

An example would be:

If water is frozen, the core temperature can't be above 40 degrees.
The temperature of this specimen is 55 degrees.
Therefore, this specimen is not frozen water.
*




> BTW - I've been on holiday and now I'm back! Let the wars continue!



Well, welcome back... but just to keep it clear: I don't think of this as a "war," but as a debate. Debates are a lot more civil, and I intend on remaining civil.

----------


## RedfishBluefish

What?
All I was saying was that A implies "only [thoughts] and [non-physical things] can observe [thoughts]".
On the other hand, in most interpretations of quantum mechanics, "observations" don't have to involve subjective awareness - and are carried out by physical things.

----------


## Surrealist

> What?
> All I was saying was that A implies "only [thoughts] and [non-physical things] can observe [thoughts]".
> On the other hand, in most interpretations of quantum mechanics, "observations" don't have to involve subjective awareness - and are carried out by physical things.



In all those instances of "observation" by physical things, the method of observation involved interaction with other [thoughts].

These observations(especially in the first dual-slit experiment) of the electrons where only able to be done by the electrons reacting to other electrons in the detector. Or the electron reacting with the constant chemical reaction and causing a change in the state of the chemical reaction(which was then registered by the detector).

----------


## RedfishBluefish

> Or the electron reacting with the constant chemical reaction and causing a change in the state of the chemical reaction(which was then registered by the detector).



Do we assume that the constant chemical reactions is then observed by the detector?

----------


## Surrealist

> Do we assume that the constant chemical reactions is then observed by the detector?



The change in the constant chemical reaction produces electrons which go into the circuit of the computer and tell the computer that it has observed an electron. There are only [thoughts] involved here...

Basically... the only physical things which are capable of observing [thoughts], are [thoughts]. You haven't given an example otherwise, you've just given an example of a [thought] observing a [thought].

This is a pretty dead-end thread of reasoning... nothing is going to come from you debating premise A. Premise A is upheld by all empirical evidence.

----------


## RedfishBluefish

Wait, are you saying a computer is a [thought]?
Again we come back to this:
<- = "observes"
A <- B <- C <- D <- E
A is not a [thought].
E is a [thought].
Therefore everything preceding E is a [thought].
Paradox.

----An edit:
You respond to this by stating that direct observations are only "experienced" by [thoughts] (I assume you mean that is what causes collapse).
In that case, an indirect observation need not equal manipulation, and there is no evidence that the observation of subjective experience is direct. Thus the subjective experience can be external, physical, and observe indirectly.

----------


## Xaqaria

Wasn't it your original premise that thoughts cannot observe thoughts? Is it just me or have you completely changed your stance on the subject?

----------


## RedfishBluefish

No, there he was referring to conscious observation.
In fact he should probably simplify that to "thoughts are non-conscious, we are conscious, ..."

----------


## Surrealist

> Wasn't it your original premise that thoughts cannot observe thoughts? Is it just me or have you completely changed your stance on the subject?



Nope... I believe "experience" was the word. "Observe" here is just the process of obtaining information about an object. "Experience" in my argument is specifically meaning "subjective experience..." which is an entirely different thing altogether.







> Wait, are you saying a computer is a [thought]?



Well... tell me what kind of computer doesn't work on electrons, and I'll show you a really cool computer.





> Again we come back to this:
> <- = "observes"
> A <- B <- C <- D <- E
> A is not a [thought].
> E is a [thought].
> Therefore everything preceding E is a [thought].
> Paradox.



Paradox? omg... don't make me have an aneurysm... check it out:

<- observes
>> creates
-> manipulates

A <- B >> C -> D ......... E >> F

where:
A = electron
B = chemical reaction
C = electron
D = electrons in computer
.... = electrons in computer calculating which is only electrons manipulating more electrons or chemical reactions(i.e. lead resistors, or capacitors... blah blah...)
E = end chemical reaction which creates a photon
F = photon consisting of the image of what the detector says

In the end of this long chain of reactions between chemical reactions and electrons, we end up with the creation of a photon... ending the chain until it eventually hits our eyeball and starts a whole new chain of chemical reactions and electrical impulses.


You can't extrapolate that everything preceding E is a [thought] because along the way a chemical reaction can create something else entirely, and that would not mean that the thing that it created "observed" E at all... like my example with a photon. The photon didn't observe E, E created the photon. *There you go: no paradox.*

Creation is the loop-breaker which shows that it isn't a "paradox..." just like your initial theories about photons and them manipulating chemical reactions. The photon didn't manipulate the chemical reaction, it created it.

Much the same here... "observation" doesn't need to lead on into infinity because a chemical reaction can create something besides another chemical reaction or electrical impulse... it can create a photon. This doesn't contradict my premise. You've found no "paradox" or flaw.





> ----An edit:
> You respond to this by stating that direct observations are only "experienced" by [thoughts] (I assume you mean that is what causes collapse).



I don't state anything about indirect observation. Check out my rebuttal above to get what I'm saying. I have no need to state that physical observations of [thoughts] are only "directly" observed by other [thoughts]... I'm saying that all physical observations of [thoughts] are done by [thoughts]. Pretty simple.

----------


## RedfishBluefish

> <- observes
> >> creates
> -> manipulates
> 
> A <- B >> C -> D ......... E >> F
> 
> where:
> A = electron
> B = chemical reaction
> ...



Wait a minute... A chemical reaction _creates_ an electron?!
It's all a bit moot anyway really, because the fact remains that I (the experimenter) - and everything else in the room - have obtained information about [whatever it was we're supposed to be observing], and therefore (by your own definition) observed it.





> You can't extrapolate that everything preceding E is a [thought] because along the way a chemical reaction can create something else entirely, and that would not mean that the thing that it created "observed" E at all... like my example with a photon. The photon didn't observe E, E created the photon. *There you go: no paradox.*



Information about E can be deduced from the existence (and properties) of the photon, therefore it must have "observed" E. Take the example of a decaying atom of plutonium. The atom creates a gamma ray (which happens to be a sort of photon). By observing that ray, one can deduce the decay of the atom - thus there has been information delivered (which is the definition of observation).





> I don't state anything about indirect observation. Check out my rebuttal above to get what I'm saying. I have no need to state that physical observations of [thoughts] are only "directly" observed by other [thoughts]... *I'm saying that all physical observations of [thoughts] are done by [thoughts]*. Pretty simple.



...
Even the when random pieces of furniture obtain information about a house fire (which is a chemical reaction) by being burnt up?

____
There is no evidence that the observation of subjective experience is direct. It's possible I hear my thoughts just like I hear sounds, and just like a piece of paper observes a lightning strike (electrical impulse) that burns through it (yes, by getting a hole burned through my middle ::D: ).

----------


## Surrealist

> ____
> There is no evidence that the observation of subjective experience is direct. It's possible I hear my thoughts just like I hear sounds, and just like a piece of paper observes a lightning strike (electrical impulse) that burns through it (yes, by getting a hole burned through my middle).



Look... you're missing an important fact... *electrons can only manipulate electrons... there's no way for them to manipulate anything else.*

Even if you send a little bit of electrons into solid matter, it isn't the solid matter which causes it to dissipate... *the energy of the electron gets absorbed by the energy of the electrons orbiting the atoms.* It doesn't strike the nucleus.

What you're saying goes against science...

Not only can the only thing which can manipulate electrons be electrons or chemical reactions, but electrons can only manipulate electrons or chemical reactions. It's a fact of science... they teach it to you in grade school.

----------


## Photolysis

> Just follow these simple statements... taking care to understand each one before preceding to the next, and tell me what you think.
> 
> 1. Thought cannot experience thought.
> 2. Our minds experience thought.
> 3. Therefore our minds are not thought.
> 
> A. If we have an only physical mind, then only thoughts can manipulate thoughts.
> B. Since our minds are not thought...
> C. ...and our minds can manipulate our thoughts...
> D. ...then our minds are not only physical.



1. Irrelevant point. Thoughts/Thinking are a mental process. This is equivalent to saying running cannot run or love itself cannot love. It's completely meaningless and nonsensical.
2. Our minds produce thoughts. We experience the effects of those thoughts
3. True but meaningless. You are saying that our mind is not a mental process; it isn't, it's a physical object, not an abstract concept. Meaningless stating of the obvious.

A) Incorrect. Thoughts do not manipulate thoughts, and this is irrelevant to the state of the mind. The brain's manipulation of information creates thoughts, and the brain alone.#

B) Again, irrelevant and meaningless

C) Create not manipulate. Manipulate implies control of something already there, instead of being created for a purpose.

D) Conclusion reached with no evidence and meaningless arguments. It's similar to asking "what is the colour of abstraction". Gramatically it might be fine, but the question itself has no meaning.

The argument uses incorrect and meaningless points to draw a conclusion.

----------


## Surrealist

> 1. Irrelevant point. Thoughts/Thinking are a mental process. This is equivalent to saying running cannot run or love itself cannot love. It's completely meaningless and nonsensical.
> 2. Our minds produce thoughts. We experience the effects of those thoughts
> 3. True but meaningless. You are saying that our mind is not a mental process; it isn't, it's a physical object, not an abstract concept. Meaningless stating of the obvious.
> 
> A) Incorrect. Thoughts do not manipulate thoughts, and this is irrelevant to the state of the mind. The brain's manipulation of information creates thoughts, and the brain alone.#
> 
> B) Again, irrelevant and meaningless
> 
> C) Create not manipulate. Manipulate implies control of something already there, instead of being created for a purpose.
> ...



Look... I know that you just went straight to the beginning of this thread and quoted it. You have no idea what the conversation has led to since then... I mean look... 14 pages of posts. In that span of time, there has been many attempts just like yours, and they have failed because I debunked those types of refutations.

For example... let's go in numerical order:




> 1. Irrelevant point. Thoughts/Thinking are a mental process. This is equivalent to saying running cannot run or love itself cannot love. It's completely meaningless and nonsensical.
> 2. Our minds produce thoughts. We experience the effects of those thoughts
> 3. True but meaningless. You are saying that our mind is not a mental process; it isn't, it's a physical object, not an abstract concept. Meaningless stating of the obvious.



*First off... this is the version which has symbols in it. I don't want people to get confused over symbols, so I rewrote it in a way which lacks any symbols at all.*

You see, "thought" is a symbol representing "electrical impulses or chemical reactions."
When I use "experience," I'm talking specifically about "subjective experience."
And by "our minds" I'm only talking about that part of you which is "subjective experiences." Look it up, because trying to explain what a subjective experience is is like trying to explain how something feels. It takes a lot of text, and you can't even be sure the other person understands you.

So, with everything spelled out explicitly, it looks like this(this was something I already covered... a bunch of pages ago):




> 1. "Electrical impulses or chemical reactions" can not "be subjectively aware of" "electrical impulses or chemical reactions."
> 2. "Our minds" can "be subjectively aware of" "electrical impulses or chemical reactions."
> 3. Therefore, "our minds" are not "electrical impulses or chemical reactions."
> 
> A. If "our minds" are only physical, then only "electrical impulses or chemical reactions" can manipulate "electrical impulses or chemical reactions."
> B. "Our minds" are not "electrical impulses or chemical reactions."
> C. "Our minds" manipulate "electrical impulses or chemical reactions."
> D. Therefore, "our minds" are not only physical.



So do me a favor... *and only argue against that one.* Don't even use the word "thought..." it is a non-issue. It'd be like if instead of "thought" I had used the letter "A" to represent "electrical impulses or chemical reactions," and you argued against my argument by saying something about the letter "A..." it would be absurd. Please.... spare me.

