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

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

That is not what I said.

Originally posted by inimalist
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.

We can understand the mind, but not claim to know what is it. You are the one making a claim to know what the mind actually is. You can't do that, especially when you don't know the entirety of the body for what it truly is.

Your senses of the physical world are limitted. Thus so will your senses be of the mental realm.

Originally posted by inimalist
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".

I never made such an argument. What I am arguing, however, is that you can't claim to know what the mind is, in its entirety. Until you can fully and trule define what a body is, much less the rest of the physical world, than you can begin to define and explain what exactly the mind is.

And I beleive it is you making the argument you are against. You can only conclude that the mind is the result of brain activity, since that is all you can recognize. You can only see the Brain, but you cannot "see" the mind. Therefore, as a materialist, that is what you conclude.

Originally posted by inimalist
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.

I beleive it is your kind of mentality that leads people to take physical illness more seriously than mental illness.

Originally posted by Regret
You limit yourself by assuming some supernatural "mind" exists. Understand that there is no such thing and you can better understand how your behavior and thinking really occurs and have a broader possibility.

I don't think you have the right to say something like this when you beleive in God, Heaven, Hell, and Jesus being the Savior of Humanity.

Originally posted by Regret
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.

Yet, you beleive in a "soul" 🙄

An epiphenomenon is a secondary phenomenon that occurs alongside a primary phenomenon.

In philosophy of mind, epiphenomenalism is the view that mental phenomena are caused by physical phenomena, and cannot cause anything themselves.

Mind is not independent of the body. It includes but transcends the body. In using symbols, it is able to understand the physical world far more thoroughly than the body (ie, the senses) could alone. It is able to perceive itself in a way the body can't do at all. To ask if this is epiphenomenal, a "side effect" (not a positive connotation there) is a peculiar thing for the mind to do to itself, for to undermine the profundity of the questioner is to undermine the profundity of every question.

There are some who beleive the subconcious mind is the "universal" mind, and that the concious mind is the "ego" or individual mind. Some will argue that "gut feelings" or "instincts", even the deepest of dreams, derive from our unconcious mind, while the concious mind can only understand the realm of the physical and the realm of direct experience.

I love the idea. It's so interesting, and explains a lot of wierd phenomena that occur.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
That is not what I said.

ok...

You said:

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
The human mind is so far, the most complicated mystery known to date.

followed by:

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
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.

It seems that this would be a statement about the complexity (I took, from your use of complexity, that it indicates the difficulty in understanding) of the human mind, followed by examples that I only assume you think show evidence to your point (else, why list things that appear to show mysterious and complex processes of the mind?).

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
We can understand the mind, but not claim to know what is it. You are the one making a claim to know what the mind actually is.

I claim no knowledge of the mind. Actually, you speak of it with such authority, why not give me a workable definition of it, so that we can have a realistic converstaion.

You have attributed to it the ability to make nuclear bombs and religion, you must obviously understand much about the causitive nature of mind -> creation, so please, describe it for me in detail.

What is my mind?

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
You can't do that, especially when you don't know the entirety of the body for what it truly is.

re: "You do not accept my philosophical and absolutly untestable worldview, so there must be gaps in your understanding that, were you to accept my way of thinking, would evaporate into holistic ambrosia."

Talking down to me from a mountain of "You can't proves" does not really help your argument. Back up what you are saying or, for lack of a better term, get off the pot.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Your senses of the physical world are limitted. Thus so will your senses be of the mental realm.

That would be great if, as a scientific community, we even remotely accepted subjective data as evidence. So, while you sit there going "Look at all this stuff, my senses are giving me enough data to know I have a mind", we, again speaking of the scientific community, have moved past those types of misattribution errors years ago.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I never made such an argument.

lol, i was paraphrasing. Upon some further review, I'd even now say that you feel "materialists" go out of their way to minimize clear data that supports your dualistic point of view.

Well, back that up.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
What I am arguing, however, is that you can't claim to know what the mind is, in its entirety.

this presupposes that there is a mind to begin with. Please prove this and provide an instrumental definition so that it can be verified empirically.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Until you can fully and trule define what a body is, much less the rest of the physical world, than you can begin to define and explain what exactly the mind is.

or you can be a good scientist and not make such grandious assumptions about the nature of the body, mind and reality.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
And I beleive it is you making the argument you are against. You can only conclude that the mind is the result of brain activity, since that is all you can recognize. You can only see the Brain, but you cannot "see" the mind. Therefore, as a materialist, that is what you conclude.

