Is the mind an epiphenomenon ? It is... is mind a side-effect of physical causality ?

Originally posted by debbiejo
I believe that the mind is independent of the physical body and yet can still exist within it.

As long as such is admitted I can accept your belief, but if you claim that such is in any way logical or scientific I will state you are in error.

Originally posted by Regret
But... Such a belief is basically the exact same as a religious view, there is no evidence supporting it and nothing past the subjective as far experience with it. Science cannot hold with this view and a logical assessment of the situation does not lead to this concept. This duality concept is an attempt at reconciling spirit in a nonreligious paradigm.

As long as such is admitted I can accept your belief, but if you claim that such is in any way logical or scientific I will state you are in error.

Originally posted by Regret
😆 😆 😆
Consciousness is not necessary. There is no "mind"/"consciousness" separate from the physical required and no science claims such. Perhaps laughable theory claims such, but stable theory does not.

That only depends on how much you know quantum mechanics. 😉

Just one more thing. We are not having faith or believing in the mind. Mind can be perceived empirically, it is a phenomenon. You are aware of yourself, and that is a fact. Denying it is like denying the existence of the computer in front of you.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Just one more thing. We are not having faith or believing in the mind. Mind can be perceived empirically, it is a phenomenon. You are aware of yourself, and that is a fact. Denying it is like denying the existence of the computer in front of you.

Here is something to read and consider, it is based on a scientific stance, more so than supposed opposing views:
"Why I am Not a Cognitive Psychologist"

Originally posted by Regret
You are not aware of "mind" or "consciousness". You are aware of the physiological activity of the brain, which is all there is. This is a fact. If "mind" could be shown to exist that individual would earn a Nobel Prize. Existence of "mind" cannot be empirically tested.[/url]

We are aware of our minds and consciousnesses. I know that I exist. Being alive proves that you have consciousness. Aren´t you conscious !?

If someone can be aware of the physiology of the brain then he has "mind" and "consciousness". Only "mind" and "consciousness" can be "aware" of something. If you do not have a mind or a consciousness, then you cannot be aware of the physiology of the brain.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
We are aware of our minds and consciousnesses. I know that I exist. Being alive proves that you have consciousness. Aren´t you conscious !?

If someone can be aware of the physiology of the brain then he has "mind" and "consciousness". Only "mind" and "consciousness" can be "aware" of something. If you do not have a mind or a consciousness, then you cannot be aware of the physiology of the brain.

Originally posted by Regret
You think you are aware of a "mind" or consciousness, all you are "aware" of is the activity occurring in your physiology, the rest is similar to religious belief in that there is absolutely no evidence for it. Thinking is merely the activity of the brain. The brain is the only "mind" there is, everything else is superstitious make believe. Show me evidence of thought that does not have an accompanying physiological evidence for it being anything other than a physiological event.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Doesn't your little box get crowded with all your knowledge?? 🙄

Sorry, I am a Psychologist and have studied the subject for a long period of time. There is no evidence of "mind", and believing in such is the same as believing in a "spirit", and is totally unnecessary, and illogical in a scientific study.

There is only one consciousness that has always existed. Our consciousness stems from that. All physicality arose from consciousness; And therefore, everything is conscious, whether our puny brains (which are physical) can comprehend that or not.

The topic seems to have strayed from the original intent, and some people are obviously misconstruing epiphenomenalism with other aspects of consciousness.

Part 1, physical forces create consciousness....I believe that. Mind is seperate from the physical forces that give rise to it....unsure. It deals with the Hard Question directly, and is literally impossible to answer with validity currently. Intuitively, I'd lean toward "yes", it is seperate, but arch-materialism has won out (in my mind) in nearly every other field where we can verify results and opinions, and consciousness is one of the few bastions left to legitimate speculation of something beyond materiality.

If indeed mind is seperate, I also don't know if it can causally affect reality. If mind is purely physical, the materialist view, it's all simply determinism and a moot question. But assuming a dualist perspective: Awareness comes after action, however minutely (we perceive it as simultaneous usually). This has been studied and confirmed. Action causally affects future action, but the question is whether awareness of one action affects future action (and thus future awareness). I'd lean toward yes, just based on a common-sense idea that being aware of something changes the situation, and I act differently than I'd imagine I would if I were unaware of it (and it was, say, an automatic nervous system response).

So either way, I'm not a pure epiphenominalist, and much remains speculative.