But anyways, the whole first part(1-3) is ultimately supported by "Leibniz's Law..." which states that if you have two things, and their properties are different, then they aren't the same thing at all.

Since when I talk about "our minds" I am talking only about "subjective experience..." we can set up "Leibniz's Law" with "electrical impulses or chemical reactions," and "subjective experience..." to see if they have different properties.
*
Sure enough, they do. There are four different properties that I show are different between the two:
1. Spatial location
2. Physical properties(mass, charge, volume.. ect..)
3. Self-presenting
4. 1st person point of view...*

Therefore, that backs up the conclusion that *"subjective experience" isn't "electrical impulses or chemical reactions."* That means the conclusion #3 is true... solid fact.


Then, statement A:




> A) Incorrect. Thoughts do not manipulate thoughts, and this is irrelevant to the state of the mind. The brain's manipulation of information creates thoughts, and the brain alone.#



See... when I show you that "thought" is just a symbol, then the truth of statement A comes out. *Electrons manipulate electrons all the time. So do chemical reactions.* *To prove this statement wrong, you'd have to show something physical which is not an "electrical impulse or chemical reaction" that can directly manipulate an "electrical impulse or chemical reaction."* I'm pretty much backed up by science on this, so you'd have a fun time.





> B) Again, irrelevant and meaningless



No... this is the conclusion from the first half of the argument... you know, *the one I had already proven true by deduction?* It is relevant, because we need to use this conclusion to get the non-physical mind conclusion.





> C) Create not manipulate. Manipulate implies control of something already there, instead of being created for a purpose.



You see... remember, I'm talking about "subjective experience" when I say "our minds," and by "thought"(which is a symbol), I'm talking about "electrical impulses or chemical reactions."

So, I use the dual-slit experiment to support this statement. The direct empirical truth we get from the dual-slit experiment is that "observation=manipulation..."

So, if something observes a small particle like an electron, then it manipulates it.

Since "subjective experience" is based on the impulses in our brains, it needs to get information about these impulses to build the experience from. *Since "our minds" observe the impulses in our brains, then "our minds" manipulate them as well.
*

So, I'm going to ignore what you have said about the non-physical conclusion until you can concretely debunk the premises as they are in the version without symbols.

Good luck though, because a _lot_ have people have been trying over the past few months already, and they still haven't been able to do it.

----------


## RedfishBluefish

> Look... you're missing an important fact... *electrons can only manipulate electrons... there's no way for them to manipulate anything else.*
> 
> Even if you send a little bit of electrons into solid matter, it isn't the solid matter which causes it to dissipate... *the energy of the electron gets absorbed by the energy of the electrons orbiting the atoms.* It doesn't strike the nucleus.
> 
> What you're saying goes against science...
> 
> Not only can the only thing which can manipulate electrons be electrons or chemical reactions, but electrons can only manipulate electrons or chemical reactions. It's a fact of science... they teach it to you in grade school.



So what do neuroscientists do all day?
Obviously their instruments must somehow observe brain activity, or there would be no point...

Look, whether electrons can manipulate things or not, other things must be able to be affected by their actions, or I would be incapable of doing anything (for example eating). -> If things are affected they gain information, thus they have observed...

----------


## O'nus

I can't believe how long this thread is going, lol.

*Votes for archive material*

~

----------


## Photolysis

> Originally Posted by Surrealist
> 1. "Electrical impulses or chemical reactions" can not "be subjectively aware of" "electrical impulses or chemical reactions."
> 2. "Our minds" can "be subjectively aware of" "electrical impulses or chemical reactions."
> 3. Therefore, "our minds" are not [simply the products of] "electrical impulses or chemical reactions."
> 
> A. If "our minds" are only physical, then only "electrical impulses or chemical reactions" can manipulate "electrical impulses or chemical reactions."
> B. "Our minds" are not "electrical impulses or chemical reactions."
> C. "Our minds" manipulate "electrical impulses or chemical reactions."
> D. Therefore, "our minds" are not only physical.



Firstly, I'll prove the concept wrong.

Matter is not sentient. It doesn't think, or do anything, it's properties and status are governed completely by the state of the system it's in. It has no awareness of it's own existence.

You combine matter in a certain way and you end up with life. In some cases, you end up with life that has a brain that is capable of figuring out what it is made of (an atom doesn't think, hey we're all atoms and that's what makes up all matter in the universe!).

The fact that matter in a certain combination is capable of thinking this is astounding, but it doesn't change the fact that it's simply matter. To say that this is more the sum of it's parts is a huge understatement, but it does not mean that there's anything that isn't matter giving it it's properties.

For many years, Chemists thought life was special and some special energy drove it. When they discovered it was the same kinds of chemical reactions that they could do in a lab that make up life, they were astounded, and the theory of life being due to some special external energy/influence was destroyed (scientifically).

In a similar way, the fact that humans can combine together to produce things that are far better than anything we could do individually doesn't mean there is some special factor outside the humans involved that made it happen. It's simply the amazing results of things working together in certain ways to produce things far more than the sum of their parts.


Okay, so ...





> Originally Posted by Surrealist
> 1. "Electrical impulses or chemical reactions" can not "be subjectively aware of" "electrical impulses or chemical reactions."
> 2. "Our minds" can "be subjectively aware of" "electrical impulses or chemical reactions."
> 3. Therefore, "our minds" are not "electrical impulses or chemical reactions."
> 
> A. If "our minds" are only physical, then only "electrical impulses or chemical reactions" can manipulate "electrical impulses or chemical reactions."
> B. "Our minds" are not "electrical impulses or chemical reactions."
> C. "Our minds" manipulate "electrical impulses or chemical reactions."
> D. Therefore, "our minds" are not only physical.



1. True. Still meaningless. Subjective awareness is not required for chemical/physical interaction which is what drives the brain (and life). Awareness is a product from these interactions.
2. True. A lot however operates at the unconsious level and you are not aware of it. It's being handled automatically, and works perfectly even without anyone being aware of it.
3. Incorrect. The flaw is where you go from assuming that awareness is not a product of a highly complicated system produced from simple parts working together, and that awareness/sentience cannot arise from this. You also make the incorrect assumption that self-awareness is required at all levels of a system, such as at the atomic/electronic level.

A. True.
B. False premesis from above ...
D. Leading to a false conclusion

----------


## Surrealist

> So what do neuroscientists do all day?
> Obviously their instruments must somehow observe brain activity, or there would be no point...



Does this really have anything to do with my argument. If it doesm I would love to know exactly how you're tying together.





> Look, whether electrons can manipulate things or not, other things must be able to be affected by their actions, or I would be incapable of doing anything (for example eating). -> If things are affected they gain information, thus they have observed...



Haven't I proven this wrong already?

I mean... I'm not talking about anything other than electrical impulses or chemical reactions. Trying to tie other things into it just brings up things which are not even in the discussion.

I have shown that only [thoughts] can manipulate [thoughts], and the only thing that [thoughts] _can_ manipulate are [thoughts].

You're obviously trying to extrapolate indirect things, and using indirect things to try and show me wrong, when I said that I'm not discussing indirect things in the first place.








> Firstly, I'll prove the concept wrong.
> 
> Matter is not sentient. It doesn't think, or do anything, it's properties and status are governed completely by the state of the system it's in. It has no awareness of it's own existence.
> 
> You combine matter in a certain way and you end up with life. In some cases, you end up with life that has a brain that is capable of figuring out what it is made of (an atom doesn't think, hey we're all atoms and that's what makes up all matter in the universe!).
> 
> The fact that matter in a certain combination is capable of thinking this is astounding, but it doesn't change the fact that it's simply matter. To say that this is more the sum of it's parts is a huge understatement, but it does not mean that there's anything that isn't matter giving it it's properties.



See... what you misunderstand is that I'm not talking about "thinking..." I'm talking about "subjective experience." To try to bring in something which I'm not even arguing about is a very irrational way to argue against me.





> 1. True. Still meaningless. Subjective awareness is not required for chemical/physical interaction which is what drives the brain (and life). Awareness is a product from these interactions.
> 2. True. A lot however operates at the unconsious level and you are not aware of it. It's being handled automatically, and works perfectly even without anyone being aware of it.
> 3. Incorrect. The flaw is where you go from assuming that awareness is not a product of a highly complicated system produced from simple parts working together, and that awareness/sentience cannot arise from this. You also make the incorrect assumption that self-awareness is required at all levels of a system, such as at the atomic/electronic level.



What's funny is that you agree that the first two are true, but then state that the conclusion is false. In a logical argument, you can't have a sound one(which is what you are agreeing it is), and then say that the conclusion is wrong. The conclusion is correct due to valid deductive reasoning.

Not only that, but I'm not talking about where "subjective experience" _comes from_, I'm only making the point that it is non-physical. You can argue that this non-physical thing comes from physical processes all day and it wouldn't debunk my argument.





> A. True.
> B. False premesis from above ...
> D. Leading to a false conclusion



B isn't false, because you are arguing against a version that you have created. I'm just talking about where subjective experience comes from, but if it is physical or not. You are arguing against it by trying to say that sure, it is non-physical, but it arises from physical things.

Arguing this way, you aren't really debunking my argument... you are agreeing with me, but with you own little problem(which is really a non-problem, because it isn't really an issue in my argument).

Also, you can't have an argument with which you agree that the premises are true, but that the conclusion is false. That's just absurd.

----------


## Photolysis

> What's funny is that you agree that the first two are true, but then state that the conclusion is false. In a logical argument, you can't have a sound one(which is what you are agreeing it is), and then say that the conclusion is wrong. The conclusion is correct due to valid deductive reasoning.



That's because your argument is not based on logic. The points do not follow on from each other even if they appear to do so at a quick glance.

Point number 3 is an assumption which appears to be based on logic from the previous 2 points, but in fact points 1 and 2 do not lead to 3. You commit a logical fallacy.





> 1. "Electrical impulses or chemical reactions" can not "be subjectively aware of" "electrical impulses or chemical reactions."
> 2. "Our minds" can "be subjectively aware of" "electrical impulses or chemical reactions."
> 3. Therefore, "our minds" are not [simply the products of] "electrical impulses or chemical reactions."



1. Fact
2. Fact
3. ASSUMPTION. This assumes as I've stated that a lack of awareness at the electronic/chemical level means the mind is made up of something more. I've explained that this doesn't follow.

Points 1 and 2 are seperate facts, but they are not linked together. I demonstrated this when giving examples of how things can be more than the sum of their parts.

This is a similar flawed argument:

1. Matter is not alive
2. Life is alive
3. Therefore life is (not simply) made of matter.

As I said, #3 assumes that the product cannot have arisen from complexity and a certain arrangement of matter, which is not necessarily true. This assumption is what your entire argument is based on and therefore completely bound to that assumption's validity.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/fal...mposition.html

Read the last point on that page. It's reverse argument might also be useful to show where you're going wrong.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/fallacyofdivision.html

----------


## LucidFlanders

> I can't believe how long this thread is going, lol.
> 
> *Votes for archive material*
> 
> ~




Yeah, it wont end. It's like 2 sides to a story.

----------


## RedfishBluefish

Look, what I'm trying to say is:
"Obviously their instruments must somehow observe brain activity, or there would be no point..."
Thus physical things can observe [thoughts].
Thus there is no way the statement "I observe my thoughts, therefore I am not physical" can be correct.

----------


## O'nus

> Look, what I'm trying to say is:
> "Obviously their instruments must somehow observe brain activity, or there would be no point..."
> Thus physical things can observe [thoughts].
> Thus there is no way the statement "I observe my thoughts, therefore I am not physical" can be correct.



Do you know of the cogito?

Do you think lucid dreaming is a true phenomena?