What I am seeing are the results of innumerable studies that map various experiences to bran activity. I have nothing invested in consciousness being illusory, should evidence come up that shows it to be the other way, I would believe that. Can you show me evidence?

I haven't actually made an argument in this thread, I simply asked Leo to explain the neurological position he dismisses (which I will ask you as well) and said you were mystery mongering (inventing mysterious things) to try and exaggerate the complexity of the human "mind" and dismiss a position I am going to assume you can't properly articulate.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I beleive it is your kind of mentality that leads people to take physical illness more seriously than mental illness.

Care to expand on that? LOL, if you care to get off the high horse for just long enough that is. Because otherwise that argument is a big ol' strawman.

Originally posted by inimalist
ok...

You said:

followed by:

It seems that this would be a statement about the complexity (I took, from your use of complexity, that it indicates the difficulty in understanding) of the human mind, followed by examples that I only assume you think show evidence to your point (else, why list things that appear to show mysterious and complex processes of the mind?).

Understood. I simply felt you were re-writing my initial argument for me, but now I understand what you were trying to do.

Still, that wasn't my point.

The complexities of the mind was not what I was arguing about. I am talking about what results the mind spawns. And they are many. You seem to look at the mind from a purely physical point of view. So far, as far as science can tell, the mind is the product of neuro activity.

You seem to define it by what we know so far...nothing wrong with that, but I see the mind as far more, and I view it not only from its physical root in brain activity, but from the results it yeilds- hence the examples of the nuclear bomb, and whatnot.

Originally posted by inimalist
I claim no knowledge of the mind. Actually, you speak of it with such authority, why not give me a workable definition of it, so that we can have a realistic converstaion.

I cannot form a definition, since like yourself, I only have five senses, and can never truly know what the mind is.

I do not speak with "authority", you are the only trying to define what the mind is.

Originally posted by inimalist
You have attributed to it the ability to make nuclear bombs and religion, you must obviously understand much about the causitive nature of mind -> creation, so please, describe it for me in detail.

Please do not tell me you cannot understand what phenomena the mind can be through the historical creative process the human mind has enacted.

Human Thought is responsible for religion, philosophy, war, weapons, and everything that falls under human creation.

You are either utilizing sarcasm or feigning ignorance to prove a point, but the point I do not pick up on. So please, tell me directly what you are trying to imply.

Originally posted by inimalist
What is my mind?

Like I said before, I cannot fully know, and neither can you.

Originally posted by inimalist
re: "You do not accept my philosophical and absolutly untestable worldview, so there must be gaps in your understanding that, were you to accept my way of thinking, would evaporate into holistic ambrosia."

That is your own misintepretation of what I have said.

Originally posted by inimalist
Talking down to me from a mountain of "You can't proves" does not really help your argument. Back up what you are saying or, for lack of a better term, get off the pot.

You are the one being condescending. Not me. Please do not be a hypocrite. 👇

Originally posted by inimalist
That would be great if, as a scientific community, we even remotely accepted subjective data as evidence. So, while you sit there going "Look at all this stuff, my senses are giving me enough data to know I have a mind", we, again speaking of the scientific community, have moved past those types of misattribution errors years ago.

Science has been incorrect before, and always will be when it comes to matters in which we do not have enough tangible evidense to work with.

Psychology is the study of the mind, or to please Regret, the study of human behavior.

I hope you are not insisting that Psychology is "bullshit".

Just because something cannot provide physical evidense does not mean it is not true.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, i was paraphrasing. Upon some further review, I'd even now say that you feel "materialists" go out of their way to minimize clear data that supports your dualistic point of view.

Well, back that up.

I said that you go out of your way to minimize a phenomena, in an attempt to "de-mystify" it.

Originally posted by inimalist
this presupposes that there is a mind to begin with. Please prove this and provide an instrumental definition so that it can be verified empirically.

Again, I cannot provide you with a definition of the mind, since we could not possibly know what the mind is in its entirety.

Again, are you trying to argue that we can know what the mind is in its entirety ?

Originally posted by inimalist
or you can be a good scientist and not make such grandious assumptions about the nature of the body, mind and reality.

