Originally posted by inimalist
links to what?
To these journals or articles that disprove dualism.
Meh, nevermind. Like I said, don't really want to debate this subject. 😛
Originally posted by Existere
I would certainly consider the act of you causing something an event.
But I'm not an event. Yet I'm still a cause.
Like I said. Kinda comes down to word play. It's all irrelevant to the main point anyway.
Originally posted by Deadline
I don't know what to say but it seems certain opinions have hijacked this forum.
You'll find tendencies on various forums, but as long as everyone is free to post, "hijacked" is the wrong word. A lot probably just has to do with perception based on post counts and such. As it is, while we don't have a full spectrum of backgrounds and ideas here on KMC, it seems to me like one of the few inherently neutral forums when it comes to politics, philosophy, and religion. It's very hard to find a site to talk about any of those that doesn't have a sort of built-in demographic because of the audience or content of the main site.
Originally posted by TacDavey
To these journals or articles that disprove dualism.Meh, nevermind. Like I said, don't really want to debate this subject. 😛
maybe I didn't explain correctly
there is no such thing as a "dualism is dead" study
rather, you have to look at 30 years worth of fMRI and neuroscience literature, through the perspective of philosophical relevance to consciousness, to get an appreciation for how the brain and mind work
I can link you to some of the seminal studies and most important work (Libet, Gazanaga, Goodale, Wolfe, Triesman, Blackmore, among many, many others), but its unlikely to convince you unless you are willing to read up on neuroscience in the first place, which imho, anyone who is really interested in neuroscience probably doesn't need me to link them to it.
I've said before, I rarely bring up concepts on these forums that require more than introductory level psych courses to understand. This is not one of them. Unless you are really interested, I probably can't just "link" you to something you are going to find meaningful.
That being said, Sue Blackmore's "Very Short Introduction to Consciousness" would be the best place to start for a philosophical introduction to the hard and soft problems from a scientific perspective.
Originally posted by inimalist
maybe I didn't explain correctlythere is no such thing as a "dualism is dead" study
rather, you have to look at 30 years worth of fMRI and neuroscience literature, through the perspective of philosophical relevance to consciousness, to get an appreciation for how the brain and mind work
I can link you to some of the seminal studies and most important work (Libet, Gazanaga, Goodale, Wolfe, Triesman, Blackmore, among many, many others), but its unlikely to convince you unless you are willing to read up on neuroscience in the first place, which imho, anyone who is really interested in neuroscience probably doesn't need me to link them to it.
I've said before, I rarely bring up concepts on these forums that require more than introductory level psych courses to understand. This is not one of them. Unless you are really interested, I probably can't just "link" you to something you are going to find meaningful.
That being said, Sue Blackmore's "Very Short Introduction to Consciousness" would be the best place to start for a philosophical introduction to the hard and soft problems from a scientific perspective.
Wait a second what the hell is going on here? Are you trying to argue that science contradicts the existence of a soul?
Originally posted by Deadline
Wait a second what the hell is going on here? Are you trying to argue that science contradicts the existence of a soul?
directly? no, a soul is an inherently unfalsifiable object with ambiguous qualities and no discernible way to predict outcomes based upon.
however, any aspect of dualism that would arise from the soul, yes, I'm saying neuroscience has rendered them as moot at best, but generally as incorrect.
So, if you think there is a soul that has nothing to do with your perception, emotion, behaviour, thoughts, etc, no, I can't test that. If you think your soul is responsible for those things, sure, science has shown that they are biological rather than spiritual/super-natural/whichever-term-you-wont-take-offense-to
Originally posted by inimalist
maybe I didn't explain correctlythere is no such thing as a "dualism is dead" study
rather, you have to look at 30 years worth of fMRI and neuroscience literature, through the perspective of philosophical relevance to consciousness, to get an appreciation for how the brain and mind work
I can link you to some of the seminal studies and most important work (Libet, Gazanaga, Goodale, Wolfe, Triesman, Blackmore, among many, many others), but its unlikely to convince you unless you are willing to read up on neuroscience in the first place, which imho, anyone who is really interested in neuroscience probably doesn't need me to link them to it.
I've said before, I rarely bring up concepts on these forums that require more than introductory level psych courses to understand. This is not one of them. Unless you are really interested, I probably can't just "link" you to something you are going to find meaningful.
That being said, Sue Blackmore's "Very Short Introduction to Consciousness" would be the best place to start for a philosophical introduction to the hard and soft problems from a scientific perspective.
No that's alright...
Besides, I think the debate on a "soul" is more a philosophical debate than it is a scientific one. Much like the existence of God.
Originally posted by inimalist
directly? no, a soul is an inherently unfalsifiable object with ambiguous qualities and no discernible way to predict outcomes based upon.
Who told you that?
Originally posted by inimalist
however, any aspect of dualism that would arise from the soul, yes, I'm saying neuroscience has rendered them as moot at best, but generally as incorrect.
Didn't you also say that science hasn't proven psi as well?
Originally posted by inimalist
So, if you think there is a soul that has nothing to do with your perception, emotion, behaviour, thoughts, etc, no, I can't test that. If you think your soul is responsible for those things, sure, science has shown that they are biological rather than spiritual/super-natural/whichever-term-you-wont-take-offense-to
Really?
Originally posted by Deadline
Who told you that?
well, what testable predictions could you generate based on the existence of a soul?
Originally posted by Deadline
Didn't you also say that science hasn't proven psi as well?
yes, I feel there is insufficient evidence to conclude that psi is real, and any mechanism through which it could work is nonsensical
Originally posted by Deadline
Really?
yes, while all the mechanisms are not as well understood as they could be (distributed processing networks comprised of millions of interacting neurons are complicated), there is nothing we know of that doesn't show consistent biological origins.
Originally posted by inimalist
well, what testable predictions could you generate based on the existence of a soul?
Are you serious?
Originally posted by inimalist
yes, I feel there is insufficient evidence to conclude that psi is real, and any mechanism through which it could work is nonsensical
That isn't because there isn't any evidence it's because you keep finding things wrong with experiments, and I don't mean constructive criticism. The last time I had a debate with you I just gave up because it was exasperating. As far as I was concerned there wasn't enough evidence to suggest that the soul exists but my point is that you have a biased way in which you analyse data, if there was proof for psi or the soul we may not even find out because even if there is some evidence that is in favour of psi you won't even acknowledge it. You proved that by strawmanning and creating arguments I wasn't making.
You also don't even seem to have even done enough research because you would have known that Susan Blackmore has stated that her experiments were poorly done. I don't even think you've even heard or Rupert Sheldrake.
Originally posted by inimalistyes, while all the mechanisms are not as well understood as they could be (distributed processing networks comprised of millions of interacting neurons are complicated), there is nothing we know of that doesn't show consistent biological origins.
I don't know you seem to say that about alot of stuff then I go and do research and find out it's not as simple as you're making out.