~

----------


## Surrealist

> That's because your argument is not based on logic. The points do not follow on from each other even if they appear to do so at a quick glance.
> 
> Point number 3 is an assumption which appears to be based on logic from the previous 2 points, but in fact points 1 and 2 do not lead to 3. You commit a logical fallacy.



lol... I've gone over this in this thread as well. There is no fallacy... to illustrate the lack of a fallacy, we will replace the symbols with other symbols to see if the argument still holds true(which would then mean that it is deductively valid).

Dogs can not speak in English to dogs.
Humans can speak in English to dogs.
Therefore, humans are not dogs.

I simply show that the two things have different attributes, so they are logically not the same things. It is perfectly valid... it's the form of Leibniz's Law... and I don't think you want to disagree with a great logical mind. I mean, come one... Leibniz knows his stuff, more than you do.





> 1. Fact
> 2. Fact
> 3. ASSUMPTION. This assumes as I've stated that a lack of awareness at the electronic/chemical level means the mind is made up of something more. I've explained that this doesn't follow.



So you just say that sure, subjective experience isn't electrical impulses or chemical reactions, but it comes from them.

Well, sure... but it still doesn't change the fact that the mind is non-physical. Your objection has nothing to do with the argument at hand. You are creating a gigantic straw-man... look that up.


I'm not saying that subjective experience does not arise out of brain processes in that argument. It doesn't matter one way or the other to that argument at all. Even assuming that it *does* arise from physical things, my argument still concludes that subjective experience is non-physical.


I've gone over this too many times to count... you're not thinking of anything brand new here... and not only that, but this type of objection has been totally refuted by me many other times. It's absurd. You are arguing that I'm the illogical one when you're the one coming up with a straw-man... how hilarious.








> Look, what I'm trying to say is:
> "Obviously their instruments must somehow observe brain activity, or there would be no point..."
> Thus physical things can observe [thoughts].
> Thus there is no way the statement "I observe my thoughts, therefore I am not physical" can be correct.



Yes, other [thoughts] can observe [thoughts]. And yes, [thoughts] are physical.

But you see... if the only _physical_ thing that can manipulate thoughts is _not_ subjective experience, that means that subjective experience is not physical. It makes perfect deductive sense.


It's like if I said that the only type of paper money you can use in a McDonald's in America is USA currency... and then you bought something without USA currency, then I'd be able to conclude that you didn't use paper money.


Quite logical, indeed.

----------


## syncron

I'm sorry to pop in like this, but i'd like to applaud Surreal, and CarouSoul. I really enjoyed reading the first two pages. Very intriguing. The grammar was the icing on the cake. 

I commend you both. Great stuff guys.

----------


## Surrealist

> I'm sorry to pop in like this, but i'd like to applaud Surreal, and CarouSoul. I really enjoyed reading the first two pages. Very intriguing. The grammar was the icing on the cake. 
> 
> I commend you both. Great stuff guys.



I don't know whether I'm supposed to take this as an insult disguised as a bad bit of sarcasm... or genuine approval.

I'm leaning towards the former...

----------


## LucidFlanders

> I'm sorry to pop in like this, but i'd like to applaud Surreal, and CarouSoul. I really enjoyed reading the first two pages. Very intriguing. The grammar was the icing on the cake. 
> 
> I commend you both. Great stuff guys.



Well, i just read the comments but this kinda made me mad of CarouSoul





> If you want to get a head start, google "arguments against materialism [or physicalism]", you'll probably find plenty. I'll get you the main famous ones tomorrow though, as I say. I'm tired. [time zones]



He didn't come back with anything, like it was just an attempt to leave from something he could not back up.

----------


## Surrealist

> He didn't come back with anything, like it was just an attempt to leave from something he could not back up.



Yeah... that was his last post with any real substance... all ones after that were simply insults or making fun of the thread.



I find that people new to the thread read the beginning, and then end up repeating other's misunderstandings. To help keep this from happening, I'll post my solid rebuttals for all objections so far:


To illustrate all objections and their rebuttals so far:

*"Thought" objection:*
Refuted... "thought" is just a symbol and means nothing at all resembling what is thought of when you use the _word_ "thought." The symbol means: "electrical impulses or chemical reactions."

*"Thought" can experience "thought...":*
This came from the misunderstanding of what I meant when I used "experience..." I'm talking about "subjective experience" in my argument. Also, keep in mind that Leibniz's Law solidifies statement #3 as fact without even needing to use the first two premises. I guess I accidentally came up with Leibniz's Law on my own, in my own words... then when I found it online, I realized that was exactly what I was trying to say to begin with.

*Complexity objection:*
This is from Sandform, or whoever... I can't quite remember. The objection went something like this:
The brain is very complex, and subjective experience is just the communication that arises from many different parts.
Refuted... Leibniz's Law(which actually just skips right to statement #3 and back it up directly).

*Mysterious new physical particle or substance:*
The problem with this appeal is that I could just add that new physical thing to the symbol for "thought..." it would become "electrical impulses, chemical reactions, or 'new particle'..." Leibniz's Law would then still work, because this new physical particle would still have properties different from our minds.*

Other physical things besides electrical impulses or chemical reactions can manipulate electrical impulses or chemical reactions:
*This comes from confusing "create" with "manipulate." You can't manipulate something that isn't there already. If you create something, you don't manipulate it. Hence, photons hitting your eye which creates a chemical reaction doesn't manipulate one... it only creates one.

*Then... no chemical reaction can be manipulated, they all are created:*
No... there are _constant_ chemical reactions, and instantaneous ones. The constant ones are made from a bunch of instantaneous ones. Kind of like the constant chemical reaction of electrolyzing water...

*Electrical impulses have their own consciousness in themselves:*
Then you agree with me anyways... to assume that would necessitate a non-physical thing to account for the consciousness because there isn't anything physical about the electrical impulses besides the electrical impulse.. therefore there is nothing physical to account for the consciousness.

*The dual-slit experiment doesn't back up your argument, because it doesn't deal with non-physical things:*
To use this, you would have to assume that the mind is non-physical. You can't say, "If the mind is non-physical, then the dual-slit experiment doesn't back you up..." because to say that, you'd be agreeing with me that it _is_ non-physical. It's a catch-22... this objection wouldn't apply if the mind wasn't non-physical.

*Well... other things besides [thoughts] can observe [thoughts], so that means your dual-slit thingy doesn't support you:*
No... the fact that other things besides [thoughts] can observe [thoughts] _supports_ my argument. I use that. The thing is... the only physical thing which can observe [thoughts] are [thoughts]. This is because the only physical thing that can manipulate [thoughts] are [thoughts]... according to science. According to science, the only thing capable of changing an electron at all is another electron. Even shooting an electron at solid matter doesn't mean the "solid matter" did anything to it, it was the electrons in the matter which did it. Oh, and "observation" only means to "directly measure something..." not some indirect thing way down the chain of causality which indirectly observes it.

*You can't use logic on such a grand thing:*
Umm... yes you can, if your logic is sound. Logic is the foundation for science... you'd be anti-science, or something.

*But... subjective experience is something that "arises" from physical things...*
Yeah, sure... you could say this, but that wouldn't be proving that it isn't non-physical... you're basically agreeing that it isn't physical, but that physical processes can create non-physical things. Not to mention, I have an argument which shows _that_ wrong:

1. Properties of physical things can't manipulate anything.
2. Our minds can manipulate things.
3. Therefore, our minds are not properties of physical things.

It is solidifying the fact that it doesn't come _from_ the brain, but it separate from it... and only connected by interaction.


So yeah... I couldn't find any more. If I missed one, help me find it... I'll add it to this post or something.

----------


## RedfishBluefish

About Liebniz's Law:
It only applies to properties of objects. What one does/can know about an object is not a property of it. Example: Alice is on one side of a wall. Bob is on the other side. Alice observes "the only side I can see is green". Bob observes "the only side I can see is red". This is insufficient evidence to conclude they are not looking at the same wall.





> *Electrical impulses have their own consciousness in themselves:*
> Then you agree with me anyways... to assume that would necessitate a non-physical thing to account for the consciousness because there isn't anything physical about the electrical impulses besides the electrical impulse.. therefore there is nothing physical to account for the consciousness.



What is your evidence that the electrical impulse itself can't "account for the consciousness"?





> *The dual-slit experiment doesn't back up your argument, because it doesn't deal with non-physical things:*
> To use this, you would have to assume that the mind is non-physical.



Why would you need to do that?





> Well... other things besides [thoughts] can observe [thoughts], so that means your dual-slit thingy doesn't support you:
> No... the fact that other things besides [thoughts] can observe [thoughts] supports my argument. I use that. The thing is... the only physical thing which can observe [thoughts] are [thoughts]. This is because the only physical thing that can manipulate [thoughts] are [thoughts]... according to science. According to science, the only thing capable of changing an electron at all is another electron. Even shooting an electron at solid matter doesn't mean the "solid matter" did anything to it, it was the electrons in the matter which did it.



I'd look at it the other way round. It is a fact that physical things besides [thoughts] are able to observe chemical reactions - look at litmus paper, or things that burn (note that all something has to do to "observe" something is be affected (even indirectly) by it, and by that obtain information). Therefore according to science those physical things manipulate [thoughts].





> *But... subjective experience is something that "arises" from physical things...*
> Yeah, sure... you could say this, but that wouldn't be proving that it isn't non-physical... you're basically agreeing that it isn't physical, but that physical processes can create non-physical things. Not to mention, I have an argument which shows that wrong:
> 
> 1. Properties of physical things can't manipulate anything.
> 2. Our minds can manipulate things.
> 3. Therefore, our minds are not properties of physical things.



You have to provide evidence for things like that.
Consider the spin of an electron. It is a property of the particle, yet it manipulates the things around it (eg. path of the electron, electric field).

----------


## syncron

> I don't know whether I'm supposed to take this as an insult disguised as a bad bit of sarcasm... or genuine approval.
> 
> I'm leaning towards the former...



Don't be so defensive. I was being nice. I truly enjoyed the argument you two had.

----------


## Surrealist

> About Liebniz's Law:
> It only applies to properties of objects. What one does/can know about an object is not a property of it. Example: Alice is on one side of a wall. Bob is on the other side. Alice observes "the only side I can see is green". Bob observes "the only side I can see is red". This is insufficient evidence to conclude they are not looking at the same wall.



Yes, it has to do with properties of objects.

We know four properties that are different between brain processes and subjective experience. This isn't because they are different facets of the same property(like your wall example), but that they are different properties all together.

For example:
*Spatial location:*
Brain processes: have one
Subjective experience: doesn't have one

To take your example... it's like comparing a location _with_ a wall, and one _without_... that means they are different locations because one lacks a wall. We're not looking at one side or the other... we're looking at the entire wall and noticing that it is missing in one thing and not missing in the other.





> What is your evidence that the electrical impulse itself can't "account for the consciousness"?



lol...

"Account" and "is" are two different things. You can account for something and not be it.





> Why would you need to do that?



Because... check it out:

I say something like, "If it is raining, then it is wet outside."

To be able to say it is wet outside only by using the "if" part, then the "if" part has to be true.

So if you say: "If our minds are non-physical, then you can't use the dual-slit experiment as evidence..." then you need the mind to be non-physical to use that particular objection.





> I'd look at it the other way round. It is a fact that physical things besides [thoughts] are able to observe chemical reactions - look at litmus paper, or things that burn (note that all something has to do to "observe" something is be affected (even indirectly) by it, and by that obtain information). Therefore according to science those physical things manipulate [thoughts].



Those other examples that you gave are chemical reactions observing chemical reactions. You can't give one example that observes a chemical reaction directly without being an electrical impulse or chemical reaction. You just tried, but failed again. Oh yeah... and you keep _loving_ to redefine what "observe" means in this context.