Assumptions ? 😬

So the human mind is not responsible for the creation of the nuclear bomb, religion, philosophy, medicine, war, and every other human processed creation that exists ?

Originally posted by inimalist
What I am seeing are the results of innumerable studies that map various experiences to bran activity. I have nothing invested in consciousness being illusory, should evidence come up that shows it to be the other way, I would believe that. Can you show me evidence?

Can I show you evidense of what ?

Since you have studied, I assume you would already know that there are colors we cannot see, sounds we cannot hear, odors we cannot smell, and vibrations and energies we cannot feel.

There is an insect that can see 300 more colors than we can.

Dogs can hear sounds we cannot recognize.

Sharks can see our energy field, we can't see our own.

Our senses are limitted. This is not opinion, this is FACT.

We cannot know the true nature of reality, even on a physical level.

You understand this, right ?

We cannot recognize the physical world for what it truly is, in all its complexity. All we have is our brain's intepretation of what everything is. And that's it.

Knowing this (which I assume you do), how can you possibly beleive that we can truly know what the mind is, when we can't even possibly know what the physical world truly is ?

Originally posted by inimalist
I haven't actually made an argument in this thread, I simply asked Leo to explain the neurological position he dismisses (which I will ask you as well) and said you were mystery mongering (inventing mysterious things) to try and exaggerate the complexity of the human "mind" and dismiss a position I am going to assume you can't properly articulate.

What mysterious things did I invent ?

Originally posted by inimalist
Care to expand on that? LOL, if you care to get off the high horse for just long enough that is. Because otherwise that argument is a big ol' strawman.

Like I said before, you are the one being condescending. You may argue like a child, but I will not stoop to that level. I will continue to address you with respect and open eyes. If you wish to continue speaking "down" to me, or utilizing sarcasm in your debate, then feel free to do so, but do not expect me to adhere.

As for the expansion....

There are people who do not take psychology seriously. Or mental illnesses such as OCD, Dissassociate Identity Disorder, Schitzophrenia, and the like...

Many mental institutions were not funded well, and in fact, closed down in the past. As a result, many people who require mental treatment are still expected to behave according to society's standards.

Mental Illness is very real. Depression, Mania, psychosis, and all disorders are real and require treatment.

Unfortunately, many people only recognize physical illness, and ignore the mental. So instead of trying to understand how the mind works, and utilizing therapeutic practices upon the patient, they simply fill them with meds which often lead to addiction and suicide.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
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.

Bad example. Penrose himself is on record as saying his theory of quantum mind is highly improbable. It's much (much) more hypothesis than theory. He's an expert on astrophysics, and tried his hand at applying it to consciousness, but it's as much a personal musing as a scientific edict.

The following elaborates:

Originally posted by inimalist
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.

Size added for emphasis.

To get back to the original questions:

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Is the mind an ephiphenomenon ?

It is most logical to conclude so, since we cannot prove a mind exists independent of the body.

However, making a logical conclusion and declaring Fact are two different things.

I can make a logical conclusion that aliens exist outside our world (seeing as how the Universe is so freakn huge and stuff'😉, but I cannot claim it as fact until proven.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Is the mind just a consequence, a secondary effect, a sympton of the physical causality, or the mind is independent of physical causality, existing freely only by itself ?

I would say its far more than just a consequence of physical causality. Look at what it has accomplished.

Originally posted by inimalist
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.

by scientific materialism, do you mean naive' realism. if so then yes. i am almost certain that it is wrong. however no1 can say anything with assurity. modern neuroscientists have theories concerning conciousness. they are generally more concerned with more demonstrable and testable phenomenon like intelligence. generally, emergence is used a concept. however, all purely physical theories of conciousness are full of information gaps and inability to answer the hard question. dualistic theores/hypothesis venture into the unknown and try to come up with explanations for how conciousness as the individual sees it and things like qualia etc come to be. i am not saying i consider most, if any, of them valid. but what i am saying is that in MY oppinion, dualists have atleast come up with more than enough evidence to significantly make one doubt of conciousness/qualia being completely physical in nature.

