Ian Wardell
New
Can you conceive a coherent explanation of "thoughts"?
Yes, thoughts are what they seem to be.
Can you conceive a coherent explanation of "thoughts"?
I'm not sure how you could possibly know this, since you do not experience the source and formation of thoughts.Yes, thoughts are what they seem to be.
And yet no matter how hard you try you'll react to situations in predictable ways. And yet will surfing the web advertisers can send user specific advertisements to the site you may be using such as Facebook. I'm saying you ain't as immutable and free wheeling as you believe yourself to be, no one is. And contrary to the conclusion you've argue yourself into thoughts and brain processes are one and the same.Brain processes are like any other physical processes e.g the Earth orbiting the Sun. Physical processes are immutable. But our thoughts have a freedom and can chop and change with our will, as well as our overt behaviour. If our thoughts were like the Earth orbiting the sun, then our thoughts would lack this freedom. But as I explain in my essays, this is incoherent.
And yet no matter how hard you try you'll react to situations in predictable ways. And yet will surfing the web advertisers can send user specific advertisements to the site you may be using such as Facebook. I'm saying you ain't as immutable and free wheeling as you believe yourself to be, no one is. And contrary to the conclusion you've argue yourself into thoughts and brain processes are one and the same.
Don't worry, they have no free will, it's not their fault ;):DWell, at this point I'd be simply repeating myself! I certainly won't convince any materialists with my essay. I never am able to convince them of anything which challenges their materialism.
We already told you. If we are to assume that reasoning = brain processes, then your statement in the last paragraph is incorrect.I'm not sure why this conversation is going off on a tangent. I'm wondering if there's anything wrong with the argument as I outline it on my blog.
You do not know this. Isn't it obvious that this is a just-so claim? Show us a proof.But an essential notion of materialism is causal closure. I cannot do whatever I want; my behaviour (under materialism) is constrained along certain channels so that causal closure ain't violated. But my voluntary behaviour isn't constrained.
Good point...Actually, I've just come to a realisation. This whole misunderstanding arises because materialists conflate the inevitability of specific behaviour under physical laws with the inevitability of specific behaviour due to the fact people will invariably behave the same way under specific circumstances.
No, that isn't the problem. I don't believe that people will invariably behave the same way, becauseActually, I've just come to a realisation. This whole misunderstanding arises because materialists conflate the inevitability of specific behaviour under physical laws with the inevitability of specific behaviour due to the fact people will invariably behave the same way under specific circumstances.
We already told you. If we are to assume that reasoning = brain processes, then your statement in the last paragraph is incorrect.
"But it then follows that reasoning something through is causally irrelevant."
If you won't at least clarify your post, then you simply do not care about critique.
~~ Paul
You do not know this. Isn't it obvious that this is a just-so claim? Show us a proof.
And as soon as you throw in randomness, this entire argument is pointless. You might not do the same thing under identical circumstances.
~~ Paul
Yet you can conceive of a (coherent) way that they impact on "the physical"?Yes, thoughts are what they seem to be.
Then your entire post is a non sequitur. You say:But reasoning can't equal brain processes since brain processes are dictated by impersonal physical laws, and reasons, or any chain of thought, or any voluntary behaviour, is not.
This is an unproven assertion.Causal closure means I can't just do anything, but must follow a prescribed path. Just like the Earth does as it orbits the Sun.
But at any moment in time I have the capacity to act in numerous ways. Seemingly unlike the moon as it orbits the Earth.
One can easily give examples of how thoughts (or emotions) impact the physical, but then it can be argued that thoughts themselves arise from the physical and are purely brain generated. The question to ask is if "the physical" (electrochemical brain processes) can account for all observed, reported and studied experiences, including normal waking consciousness, psychic phenomena, apparitions, veridical NDEs, verified reincarnation memories (including phobias, birthmarks and defects), etc.Yet you can conceive of a (coherent) way that they impact on "the physical"?
I suspect that malf was asking how an immaterial thought can impact the physical.One can easily give examples of how thoughts (or emotions) impact the physical, but then it can be argued that thoughts themselves arise from the physical and are purely brain generated. The question to ask is if "the physical" (electrochemical brain processes) can account for all observed, reported and studied experiences, including normal waking consciousness, psychic phenomena, apparitions, veridical NDEs, verified reincarnation memories (including phobias, birthmarks and defects), etc.
Yet you can conceive of a (coherent) way that they impact on "the physical"?