"Observe" is only meaning to take direct measurements. You keep wanting to extend it past direct things, to include all indirect things as well. This isn't arguing against my argument... it's just creating a straw-man...





> You have to provide evidence for things like that.
> Consider the spin of an electron. It is a property of the particle, yet it manipulates the things around it (eg. path of the electron, electric field).



It isn't the spin which does anything... it is the electron.

Just like wetness, and water. If you have something that is wet, you can't take the "wet" and use the "wetness" to do anything.

The thing that _is_ wet can make other things wet, but not the other way around. A property can't do anything... only the thing which has the property.







> Don't be so defensive. I was being nice. I truly enjoyed the argument you two had.



Alright.

----------


## space-cadet

Science does not understand how the mind works (contrary to how the well known psychologist, Steven Pinker, misleads us).  There is no mechanism for how the brain can generate thoughts let alone how consciousness could come about.  Brain cells have not been shown to give us thoughts and consciousness.  Having a soul would explain all this if we choose to or deem it necessary to invoke the soul.

----------


## Surrealist

> Science does not understand how the mind works (contrary to how the well known psychologist, Steven Pinker, misleads us).  There is no mechanism for how the brain can generate thoughts let alone how consciousness could come about.  Brain cells have not been shown to give us thoughts and consciousness.  Having a soul would explain all this if we choose to or deem it necessary to invoke the soul.



So... are you saying that now that I've proven that the soul exists, then it explains a lot about what scientists are scratching their heads about nowadays?

I would agree that proving that the soul exists removes a lot of unknowns from current neuroscience.

----------


## space-cadet

yes i am! what the bleep do they know in all honesty, why don't they just admit that they dont know everything? have you heard of richard dawkins? he's a biologist from the uk . he spouts that anything paranormal is a delusion, he's nuts!

----------


## Surrealist

> yes i am! what the bleep do they know in all honesty, why don't they just admit that they dont know everything? have you heard of richard dawkins? he's a biologist from the uk . he spouts that anything paranormal is a delusion, he's nuts!



Yeah... I mean, the only ways that they have responded to my argument are in the forms of fallacies or they misunderstood what it was actually saying.

I think that anyone who has some form of dogmatic view is himself delusional... especially when their dogmatic view has been proven to be false.

----------


## space-cadet

that is so true! the more i listen to them the more i believe in the soul.

----------


## RedfishBluefish

Question: Surrealist, do you hold consciousness-causes-collapse to be true?

That seems to be where you're heading, by saying consciousness cannot be a property of any particle because it is the particle that manipulates things, _but the consciousness itself is what manipulates things by observing them_.

----------


## Surrealist

> That seems to be where you're heading, by saying consciousness cannot be a property of any particle because it is the particle that manipulates things, _but the consciousness itself is what manipulates things by observing them_.



You could sum up my whole argument pretty succinctly as such:

Electrical impulses or chemical reactions can not be directly observed(meaning measurements or information about them taken from them) by any physical thing other than electrical impulses or chemical reactions. Electrical impulses or chemical reactions also can't be manipulated directly by any physical thing other than electrical impulses or chemical reactions.

Since our minds are not the only physical things which can do such, and they do do such, then they aren't physical.



So no... my argument is not equivalent to the "consciousness-causes-collapse" theory. That argument is saying that indirect observation is what causes the manipulation. Kind of like saying that looking at the thing which measures the electron is what is manipulating it, not the physical instrument in itself.

It would be unfalsifiable, because you couldn't know what the result is unless you were watching it. You could do the dual-slit experiment without having a conscious observer there, but you wouldn't know the outcome of the experiment. So... you see how it really has nothing to do with my argument?

Sorry... but my argument is not the same as the consciousness-causes-collapse theory. I know why you'd want it to be such, but unfortunately(for you) it isn't.

I'm going with the idea that you looked online for awhile and found something kind of relating to my argument and wanted to trap me into agreeing that it _was_ my argument so that you could dance on my argument's grave. All I had to do was look at the article from WikiPedia for a couple seconds before realizing that it actually had nothing to do with my argument at all.







> that is so true! the more i listen to them the more i believe in the soul.



Yeah... and check it out... RedfishBluefish just went online to try and find some pseudoscience thing which isn't my argument at all, trying to tie it in with my argument. I mean, I could still see someone reading the article on it and _thinking_ that it was my argument, but when you dig just a _little_ deeper you find that it isn't.

----------


## LucidFlanders

Surrealist why are you listening to Space_Cadet? he is the most anti science person i have ever known online, hell even offline if i knew him.
 He reminds me of PMH Atwater or whatever her name is. he can't even put science in his logic, either.

Afterlife does not exist
Yes it does, science is all wrong. 

Hell, i bet he's also against the new science (quantum physics?).

----------


## Surrealist

> Surrealist why are you listening to Space_Cadet? he is the most anti science person i have ever known online, hell even offline if i knew him.



Hmm... I'm not listening to him... I was agreeing with him. I mean, he's pointing out that the only arguments against my argument are illogical and irrational. No one's put forth a good rebuttal yet, at all. I haven't been here quite long enough to get to know everybody... so me agreeing with one thing someone says shouldn't mean that all my beliefs are the same as his.





> Afterlife does not exist
> Yes it does, science is all wrong.



Are you saying this is what _he_ says, or what _I_ say? I'm not saying this... I'm saying that science tells us that we have a soul. Empirical evidence, all brought up together to form a cohesive, logical argument proves that a non-physical mind exists, whereas empirical evidence brought together _can't_ and _doesn't_ show that physicalism is true, and it doesn't show that the afterlife doesn't exist. That would be a dogmatic view based on the misplaced belief in physicalism.

I'm _not_ anti-science, I'm pro-science. I'm pro-reason, and pro-rationality.

----------


## LucidFlanders

> Hmm... I'm not listening to him... I was agreeing with him. I mean, he's pointing out that the only arguments against my argument are illogical and irrational. No one's put forth a good rebuttal yet, at all. I haven't been here quite long enough to get to know everybody... so me agreeing with one thing someone says shouldn't mean that all my beliefs are the same as his.



Never said they were, but i guess you only go to this thread so you wont know about him, but just giving you advice. He's agreeing with you because you are supporting his bias.






> Are you saying this is what _he_ says, or what _I_ say? I'm not saying this... I'm saying that science tells us that we have a soul. Empirical evidence, all brought up together to form a cohesive, logical argument proves that a non-physical mind exists, whereas empirical evidence brought together _can't_ and _doesn't_ show that physicalism is true, and it doesn't show that the afterlife doesn't exist. That would be a dogmatic view based on the misplaced belief in physicalism.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm _not_ anti-science, I'm *pro-science*. I'm *pro-reason*, and *pro-rationality*.



I was talking about him, he also made a thread calling out all the atheists which was uncalled for. Not to turn this great thread which i'd be ignorant to reply to agree, and disagree with people because my lack of science into a flame fest, anyway that's all i will say, now keep fighting the good fight.

----------


## Surrealist

> Never said they were, but i guess you only go to this thread so you wont know about him, but just giving you advice. He's agreeing with you because you are supporting his bias.



I totally agree. While my argument's conclusion could be used to _support_(not prove) a great many things, I don't agree with most of them.





> I was talking about him, he also made a thread calling out all the atheists which was uncalled for. Not to turn this great thread which i'd be ignorant to reply to agree, and disagree with people because my lack of science into a flame fest, anyway that's all i will say, now keep fighting the good fight.



Yeah... I wouldn't want this thread to turn into a flame-fest either. I mean, it _almost_ did a couple times... but I'm glad that it hasn't yet.

----------


## RedfishBluefish

> Since our minds are not the only physical things which can do such, and they do do such, then they aren't physical.
> 
> So no... my argument is not equivalent to the "consciousness-causes-collapse" theory. That argument is saying that indirect observation is what causes the manipulation. Kind of like saying that looking at the thing which measures the electron is what is manipulating it, not the physical instrument in itself.



You believe the mind observes directly. You never provided any evidence that that must be the case.

----------


## Surrealist

> You believe the mind observes directly. You never provided any evidence that that must be the case.



What?

You are confusing what "observe" actually means.

In the case of the dual-slit experiment, and my argument, it means "to get measurements of." By definition this is strictly direct when talking about small particles like electrons.

All measurements that could possibly be obtained(of the electron) can only be done directly.

It would be absurd to say that something built upon the information from millions of electrical impulses did so indirectly. The only thing you can indirectly infer from electrons is that they exist. *If the mind was only built upon "indirect" observation, then subjective experience would not be possible.*


*For example:*
A chemical reaction([thought]) produces a photon...

The photon hits your eye... so you know that a chemical reaction just occurred. What you _don't_ know is _anything_ about that chemical reaction. It could have been one out of millions of chemical reactions, and you wouldn't know.

You see, indirect observation gives you absolutely no relevant information... especially enough information to build subjective experiences on. Subjective experience would at least need to be based on information of the _location_ of the electron... this is backed up by empirical evidence which ties the location of brain activity to certain subjective experiences. *Location is not something you can observe indirectly, I'm afraid.*

So, just the fact that location of brain processes is an important aspect of what type of subjective experience it is means that the observation is direct... direct observation determining locations of the electrical impulses. No type of indirect observation could tell you the location of an electron... I'm sorry.



Oh, and also... I don't know why you quoted my response to the consciousness-causes-collapse in your response. It actually has nothing to do with my argument... it's just a theory that says that quantum collapse happens _only_ due to conscious observers. Meaning that nothing can cause collapse without consciousness being involved. Basically, it is saying that the dual-slit experiment only happens the way it does because someone is there watching it happen and without anyone there watching, it wouldn't happen that way.

----------


## space-cadet

if a tree falls in a forest and there is no one there to hear it
does it make a sound?

----------


## RedfishBluefish

Are there not instruments in particle accelerators that can detect the location of the electrons (and protons) travelling through them? If one examines the readings from such instrument, would you not know the position of the electron? Is that not indirect observation?

If you look at the trajectory of a photon (or two) emitted from a chemical reaction, you can very easily pinpoint its position.

If there were no way to indirectly observe the internal monologue (or the "mind's eye"), I would be incapable of telling people what I think and see (my failure to do so using eloquent and accurately descriptive language is irrelevant).

----------


## Surrealist

> Are there not instruments in particle accelerators that can detect the location of the electrons (and protons) travelling through them? If one examines the readings from such instrument, would you not know the position of the electron? Is that not indirect observation?



*Check it:*
Our minds are not [thoughts].
The only thing which can directly observe [non-thoughts] are [thoughts]. <- Even a photon bouncing off an object is a chemical reaction.

So we run into a big problem here with your argument. Let's say a [thought] created a [non-thought] that you say gets ultimately observed by our minds. The problem is, this [non-thought] could not get observed by our minds, because the only physical thing which can directly observe a [non-thought] is a [thought].

See... when you look into it far enough, no [non-thought] can be directly observed by any physical thing other than a [thought], since our minds are not [thoughts], then they either aren't indirectly observing [thoughts], or they are non-physical.


*Your argument from indirect vs. direct observation also fails.*

----------


## Photolysis

> lol... I've gone over this in this thread as well. There is no fallacy... to illustrate the lack of a fallacy, we will replace the symbols with other symbols to see if the argument still holds true(which would then mean that it is deductively valid).
> 
> Dogs can not speak in English to dogs.
> Humans can speak in English to dogs.
> Therefore, humans are not dogs.



There is a fallacy and if you read those excellent links you should understand why.