in my oppinion the problem is a bit like the problem of defining supposedly overt pbjective reality/things. when you try to define sumthing, you can define it by pointing to its characteristics{which are developed previoously in context of other things} which differentiate it from other things. furthermore, the more combination of characteristics you have, the more accurate and unique the picture of the object becomes. however, the things you define are cognitive processes/emotional states etc. they are not the THING IN ITSELF. furthermore, these ideas mean/arouse different thinking patterns and fealings in different people. so in the end you have just created a "map" of the thing in your head which exists only in an individual and helps him'her identify the thing. but the definition of a thing is not the physical thing in itself{and im not talking about concepts/intellectual things here like equations etc. im talking about physical things}. at best the only TRUE thing you can say about a physical thing is that it is different from other things which makes it a "thing" to begin with which is differentiable in itself. however, that does no good in actually defining WHAT it is. simply put, CONTENT{thing} only holds meaning in a certain "CONTEXT"{mindset}. and content"thing" in ITSELF is nothing. or atleast nothing "DEFINEABLE".

same with conciousness, without CONTEXT, the brain processes in the physical world are NOTHING. they may produce the overt behavioural CONSEQUENCE of psuedoconciousness, and may even be said to be AWARE for all intent and purposes. but it will never be SELF aware. that would require the content to be context in itself. and i do not think a physical process can by DEFINITION be anything more than content. the subjective expirience of the world around us and of consiousness is SEPERATE from the physical brain. howevers, as i said before, that does not go to show that its SUPERNATURAL. it doesnt even mean it doesnt arise as a RESULT of the physical processes and RELIES on those processes for existance. im just saying the phenomenon in itself is seperate. that is all. n i think any1 here speaking for the entire scientific/neurological/psychological community as being naive realist is most definately wrong.

oh, n i didnt say QM had it all figured out. all i know is that quantum process would play a role in any mathematical eqivalents of transformation in the brain. and i know those would affect the conciousness that arises. beyond that i consider it hypothetical. but people on kmc bash such theories far more than they deserve to be bashed{just like they bash richard dawkins far more than he deserves to be. giving only one side of the picture}. the only question that truly remains{i think} is WHY purely physical processes would create a higher conciousness to begin with.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
To get back to the original questions:

It is most logical to conclude so, since we cannot prove a mind exists independent of the body.

However, making a logical conclusion and declaring Fact are two different things.

I can make a logical conclusion that aliens exist outside our world (seeing as how the Universe is so freakn huge and stuff'😉, but I cannot claim it as fact until proven.

I would say its [b]far more than just a consequence of physical causality. Look at what it has accomplished. [/B]

but u can not use science to deal with such a phenomenon. it is not demonstrable to any1 other than the individual who is fealing it. it IS infact the individual. nor can you find evidence for it in other individuals physically and the only thing youll have are their claims of "i exist". you CAN however, take statistical surveys and see how many claim as such{practically all}. and then go on to try and establish how the naive realist position can not account for such SELF AWARENESS/conciousness/qualia etc. in that way, one can establish that conciousness isnt physical in itself. however, i can not think of many physical emperical evidence to actually inquire into WHAT a higher conciousness is{beyond the fact that it isnt just physical}. ofcourse, i am not that smart in such problem solving eithr.

I see why I got off topic, because I believe that consciousness creates physical reality.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
but u can not use science to deal with such a phenomenon. it is not demonstrable to any1 other than the individual who is fealing it. it IS infact the individual. nor can you find evidence for it in other individuals physically and the only thing youll have are their claims of "i exist". you CAN however, take statistical surveys and see how many claim as such{practically all}. and then go on to try and establish how the naive realist position can not account for such SELF AWARENESS/conciousness/qualia etc. in that way, one can establish that conciousness isnt physical in itself. however, i can not think of many physical emperical evidence to actually inquire into WHAT a higher conciousness is{beyond the fact that it isnt just physical}. ofcourse, i am not that smart in such problem solving eithr.

I understand, but then again, I do not see science as the end all-be all. Science is only as good as our recognition capablities are. Science, hence, is limitted.

And science has been wrong in the past. Science has been re-written many times on several subjects, a major one being the structure of our solar system for example, as well as causes and treatments for diseases, as well as psychological phenomena, as well as so many others.

Science is only as good as we extend it to be. That is why, although science is wondorful and helps us progress, it cannot be the only tool in our personal or social progression.

Originally posted by omygoddess
I see why I got off topic, because I believe that consciousness creates physical reality.

So do I, although I cannot prove it. The only people who will beleive this are people who have seen this for themselves.