By intuitive guessing, I'm close. I believe (cautiously) that physical brain gives rise to consciousness, that mind is seperate (dualism), and it can causally affect the physical universe. Only the last of those disagrees with strict epiphenominalism.

Originally posted by omygoddess
There is only one consciousness that has always existed. Our consciousness stems from that. All physicality arose from consciousness; And therefore, everything is conscious, whether our puny brains (which are physical) can comprehend that or not.

If it's beyond our "puny" brains (which are, so far to our understanding, the most complicated machines in the recorded universe) how is it that you can speak so authoritatively on it? Speaking outside your ability to be certain has a tendency to ring false among those who realize our current limitations and understandings.

regret, you are too sure of yourself and in the wrong here. self awareness has not currently been adequately{even close to} explained based on just physical phenomenon. the hard question of conciousness is as valid as ever and not "in the wrong". the thing is, were are not dealing with free will here, we are just dealing with whether conciousness is "different " from the physical brain. id say yes it is. but that doesnt go to say it doesnt RISE from and RELY on physical activities for its existance. i think it definately comes into existance as a RESULT of those physical neurological processes, but is DIFFERENT from them.

also, quantum brain is not a laughable/psuedo theory. unless you consider roger penrose as non scientific/laughable. n i dont think u wanna do that to a scientist of such repute.

leo: Since you can say without a shadow of a doubt that scientific materialism is wrong, you would surely be able to explain how modern neuroscientists explain conscious phenomena.

So, save me the time, give a suscinct 2 or 3 paragraph summation of what I, as a neuroscientist, am going to argue shows the physical nature of consciousness.

And a note about quantum consciousness: The only people who follow that idea are a very small community in the quantum field. These are people who think all problems in the universe are quantum problems. At the best, the work has been published in biophysics journals as models (no experimental data to date shows any quantum phenomena in the brain). In the field of people who study the brain, its functions, and the behaviour those functions cause, quantum consciousness is laughable. Anyone with the first understanding of neurological principals and without the ideological commitment to either quantum physics as the answer to everything or dualism is pretty much convinced that the quantum theory is wrong.

Originally posted by ohhellodear
The body cannot live without the mind.

And vise versa.

This is how I see it:

A person's best chances are survival, success, and happiness are when his or her mind and body work together in unison. One who has a conflicted body, a conflicted mind, and a conflict between mind and body is the one who suffers the greatest.

I see many materialists trying to minimize the existance that is the mind, but think about it for a second: The human mind is so far, the most complicated mystery known to date.

Because of the human mind, nuclear bombs were created, illusions and monuments are cast, stories and religion are manifest, and basically every historical human accomplishment is the work of what we call the mind.

Yes, it is very difficult to grasp Quantam studies claim that the Universe emerged from thought, but I am convinced to a point where I don't think the mysteries of the mind should be ignored.

The mind and body cannot be separated. If the mind is in conflict, the body will follow. Also, if the body is in conflicted, the mind will follow.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Yes, it is very difficult to grasp Quantam studies claim that the Universe emerged from thought, but I am convinced to a point where I don't think the mysteries of the mind should be ignored.

when one is able to just invent mysteries, they do seem very difficult to explain 😉

Originally posted by inimalist
when one is able to just invent mysteries, they do seem very difficult to explain 😉

He did not make that up; it would have something to do with sex, if he had. 😆

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
He did not make that up; it would have something to do with sex, if he had. 😆

I was talking about all the examples he used to show how "complex" and clearly "incomprehensible" the mind is.

If one can just claim that the mind is too complex to understand and it thus becomes that, it seems very easy to prove an anti-materialist point of view.

The argument he is making is basically "You cannot prove that the mind is not too complex to be a physical phenomena" or even "I cannot understand how the mind and the body could not be seperate, therefore it must not be".

In my opinion, it is simply a matter of restating questions that have reasonable explanations in such a way that ANY answer is seen to be inadequate. As is much of philosophy.

Originally posted by inimalist
I was talking about all the examples he used to show how "complex" and clearly "incomprehensible" the mind is.

If one can just claim that the mind is too complex to understand and it thus becomes that, it seems very easy to prove an anti-materialist point of view.

The argument he is making is basically "You cannot prove that the mind is not too complex to be a physical phenomena" or even "I cannot understand how the mind and the body could not be seperate, therefore it must not be".

In my opinion, it is simply a matter of restating questions that have reasonable explanations in such a way that ANY answer is seen to be inadequate. As is much of philosophy.

And I was joking. 😉 The mind is part of the body.