Your example above is flawed because they do logically follow. If [all] dogs can't speak and humans can, then clearly if those two are true, then humans are not dogs. Anything else would be a contradition; if the two statements are true then the conclusion has to be true because it would be a contradiction if it were anything else.


The flaw in your main argument comes from you failing to recognise that this is not the case





> 1. "Electrical impulses or chemical reactions" can not "be subjectively aware of" "electrical impulses or chemical reactions."
> 2. "Our minds" can "be subjectively aware of" "electrical impulses or chemical reactions."
> 3. Therefore, "our minds" are not [simply the products of] "electrical impulses or chemical reactions."



Both 1 and 2 are true, but the conclusion does not follow. It is possible for the mind to be the product of highly advanced chemical/electronic interactions. My "matter" analogy is also a perfect duplication of the flaw.

Unlike your dog language comment, in which if 1 and 2 were true then there is only one outcome, this one has several possible outcomes. You constantly refuse to acknowledge this.

Again, read those fallacy links I sent you.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/fal...mposition.html
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/fallacyofdivision.html

The sooner you realise that the logical argument you make has been destroyed, the better. Of course, your suggestion is potentially true, but it does not logically follow that it is true as you claim.

----------


## Surrealist

> It is possible for the mind to be the product of highly advanced chemical/electronic interactions. My "matter" analogy is also a perfect duplication of the flaw.



"Product of" and "being the same thing as" are not equivalent.

You can't say that because something is the product of something, then that means they are the same thing.

So... my main point to get across to you is that:
*Leibniz's Law directly shows my conclusion #3 to be true.* It doesn't matter if our minds are _products_ of electrical impulses or chemical reactions... it only matters to my argument that they _aren't_ electrical impulses or chemical reactions.





> You constantly refuse to acknowledge this.



No... I'm refusing you equating "product of" with the product. If our minds are "products" of "electrical impulses or chemical reactions" then they aren't "electrical impulses or chemical reactions." In my original argument I am making no attempts to say that they _aren't_ products of "electrical impulses or chemical reactions..." this is where you are creating the straw-man. Hey, look _that_ one up!  :smiley: 


*To illustrate:*
Let's say that I say that "fans are not wind."

You say, "oh no... wind is a product of the fan... you can't say that!"

That is how ridiculous it looks to me. I'm saying that two things are not the same thing, and then here is you saying that one could be the product of the other, so they _are_ the same thing. It's absurd, to an infinite degree.


*Also...*
*You obviously are just disregarding Leibniz's Law...* like I haven't discussed this over and over again. That Law skips right to my conclusion... and it isn't talking about "products..." it's talking about identity... you know, being the same thing.

----------


## RedfishBluefish

> *Check it:*
> Our minds are not [thoughts].
> The only thing which can directly observe [non-thoughts] are [thoughts]. <- Even a photon bouncing off an object is a chemical reaction.
> 
> So we run into a big problem here with your argument. Let's say a [thought] created a [non-thought] that you say gets ultimately observed by our minds. The problem is, this [non-thought] could not get observed by our minds, because the only physical thing which can directly observe a [non-thought] is a [thought].
> 
> See... when you look into it far enough, no [non-thought] can be directly observed by any physical thing other than a [thought], since our minds are not [thoughts], then they either aren't indirectly observing [thoughts], or they are non-physical.
> 
> 
> *Your argument from indirect vs. direct observation also fails.*



Just answer the question.
If a two photons are emitted by a chemical reaction, and you measure the trajectories of those photons, and therefore can deduce the exact position of the chemical reaction (as well as possibly the nature of what occurred), is that not indirect observation?


At the moment you appear to be using your own statement to justify itself. ::?:

----------


## Surrealist

> Just answer the question.
> If a two photons are emitted by a chemical reaction, and you measure the trajectories of those photons, and therefore can deduce the exact position of the chemical reaction (as well as possibly the nature of what occurred), is that not indirect observation?



No... because you wouldn't know the position that the photon started from. For all you know, it could've been traveling through interstellar space before being detected. You could also not even know that it came from a chemical reaction of a particular type. They could've come from anywhere, from anything.





> At the moment you appear to be using your own statement to justify itself.



Nope...

I just gave a valid reason why subjective experience does not "indirectly" observe electrical impulses. It's either choose that it's non-physical, or choose that it directly observes. You pick.

There's no "me using my statement to back the same statement up" going on here. It's me thinking out your objection to the final logical point.


Oh, I'm noting the fact that *you didn't respond* to my actual point where I have proven that the mind doesn't indirectly observe... you just simply brush it off. Kind of like a certain someone and Leibniz's Law...

----------


## Rare

*redacted*

----------


## Surrealist

> I am reminded of a star trek episode when ...
> 
>  tried to  on Spock and  Scotty during a ... then Kirk tried to  and ...
> 
> this was funny because  had actually gotten the  from Scotty during said ..
> 
> the point I am trying to make is that,  pulled a  out of Scotty's  whle 
> 
> The moral of this story...
> ...



Wow... how creative...

----------


## RedfishBluefish

How about if you start electrolysing water, and take a load of measurements of it's mass during the experiment, and are therefore able to figure the rate of the chemical reaction?





> Our minds are not [thoughts].
> The only thing which can directly observe [non-thoughts] are [thoughts]. <- Even a photon bouncing off an object is a chemical reaction.
> 
> So we run into a big problem here with your argument. Let's say a [thought] created a [non-thought] that you say gets ultimately observed by our minds. The problem is, this [non-thought] could not get observed by our minds, because the only physical thing which can directly observe a [non-thought] is a [thought].
> 
> See... when you look into it far enough, no [non-thought] can be directly observed by any physical thing other than a [thought], since our minds are not [thoughts], then they either aren't indirectly observing [thoughts], or they are non-physical.



Oh, did I ignore this?
What I meant to say was this:
So you just pulled another assertion out of your ass: "only [thoughts] can directly observe [non-thoughts]". So you think every possible physical interaction counts as a "chemical reaction or electrical impulse"? You think that whenever "physical object A observes physical object B" it's really "A observes [chemical reaction or electrical impulse] observes B"? Wow, that's a [non-thought] directly observing a [thought] if I'm not mistaken (which definitely violates premise A).

And somehow you seem to think "only [thoughts] can directly observe [non-thoughts]" means "[non-thoughts] cannot indirectly observe [thoughts]".

I'm sorry, but ANY FLOW OF INFORMATION is an observation, indirect or direct. If an object in the world affects me, that is a observation.

On a side note:




> Originally Posted by RedfishBluefish
> 
> What is your evidence that the electrical impulse itself can't "account for the consciousness"?
> 
> 
> 
> lol...
> 
> "Account" and "is" are two different things. You can account for something and not be it.



So?

AND





> Originally Posted by RedfishBluefish
> 
> Why would you need to do that?
> 
> 
> 
> Because... check it out:
> 
> I say something like, "If it is raining, then it is wet outside."
> ...



I didn't ask for a lesson on logic, I asked for justification.

----------


## Surrealist

> How about if you start electrolysing water, and take a load of measurements of it's mass during the experiment, and are therefore able to figure the rate of the chemical reaction?



What are you going to use to directly take the measurements? See... direct observation is always in the form of a [thought].





> Oh, did I ignore this?
> What I meant to say was this:
> So you just pulled another assertion out of your ass: "only [thoughts] can directly observe [non-thoughts]". So you think every possible physical interaction counts as a "chemical reaction or electrical impulse"? You think that whenever "physical object A observes physical object B" it's really "A observes [chemical reaction or electrical impulse] observes B"? Wow, that's a [non-thought] directly observing a [thought] if I'm not mistaken (which definitely violates premise A).



I didn't pull it out of my ass... it's just true.

Give me an example without using letters, because as far as I'm concerned, "A observes [thought] observes B" is not good enough to debunk my claim.

*I'm saying:
*<- direct observation
-> creates
A = [thought]
B = [non-thought]

A <- A -> B <- A

So direct observation of a [non-thought] can only be done by a [thought]. It's pretty simple, and true. You can't give me one example where something _directly_ observes a [non-thought] that is a [non-thought]... all physical [non-thoughts] observe indirectly, not directly.

Simply saying that I'm wrong isn't enough, I'm afraid... you'll have to give concrete evidence(or at least some examples), which you haven't done yet.

*For example:*
In your example from the electrolyzing water, the direct thing which observes the mass of the object in question is a [thought]. The very first thing in the chain of causality when it comes to observing the mass of the water is a [thought]. You can't get around it because every observing action in this physical reality starts with [thoughts]... and that is because chemical reactions and electrical impulses are a fundamental part of our reality, you can't get around it.





> And somehow you seem to think "only [thoughts] can directly observe [non-thoughts]" means "[non-thoughts] cannot indirectly observe [thoughts]".



That isn't true. It just simply isn't true. You are equating something which can't be equated... like saying 1 / 2 = 2 / 1 ... utter ridiculousness... You're just putting words in my mouth right there...





> I'm sorry, but ANY FLOW OF INFORMATION is an observation, indirect or direct. If an object in the world affects me, that is a observation.



Yeah, but remember... we are dealing with _direct_ vs _indirect_ observation. It's pretty simple... you can't just go back to talking about observation in _general_ when we got into this topic. You're digressing.



I think you're just getting in way over your head, and you have absolutely no idea how bad this discussion is for you right now. For instance, I just gave a concrete reason why "direct vs indirect observation" is not a valid way to argue against my argument. You simply don't want to acknowledge it...


*You see, this all started when:*
You said that other things observe [thoughts] besides [thoughts].
I said, "No, because we are only talking about "direct" observation in my argument."
You said, "Well, how can you show that the mind is 'directly' observing?"
I then showed you...


So... I showed you, and now you just refuse to see it. This has reached a dead-end where you have lost.  :Sad:

----------


## tkdyo

gee this thread has rapidly evolved.  I think I get what surrealist is saying about the photon measurements though.  The technology may be able to detect the position, but it has no idea to the relevence of it, it also cant interpret what that means, so it is not directly observing anything.  something with a conciousness is the only thing that can truly observe the data and interpret it

----------


## Surrealist

> gee this thread has rapidly evolved.  I think I get what surrealist is saying about the photon measurements though.  The technology may be able to detect the position, but it has no idea to the relevence of it, it also cant interpret what that means, so it is not directly observing anything.  something with a conciousness is the only thing that can truly observe the data and interpret it



Yes... so you see why it has evolved to this discussion about "indirect vs direct" observation, and how RedfishBluefish was saying that I _didn't_ know that subjective experience _directly_ observes anything.

And then, there is the point that no physical thing can directly observe a photon except for an "electrical impulse or chemical reaction." That's the fundamental truth that I use to show that the mind _does_ directly observe these things.

It does get quite convoluted, and many people wouldn't even be able to follow along, but it's necessary when someone like RedfishBluefish starts demanding specifics. Like, someone could say that gravity happens, but when they want specifics it quickly turns into a really heavy scientific explanation.

----------


## tkdyo

I can follow your logic pretty clearly, it will be interesting if science ever finds a way of empirically proving it

----------


## Surrealist

> I can follow your logic pretty clearly, it will be interesting if science ever finds a way of empirically proving it



I doubt that there _is_ even a way to empirically prove it. I mean, it's _logically_ proven, but as far as being able to empirically "observe" the mind... I think it'd be impossible unless we somehow invented something which could "detect" non-physical things.

----------


## RedfishBluefish

> And then, there is the point that no physical thing can directly observe a photon except for an "electrical impulse or chemical reaction." That's the fundamental truth that I use to show that the mind _does_ directly observe these things.



Ergo, "only [thoughts] can directly observe [non-thoughts]" -> "[non-thoughts] cannot indirectly observe [thoughts]"?


Anyway, just tell me why consciousness can't be a property of a small particle (eg. electron). That is, I am (at the lowest level) an electron - and I am "conscious".

----

Before you say that can't be because *properties can't manipulate anything:*
Well, it doesn't manipulate anything, the electron does (properties don't observe directly).

----

Before you say *the mind can't observe indirectly*:





> The only thing which can directly observe [non-thoughts] are [thoughts].
> So we run into a big problem here with your argument. Let's say a [thought] created a [non-thought] that you say gets ultimately observed by our minds. The problem is, this [non-thought] could not get *(directly)* observed by our minds, because the only physical thing which can directly observe a [non-thought] is a [thought].
> See... when you look into it far enough, no [non-thought] can be directly observed by any physical thing other than a [thought], since our minds are not [thoughts], then they either aren't *in*directly observing [thoughts], or they are non-physical.



Bits in bold inserted by me to make your argument logically valid. Bits with strikethrough removed.

If you think that's "building a strawman" we'll break it down without my modifications (all parts assume everything is physical).
1. The mind is a [non-thought].
2. [non-thoughts] cannot directly observe [non-thoughts].
3. Therefore the mind cannot observe [non-thoughts].
#3 is a mistake, as it does not allow for indirect observation.

Or maybe you meant:
1. The mind is a [non-thought].
2. [non-thoughts] cannot directly observe [non-thoughts].
3. Therefore the mind cannot indirectly observe [non-thoughts].
#3 is a mistake, as it does not follow on from the premises (#2 says nothing about indirect observation).

----------


## Surrealist

First let's take on the most ridiculous part of the post... it just makes more sense that way:




> If you think that's "building a strawman" we'll break it down without my modifications (all parts assume everything is physical).
> 1. The mind is a [non-thought].
> 2. [non-thoughts] cannot directly observe [non-thoughts].
> 3. Therefore the mind cannot observe [non-thoughts].
> #3 is a mistake, as it does not allow for indirect observation.
> 
> Or maybe you meant:
> 1. The mind is a [non-thought].
> 2. [non-thoughts] cannot directly observe [non-thoughts].
> ...



To illustrate why the above is a straw-man... let's break down your "breaking down" of my argument.

Sure, I say #1, and I say #2... but I have never said #3... actually, I said quite the opposite if this quote is indeed what I have written(and I do believe that I did):




> That isn't true. It just simply isn't true. You are equating something which can't be equated... like saying 1 / 2 = 2 / 1 ... utter ridiculousness... *You're just putting words in my mouth right there...*



See... I put the part that is relevant in *bold*... well, you know, cause it is relevant. As you can see, I have not stated that the mind can not _indirectly_ observe [non-thoughts]... this is something that you are putting into my mouth. As you have come to see for yourself, it would _indeed_ be fallacious to use my reasoning to conclude that that particular statement _must_ be true... but fortunately enough for me, I don't claim that. Sorry.





> Ergo, "only [thoughts] can directly observe [non-thoughts]" -> "[non-thoughts] cannot indirectly observe [thoughts]"?



This is funny. So, you're saying that because only [thoughts] can directly observe [non-thoughts], that means that [non-thoughts] can't indirectly observe [thoughts]? That is a very irrational conclusion, my friend. Like I told you before, you're going to have to substantiate it with a _little_ more logic(and by a little I mean more than none  :smiley:  )...

Or maybe that is what you think that _I'm_ trying to say... well, I'm sorry, but I'm not saying it. That part after the "->" isn't even relevant to this discussion... at least not that I'm aware of.





> Anyway, just tell me why consciousness can't be a property of a small particle (eg. electron). That is, I am (at the lowest level) an electron - and I am "conscious".



Didn't we go over this before, like a thousand, million times? I guess it never gets old... the story just keeps _begging_ to be told. Oh well... I'll satisfy your curiosity again...

Oh, and no... I'm not going to use:




> Before you say that can't be because *properties can't manipulate anything:*



Just not going to use it at all.

I'm simply going to point you to what I had already argued(demonstrated), and that is that if an individual electron has subjective experience, then it is necessary for that subjective experience to be non-physical. This is because the only physical thing about the electrical impulse _is_ the electrical impulse, so there is nothing _physical_ to account for the consciousness... that means that the consciousness would be non-physical. You would be agreeing with me. You could go ahead and choose this path if you want, because I don't really mind.

Oh, keep in mind though... either you choose this path, or you don't. I don't want the discussion to wander off in two different directions. It gets a bit confusing after that happens, especially coming from the same person.





> Bits in bold inserted by me to make your argument logically valid. Bits with strikethrough removed.



So you think that butchering my argument makes it better? Or more logical? Pfshh... this is hilarious. I'll break it down even more elementarily for you:
*
1. Only [thoughts] can directly observe [non-thoughts].
2. Our minds are not [thoughts].
3. Therefore, our minds can not directly observe [non-thoughts].*

This means that our minds do not observe [thoughts] indirectly. Pretty simple... or, at least _I_ can understand it. I think you're just getting confused with the "non" part... you know, mixing it up with the one without the "non..." You do have to keep track of these things you know. I'm using "non" exactly where appropriate, every time. I even go back and check my post a few times just to make sure that all stray "non"s are taken care of.

Really though, in all seriousness, I _do_ think you are mixing [thought] with [non-thought] in your thinking. That could possibly lead to a couple of the errors that I have pointed out... so just try to be more careful in future posts.

----------


## RedfishBluefish

> 1. Only [thoughts] can directly observe [non-thoughts].
> 2. Our minds are not [thoughts].
> 3. Therefore, our minds can not *directly* observe [non-thoughts].
> 
>  This means that our minds do not observe [thoughts] indirectly.



How does that mean our minds can't observe *in*directly?
All it means is that they can't observe *direct*ly.





> I'm simply going to point you to what I had already argued(demonstrated), and that is that if an individual electron has subjective experience, then it is necessary for that subjective experience to be non-physical. This is because the only physical thing about the electrical impulse _is_ the electrical impulse, so there is nothing _physical_ to account for the consciousness... that means that the consciousness would be non-physical. You would be agreeing with me.



Well, yeah... Properties aren't physical... They don't have mass or electric charge or whatever... They're just properties...

----------


## Surrealist

> How does that mean our minds can't observe *in*directly?
> All it means is that they can't observe *direct*ly.



There are two options for what the mind observes directly:
[thoughts]
or
[non-thoughts]

If we cross out [non-thoughts], that means that our minds directly observe [thoughts].





> Well, yeah... Properties aren't physical... They don't have mass or electric charge or whatever... They're just properties...



So are we going to have this shift in topic? I mean, what you had just said isn't the done deal... but I'm not going to respond until I figure out if there is only one thread of discussion going.

----------


## RedfishBluefish

> If we cross out [non-thoughts], that means that our minds directly observe [thoughts].



And so does every other physical thing in the universe?

----------


## Surrealist

> And so does every other physical thing in the universe?



Umm... I think I know what you're saying, but it doesn't really hurt my argument... I've already established this.

_[Non-thoughts] can not directly observe [non-thoughts]._
*
Yeah, that goes for every physical thing in the universe.* If you disagree, then it'd be pretty easy to give me an example. Just remember, this supposed [non-thought] must be the very first thing in the chain of causality when observing a [non-thought].


So... let's say that something in the grand universe observes something. For it to have observed a [non-thought], then the first thing(the direct thing) that directly observed the [non-thought] would be a [thought]. Pretty simple. It's also just a little bit past junior-high physical science.

----------


## RedfishBluefish

Yes.

And _that_ involves a [non-thought] directly observing a [thought].

----------


## Surrealist

> Yes.
> 
> And _that_ involves a [non-thought] directly observing a [thought].



Umm... no.

You are confusing _physical_ [non-thoughts] with _non-physical_ [non-thoughts].

You see... the mind observes, which is established. So if it can't directly observe [non-thoughts], then the only thing left for it to directly observe are [thoughts]. So logical deduction eliminates the possibility of the mind _indirectly_ observing [thoughts]... logical deduction establishes that the mind _directly_ observes [thoughts].

All _physical_ [non-thoughts] can not _directly_ observe [thoughts] because they are all _created_ by [thoughts]. Remember... *creation equals no observation.*

So.. when I say:




> Yeah, that goes for every physical thing in the universe.



I mean just that... every _physical_ thing in the universe. A non-physical [non-thought] would be radically different than a _physical_ one... you have to admit that.



I am going to anticipate your response... or try to. You are going to say: *"Well, then how do you know that the mind does observe at all?"*

Good question... with a pretty good answer.

Brain processes are all fundamentally the same, yet brain activity in certain areas gives rise to fundamentally different types of subjective experience. You can't have physical processes that are fundamentally the same which give rise to fundamentally different products.

Therefore, the only explanation is that subjective experience _gains_ the information about the location of brain processes to build up its own subjective experience. Since the only way for a mind to gain information about the location of brain processes is to observe, and since it must _directly_ observe them(from my little argument I gave), then the mind _directly observes [thoughts]..._

----------


## RedfishBluefish

> *creation equals no observation*



Generally when things are created they contain information about the thing that created them.

----------


## Surrealist

> Generally when things are created they contain information about the thing that created them.



Really... like what kind of information? I already debunked your example of photons being created showing the point of origin(location of parent creator).

What example do you have to substantiate this? And... are you willing to admit that I'm right(at least on this) when you can't come up with one example that holds under scrutiny? I really don't think you can.

Keep in mind, we are talking about information that it is carrying with it after creation but before anything else... inherently possessing information.


And also, keep in mind, "observation" means _gaining_ information. If something is created with a particular aspect to begin with, then it hasn't _gained_ anything... therefore, no observation.

----------


## RedfishBluefish

Well, we see the world through our eyes which obtain their information from photons.
When we see things, we gather information about them. Where from, if the photons don't have that information?

And actually, "observation" (in the context of QM) means a flow of information which somehow causes collapse (or apparent collapse) of the quantum system the information pertains to.
So what constitutes observation depends on the mechanisms of collapse which still aren't well understood. (For example, one interpretation says that the probability of collapse is proportional to the mass/size of the system (ie. collectively of everything carrying that information). )

----------


## Surrealist

> Well, we see the world through our eyes which obtain their information from photons.
> When we see things, we gather information about them. Where from, if the photons don't have that information?



Like I already said... the photons were _created_ *with* the information that you are using. They didn't _obtain_ the information, because they didn't exist prior to having the information.





> And actually, "observation" (in the context of QM) means a flow of information which somehow causes collapse (or apparent collapse) of the quantum system the information pertains to.



No... "observation" in the sense of the QM experiment means to obtain information about a particle. You can't _obtain_ information from a particle if you were created by the particle.


You're missing the big picture: You are arguing a dead-end here, another dead-end. We'll see how long it takes you to bulldoze your way into another topic...

----------


## Xaqaria

> Nope... I believe "experience" was the word. "Observe" here is just the process of obtaining information about an object. "Experience" in my argument is specifically meaning "subjective experience..." which is an entirely different thing altogether.



I know I'm a little slow on the response but oh well...

Explain to me how observation is different from subjective experience. The definition of experience is given as 'the observing, encountering, or undergoing of things generally as they occur in the course of time' or even philosophically as 'the totality of the cognitions given by perception; all that is perceived, understood, and remembered.' It sounds to me like experience and observe are synonomous.

----------


## Xaqaria

> Really... like what kind of information? I already debunked your example of photons being created showing the point of origin(location of parent creator).
> 
> What example do you have to substantiate this? And... are you willing to admit that I'm right(at least on this) when you can't come up with one example that holds under scrutiny? I really don't think you can.
> 
> Keep in mind, we are talking about information that it is carrying with it after creation but before anything else... inherently possessing information.
> 
> 
> And also, keep in mind, "observation" means _gaining_ information. If something is created with a particular aspect to begin with, then it hasn't _gained_ anything... therefore, no observation.



Information is intrinsically defined by communication. Nothing carries information without communicating it. In fact, since y'all are encroaching on to quantum mechanics I'll explain it that way. The observation creates the information, in that it collapses the wave form. Before observation, massless particles can be said to carry 'infinite' information, which is the same as saying they carry none at all. The specific properties of a particle do not exist until the act of observation is made.

----------


## Surrealist

> I know I'm a little slow on the response but oh well...
> 
> Explain to me how observation is different from subjective experience.



I guess those two are _almost_ synonymous... which practically helps make my argument more self-evidently true(at least the evidence that I use to back up one of the premises). I mean, I think what you were trying to get at is at the word "experience" in how my argument was originally written out... you are taking my original post, and inferring something off of a misunderstanding of the terms of my argument.

I guess, after looking back at you original point in context, that you were trying to point out that I had said that [thoughts] can not observe [thoughts] in premise #1. You'd be right, if I had meant what you think I meant... but I do not mean that. I actually have spelled this out many times before, but it's buried somewhere in this pile of posts.

*The first premise looks like this if I am completely explicit... no vague words:*
1. [Electrical impulses or chemical reactions] can not [be subjectively aware of] [electrical impulses or chemical reactions].

The problem here is a discrepancy between "observe" and "subjective experience." Inanimate things like rocks can "experience" or "observe" something, but not "subjectively experience" anything(at east I haven't _met_ any rocks who could... lol...). "Subjective experience" is a "form" of observation, but not all observation is "subjective experience."





> The specific properties of a particle do not exist until the act of observation is made.



I guess if this hypothesis is true, it still  goes along with my argument. I mean, you are manipulating the particle by suddenly _giving_ it specific properties.

Also, I think that _is_ just a hypothesis, because you can't be certain that a particle has _no_ location before it is observed. You see what I mean? Kind of like Schroedinger's Cat.

----------


## Xaqaria

Actually, experiments have been conducted that remove the conscious observer (as much as they have been able to figure out anyway) and particles have been shown to exist in multiple places at once. I'll do some digging and find a link to a description of the experiment and the results.

----------


## Xaqaria

a rock is a subject, and it experiences change due to outside influences, which is essentially the same process of conscious observation or experience. If you heat a rock enough, it will experience a change in state from solid to liquid. Subjective experience does not intrinsically imply conscious experience, and since conscious experience is what you are trying to define, it cannot be used in the explanation.

----------


## Surrealist

> Actually, experiments have been conducted that remove the conscious observer (as much as they have been able to figure out anyway) and particles have been shown to exist in multiple places at once. I'll do some digging and find a link to a description of the experiment and the results.



Well... it doesn't really matter to my argument. So they removed the conscious observer out of the equation so they can rule out everything but a more mundane explanation for QM.

I never argued for consciousness-causes-collapse... RedfishBluefish thought this as well, but I had always thought that that theory was a load of bull... it has nothing to do with my argument whatsoever...






> Subjective experience does not intrinsically imply conscious experience, and since conscious experience is what you are trying to define, it cannot be used in the explanation.



What explanation? I think you are just trying to argue that a rock has subjective experience.

Are you saying that there is something that it is like to be a rock? Are you saying that the rock have private mental states? If so, I'm completely interested... are you a new-age person who believes that everything is conscious and has a soul?

"Subject" and "subjective..." although derived from the same word, do not mean entirely the same thing. You can't just say that since something is a subject, then everything that happens to it is subjective to it, and then use that to attack my argument when that isn't the definition for "subjective experience" that I'm using. Words have different meanings in different contexts... I'm sure you know that.

You're using _this_ definition for subjective:




> 1: of, relating to, or constituting a subject:



This is the definition of "subjective" in relation to "subjective experience:"




> 3 a: characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind



As you can see... there are many, many different definitions for "subjective," but there is only one specific thing that I'm talking about in my argument by "subjective experience." I mean, what... are you just here to play semantics? That's what it seems like to me...

I'm not going to have a debate where you constantly try to tell _me_ what my words mean, when you are obviously using the definitions that they _don't_ mean.


It would be like if I said, "Wow, you're so cold."
You would say, "No, I'm a pretty nice person... I have a heart..."

While it would be a funny kind of joke(illogical things are what humor inherently is), if you were _serious_ then I could infer that you were simply misunderstanding what I said.


*I'm calling you out...*
You're playing word-games... there is no real discussion here from you. At least... that's all _I_ am "subjectively experiencing..." hahaha....

----------


## Xaqaria

> Well... it doesn't really matter to my argument. So they removed the conscious observer out of the equation so they can rule out everything but a more mundane explanation for QM.
> 
> I never argued for consciousness-causes-collapse... RedfishBluefish thought this as well, but I had always thought that that theory was a load of bull... it has nothing to do with my argument whatsoever...



Actually the experiment showed that conscious observation does collapse the wave form. Without the observer present, The particle exists in a superposition and is shown to have an effect in two places simultaneously. What this means is, the only properties something does or does not have are the ones that it communicates, and the communication is dependent on the observer as well as the observed; one cannot exist without the other. 





> What explanation? I think you are just trying to argue that a rock has subjective experience.
> 
> Are you saying that there is something that it is like to be a rock? Are you saying that the rock have private mental states? If so, I'm completely interested... are you a new-age person who believes that everything is conscious and has a soul?



By attempting to prove the existence of the soul, you are essentially trying to classify conscious observation using the metaphysical. That is the explanation I was referring to. 

I would not argue that everything has a soul, at least not in the sense that you are using the term. The concept of a rock being essentially no different from a human being supports the argument against a soul more than anything else. What I am saying is that you may feel special in your ability to subjectively experience the world, but in reality you are more likely just like everything else.





> "Subject" and "subjective..." although derived from the same word, do not mean entirely the same thing. You can't just say that since something is a subject, then everything that happens to it is subjective to it, and then use that to attack my argument when that isn't the definition for "subjective experience" that I'm using. Words have different meanings in different contexts... I'm sure you know that.
> 
> You're using _this_ definition for subjective:
> 
> This is the definition of "subjective" in relation to "subjective experience:"
> 
> As you can see... there are many, many different definitions for "subjective," but there is only one specific thing that I'm talking about in my argument by "subjective experience." I mean, what... are you just here to play semantics? That's what it seems like to me...
> 
> I'm not going to have a debate where you constantly try to tell _me_ what my words mean, when you are obviously using the definitions that they _don't_ mean.
> ...



I am using subjective in the same way you are, it just seems that you only apply it when it suits your purpose. Inanimate objects are capable of observing the world subjectively in the same way that humans are.

For example; I apply 1 volt to a circuit with an outside power supply. The power supply is communicating 1 volt. The circuit, however contains a resister that raises the ohms by a factor of 10 and so the circuit actually experiences 10 volts. This in turn effects the voltage of the entire circuit with the inclusion of the power supply.

The funny thing is, my point is the same as it was when I responded to this thread weeks or months ago (I don't remember how long its been up but I replied towards the beginning). Your original premise is flawed because you haven't shown that a thought cannot experience a thought, and yet you use that assumption as an integral part of your argument.

----------


## Xaqaria

Heres a link to that experiment if you want it. It is called the "delayed-choice experiment" and you can also search for it on google if you need to find a layman's description of it. 

Basically what the experiment has shown is that the observer (the experimenter) has a direct effect on the collapse of the wave form even when the ability to observe isn't present until after the event has taken place; or in other words, their observations have a direct effect on past events. What this means  is, even though the process has already taken place, the particle does not actually transmit any data until the observer is capable of 'looking'.

----------


## Surrealist

Look... I'm not playing word-games with you.

Either use the same definitions for things as what I use in my argument, or don't discuss anything. Pretty simple.

You are *not* using the same definition for "subjective experience" as what I am using in my argument. Subjective experience is something that you can not prove that someone else has by observation. You just can't do it. You also can't prove that a rock has subjective experience.

Subjective experience:




> Daniel Dennett identifies four properties that are commonly ascribed to qualia. According to these, qualia are:
> _ineffable_; that is, they cannot be communicated, or apprehended by any other means than direct experience._intrinsic_; that is, they are non-relational properties, which do not change depending on the experience's relation to other things._private_; that is, all interpersonal comparisons of qualia are systematically impossible._directly or immediately apprehensible in consciousness_; that is, to experience a quale is to know one experiences a quale, and to know all there is to know about that quale.



The fact that you can communicate the experience that the electricity is having makes it _not_ what I am talking about.

So... either talk about what the argument is talking about, or if you continue to play word-games I'll just simply have to ignore you. I don't want to have to do it... but I will.

Just know that you are getting absolutely nowhere... and this is because you either have absolutely _no idea_ what my argument is actually saying, or you are doing it on purpose.

I'm leaning towards to latter because you don't seem to _want_ to understand my definition... you just have your own. Having your own definition is alright, but you can't use your own definition to argue against my argument, that's called the "informal fallacy of creating a straw-man."


*To give an example of a "subjective experience," we look at a blind man, and a seeing man:*
The non-blind man goes up to the blind man, and asks, "Hey, do you know what red looks like?"
"No... how could I? How does it look?"
"Well... it looks red..."
"Can you describe it?"
"Umm.... wavelengths of light that produce the experience of red..."
"What does the experience of red look like?"
"Ummm.... I don't know how to say it...."

There you go: ineffable. There is no empirical way to show that some other object has these "subjective experiences..." none at all. Your rock and electricity example doesn't cut it.

----------


## Xaqaria

I am arguing that the subjective experience as you describe it does not exist. You yourself claim that it is impossible to show me evidence of it, and so I don't know how you expect to refute my argument.

----------


## Surrealist

> I am arguing that the subjective experience as you describe it does not exist. You yourself claim that it is impossible to show me evidence of it, and so I don't know how you expect to refute my argument.



Oh, so you do not have this "subjective experience?"

My argument only proves that you have a soul if you have these "subjective experiences..." I don't need to prove that _your_ subjective experiences exist, because everyone already knows that they do(besides you, of course).

I don't need to refute your argument, because you don't have one. You can go ahead and be someone without subjective experiences, but you'd be famous... you'd be the first recorded human being who doesn't have them.

The fact that all humans have them, but are unable to observe them empirically, doesn't hurt my argument. They are established to exist because _everyone_ alive experiences them(oh, but not you).

----------


## RedfishBluefish

Let's go back to what started this ridiculous argument about what constitutes observation.





> All _physical_ [non-thoughts] can not _directly_ observe [thoughts] because they are all _created_ by [thoughts]. Remember... *creation equals no observation.*




I argued that creation does equal observation. I now realize that was a mistake. I should have said:
_There are many physical things in the world that observe things without being created every time they do so. Take, as an example, protons. In chemical reactions they get shoved around all over the place, but never created or destroyed._

----------


## Surrealist

> _There are many physical things in the world that observe things without being created every time they do so. Take, as an example, protons. In chemical reactions they get shoved around all over the place, but never created or destroyed._



You're going to have to give a concrete example... as I see it, you are arguing for a proton to be acting like a bubble or something. Or like it was suspended in liquid.

I'm pretty sure that that is _not_ how protons act. I'm pretty sure that they travel the speed of light in as straight a line as possible.


I understand your objection, but photons don't "bounce..." that's an illusion. They get absorbed by the atom, the atoms energy level is raised which results in the energy level being unsustainable for the atom, which then releases a photon to get rid of the excess energy. The two photons are not the same photons. I learned this in some grade school class... a pretty long time ago.

*EDIT:*
Here you go, I finally found an article that shuts this objection of yours down:




> *All interactions between photons and matter are described as series of absorptions and emissions of photons.* When an arriving photon strikes a single molecule at the surface of a material, is absorbed and almost immediately reemitted, the *‘new’* photon may be emitted in any direction, thus causing diffuse reflection.

----------


## RedfishBluefish

Um, protons not photons.
You know, those things inside the nucleus of atoms? That can't go at the speed of light because they're made of matter?

So anyway say two atoms collide.
They bounce off each other.
So the protons in the nucleus (and the atom as a whole) have gained information about the other atom. Nothing has been created or destroyed.

----------


## Surrealist

> So anyway say two atoms collide.
> They bounce off each other.
> So the protons in the nucleus (and the atom as a whole) have gained information about the other atom. Nothing has been created or destroyed.



Do you think that atoms "bounce" as well?

I'm having a fun time with this. Maybe I was talking about photons instead of protons(doesn't really matter though... get it, matter?), but it is still relevant here.

An atom's "protons" are not responsible at all for the interactions that it has with other atoms. This is like... semi-highschool level science.

It's really _all_ just interactions between the electrons in the orbiting shells around the nucleus. There's no protons bouncing around anywhere(at least how you are picturing it). lol...  ::doh::

----------


## Xaqaria

> Oh, so you do not have this "subjective experience?"
> 
> My argument only proves that you have a soul if you have these "subjective experiences..." I don't need to prove that _your_ subjective experiences exist, because everyone already knows that they do(besides you, of course).
> 
> I don't need to refute your argument, because you don't have one. You can go ahead and be someone without subjective experiences, but you'd be famous... you'd be the first recorded human being who doesn't have them.
> 
> The fact that all humans have them, but are unable to observe them empirically, doesn't hurt my argument. They are established to exist because _everyone_ alive experiences them(oh, but not you).



But you don't have them either. No one does.

----------


## Surrealist

> But you don't have them either. No one does.



Oh really... even though I can directly sense them existing? After all... how could I know they exist to myself, if they didn't?

Oh, and how do you know that _I_ don't have them either? That seems like a pretty hard thing to prove... and I don't think you can even come close to being succesful.

I think you're just acting like a defiant toddler or something... seriously(without offense). You don't like my argument, so you just blatantly refuse to acknowledge the existence of something that is for sure existing.


*
A way to prove that they exist would be my blind-man example. The fact that there is something that the person can not convey in words is proof that that thing exists.*


I noticed how you just ignored that example... how funny.  ::roll::

----------


## RedfishBluefish

> Do you think that atoms "bounce" as well?
> 
> I'm having a fun time with this. Maybe I was talking about photons instead of protons(doesn't really matter though... get it, matter?), but it is still relevant here.
> 
> An atom's "protons" are not responsible at all for the interactions that it has with other atoms. This is like... semi-highschool level science.
> 
> It's really _all_ just interactions between the electrons in the orbiting shells around the nucleus. There's no protons bouncing around anywhere(at least how you are picturing it). lol...



 ::roll:: 
The protons do indeed interact with the electrons in the orbiting shells.
As the electrons interact with the electrons of other atoms.
Without anything being created.

Note that I said "The atoms bounce", and "the atom as a whole". The collision between two atoms results in a change of momentum for the atoms, and everything inside the atom. Some of that applies to the protons inside, considering they have mass. So even if you stripped away everything but one proton, there would still be information about the nature of the collision there in the form of that proton's momentum.

----------


## Surrealist

> So even if you stripped away everything but one proton, there would still be information about the nature of the collision there in the form of that proton's momentum.



You're going to have to supply the evidence for this information existing.

What kind of information is it? For something to gain information, there needs to be a change in state of the thing "observing" which can be used to deduce something about the object which was "observed."

In this case, nothing has been observed. You wouldn't be able to take that proton and deduct anything at all from it alone.



Sorry... no observation.

----------


## RedfishBluefish

A change in momentum?

----------


## Xaqaria

> Oh really... even though I can directly sense them existing? After all... how could I know they exist to myself, if they didn't?
> 
> Oh, and how do you know that _I_ don't have them either? That seems like a pretty hard thing to prove... and I don't think you can even come close to being succesful.
> 
> I think you're just acting like a defiant toddler or something... seriously(without offense). You don't like my argument, so you just blatantly refuse to acknowledge the existence of something that is for sure existing.
> 
> 
> *
> A way to prove that they exist would be my blind-man example. The fact that there is something that the person can not convey in words is proof that that thing exists.*
> ...



All that your blind man example showed was that the visual senses exist and that its hard to communicate that to a blind man. Not impossible, but difficult. As far as I'm concerned, it has nothing to do with consciousness. Plants react to light; its nothing special. Are plants conscious?

----------


## Surrealist

> All that your blind man example showed was that the visual senses exist and that its hard to communicate that to a blind man. Not impossible, but difficult. As far as I'm concerned, it has nothing to do with consciousness. Plants react to light; its nothing special. Are plants conscious?



lol...

My blind man example showed that "qualia" exist... the thing that you said didn't exist.

You could explain all there is that is physical about sight. You can describe photons... retinas... how your brain handles everything... but it would all not matter to my argument because you couldn't describe what red _looks like_.

I'm not talking about the wavelength of red... that's easy to explain(or relatively so)... but the experience of seeing that wavelength. What the wavelength _looks like_ to you.

You are too dense for your own good.







> A change in momentum?



Yes... but did the particle _gain_ any information? Does a change in momentum _mean_ anything? It seems as though it only means something to _that particle_, it doesn't mean _anything_ about the other particle.

----------


## RedfishBluefish

At the very least it means there was a collision with another particle - which gained an equal and opposite amount of momentum.
At the very least you could put a lower bound on the mass of the other particle, given the light barrier and the current velocity of the particle being examined (assuming "exotic matter" that can travel faster than light (tachyons?) are discounted).

----------


## Surrealist

> At the very least it means there was a collision with another particle - which gained an equal and opposite amount of momentum.
> At the very least you could put a lower bound on the mass of the other particle, given the light barrier and the current velocity of the particle being examined (assuming "exotic matter" that can travel faster than light (tachyons?) are discounted).



Really?

How can you know that it collided with another particle? I mean... seriously, you don't know _anything_ about the other particle.


Oh yeah... to keep you in perspective... this whole sub-discussion was because I supplied proof that the mind observes directly. Showing me wrong on this point(although you really haven't) would only show that I can't prove the mind observes directly. It wouldn't prove that the mind observes _indirectly_.

----------


## RedfishBluefish

What the hell?

How about the law of conservation of momentum?
If one particle gains momentum, you know that another particle somewhere has gained an equal and opposite amount of momentum.

Also, that other particle can't have less than P/(2c) mass (where P is the change of momentum and c is the speed of light), because to do so would mean that no matter what that particle's initial velocity was, it would result in it moving faster than the speed of light.

----------


## polmc

Has this got anything to do with consciousness?

Please guys, you look like penguins trying to explain the phenomenon of 'northern lights'. 

Stick to what you can argue about, which is the logic of Surrealist's arguments mainly, but not sub-ultra-atomic reactions...

----------


## Surrealist

I've been on a long hiatus, but now I'm back. And to borrow words from RedfishBluefish... the war is on!

But yeah, it's not really a war, but you know.... the logical debate resumes.





> What the hell?
> 
> How about the law of conservation of momentum?
> If one particle gains momentum, you know that another particle somewhere has gained an equal and opposite amount of momentum.



Yes, but without direct observation, you have no idea which particle was affected, or what the other particle that effected it was, or what kind of change happened.

You know something happened... but no idea what it is.

See... you aren't demonstrating "observation," which is a gain in information... you are showing manipulation. Manipulation can happen without observation, but observation can not happen without causing manipulation. Direct observation of a [non-thought] would have to gain some information about that [non-thought]. A [non-thought] hitting another [non-thought] is not an example of gaining any information. You have no idea what is happening or anything.

Look down towards the bottom of this post to get a better idea of what I'm trying to say.





> Has this got anything to do with consciousness?
> 
> Please guys, you look like penguins trying to explain the phenomenon of 'northern lights'. 
> 
> Stick to what you can argue about, which is the logic of Surrealist's arguments mainly, but not sub-ultra-atomic reactions...



Precisely, polmc. I mean, I'm sticking to this because of how absurd it looks for an opponent of my argument to have to stray so deep into the realm of physics to debunk me.

It's almost silly to watch.


We strayed onto this topic because I came up with an argument which shows that the mind directly observes the brain. *I did this because RedfishBluefish argued that the mind doesn't necessarily "directly" observe the brain.*


That argument is pointless, however. That is because since the mind observes, and the observations made by the mind include information from the brain, *then something in the chain of observation would inherently need to observe the brain.*

So you have the mind observes something which observes the brain. This still means the brain gets manipulated, which still shows my argument to be correct.



Although I haven't been to this thread in awhile, I have been posting my arguments on YouTube, and angering quite a few athiests on there. This is because they _can't_ argue against my arguments. Oh yeah, feel free to borrow counter-arguments from the comments on these videos... as I already have debunked them all, and it would be real easy to just paste in my reply that I already have. But, here are links to all my videos which relate to this topic:

*Just the original argument:*
http://youtube.com/watch?v=KW5SuQOEaB8     -    Part 1
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pDi3mTkhOLE     -    Part 2

*A video demonstrating how my argument actually proves "substance" dualism instead of "property" dualism(it also backs up the argument the mini-argument in the above video for the existence of God):*
http://youtube.com/watch?v=KFQiX8oYVTc

*A new argument showing that the brain doesn't create the mind:*
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pfsR31syCvQ

*A video demonstrating precisely how each of my argument so far shows that God exists and how the GTE didn't create our minds:*
http://youtube.com/watch?v=lhcsYS2Ombg&feature=related

That last video utilizes an argument that is basically this:



```
1. All fundamentally same processes create fundamentally same products.
2. All brain processes of certain types are fundamentally the same.
3. All different subjective experiences are fundamentally different.
4. Therefore, subjective experiences are not products of brain processes.
```


All premises are supported by overwhelming amounts of empirical evidence. Take for instance premise #1... _all_ observable evidence shows this to be true. You can't even come up with one processes that proves it wrong.

#2 just basically is telling you that if you had an electrical impulse on one side of your brain and one from another, they are both fundamentally the same.

#3 is stating that all different subjective experiences are fundamentally different. This is undeniable. The subjective experience of sight is fundamentally different from hearing. You can't reconcile the two.




So basically, not only is RedfishBluefish's argument ridiculous(because it doesn't even debunk my argument anyways), but I have arguments that show that the mind is at the least separate from the brain, which means that the mind would need to observe the brain either directly, or indirectly. If indirectly, then it is still causing manipulation, because the thing that the mind observes which observes the brain is directly observing it, which causes manipulation.

Not only that, but RedfishBluefish is still unable to prove my argument wrong which shows that the mind directly observes the brain.... that was this:




> 1. Only [thoughts] can directly observe [non-thoughts].
> 2. Our minds are not [thoughts].
> 3. Therefore, our minds can not directly observe [non-thoughts].



The reason why this argument shows that the mind directly observes [thoughts] is:
Since the mind can't directly observe [non-thoughts], that leaves only one thing for the mind to observe, which are [thoughts].


*
And then you might say that the mind doesn't observe anything.... it is just a creation of the brain. If you use that way out, then I point you to the new argument outlined above in the "code" block.*

----------

