DeepSight:


You are surprising me. Well put, interesting thoughts.
However do remember that humans engage in some extraordinary activities which are not easy to tie to mere physical survival or pleasure etc. Such as intricate philosophy and the search for meaningfulness.

we can look back historically and safely reach the conclusion that we were not always interested in thinking as much as we do today. It was not neccessary, the complexity of the human mind is as a result of the environment as I have stated before. A psychologist Neils kellogs once decided to raise his son with a chimp. The son retarded, because his competition was only a chimp. Why do we think of germs when we buy food to eat? Because we have been thought. Why am I typing and responding to you on nairaland, because we have evolved to this stage. This activity would be totally useless to a cave man some years back. We are learning and taking in a lot of factors.
Take a look at dogs, they are also becoming smarter and more complex. They are fast learning to read humans more accurately because their survival is tied to us.

Rats also exhibit brilliance when placed in environments that challenges their brains.

We survived by our ability to think, makes calculations, communicate, have foresight. We have only become better at doing this fundamental things.

HardMirror:
...even when sleeping our brains are still busy sorting our memories and experiences that the whole mess becomes a dream...

Humans regularly have dreams that have nothing to do with either memories or experiences. In fact they also have prescient dreams as well as lucid dreams but let me not create a tangent which will be too distracting.

DeepSight:


Humans regularly have dreams that have nothing to do with either memories or experiences. In fact they also have prescient dreams as well as lucid dreams but let me not create a tangent which will be too distracting.

I dont agree.
Experiments have been carried out to study what we call perception and it was discovered that we are unable to pay attention to most of the stimuli that we receive. For example what you think you see everyday is just a tiny fraction of what you eyes actually see and what your brain actually retains. You see more than you are aware of, you hear more than you are aware of, your brain is crunching a massive load of information and working over time to help you stay connected with your reality as much as possible. The interpretation of these data can be misleading most times.

For example an hung coat could look like a ghost to you in the darkness of night. Such malformed informations lead to malformed memories, most of which goes unnoticed. Many of these useless thoughts and memories would eventually be dumped.

For lack of distraction when you are asleep, your brain is busy joggling most of these memories even the malformed ones.

When awake, you have enough to distract you from these malformed memories

HardMirror:
I dont agree.
Experiments have been carried out to study what we call perception and it was discovered that we are unable to pay attention to most of the stimuli that we receive. For example what you think you see everyday is just a tiny fraction of what you eyes actually see and what your brain actually retains. You see more than you are aware of, you hear more than you are aware of, your brain is crunching a massive load of information and working over time to help you stay connected with your reality as much as possible. The interpretation of these data can be misleading most times.

For example an hung coat could look like a ghost to you in the darkness of night. Such malformed informations lead to malformed memories, most of which goes unnoticed. Many of these useless thoughts and memories would eventually be dumped.

For lack of distraction when you are asleep, your brain is busy joggling most of these memories even the malformed ones.

When awake, you have enough to distract you from these wmalformed memories

I am aware of all these and I am not talking of anything related to such. I am referring to other worldly dreams of a nature that cannot be derived from this world. However this will take us far far away from the remit of this thread. So let us park it for now.

DeepSight:


This is a very bad analogy. Quite worse than your analogy with the TV remote control (which I trust you have seen the problem with). This analogy is bad because we are questioning the idea of component parts of a physical thing as the trigger for the emergence of a mind - we do not say that something does not exist because other things like it did not exist previously or have the faculties that it has - which is what you have now equated what we are saying to, with this analogy.

I trust you see that you have "straw-manned" me here.

It is only a bad analogy because you are unwilling to consider a different point of view. You insist on interpreting everything based on your position.

Still waiting for you to define spirit and outline it's attributes.

LordReed:


It is only a bad analogy because you are unwilling to consider a different point of view. You insist on interpreting everything based on your position.

Surely you see the distinction I point out? That it is not on account that something such as mind has not preceded mind that my argument against yours is based on? To be clear - the argument is this simple: you have said that mind arises from matter and the activity of matter. If this is the case then the activity of matter is necessary to actuate mind. Thus there must be preceding actions and interactions of cells and neurons before mind does anything. Hence before mind even comes up with a will there must also be preceding actions of matter which actuate that will of mind. Therefore you cannot say that mind controls matter without ceding the argument. You are making a circular argument which reaches round right back to itself. It is a contradictory argument. I have explained this in detail.

As I said before, you will have to decide what comes first: the mind willing an action, or the cells and neurons making the mind will an action. This is not on all fours with saying that a self driving car cannot exist because cars that came before it were not self driving. The apt analogy to use the elements of your example would rather be that if the components that make a car self-driving are necessary for it to be self-driving, then you simply cannot declare the car self driving without the prior activity of those components.

I hope you see the difference. In your bad analogy you compare the existence of one thing to a previously existing model with different capacities. In the proper analogy which you should make, you should be looking at the existence of the one thing viz-a-viz the components that comprise it, and make it function.

Just to conduct a quick check to make sure you are being open minded about where you may have got things wrong with analogies: did you at least see what was wrong with your analogy of the TV remote?

Because what was wrong with it was that the components of the TV remote do not control you. Whereas the argument in this thread is about components that control you, components, the activity of which, allegedly spawn your mind. The same thing wrong with that analogy is wrong with your present one: you are talking of a prior existing type of car and not the components of the same car in question.

Still waiting for you to define spirit and outline it's attributes.

I will shortly. Let me have dinner.

_{In the meantime there are other responses of mine from the NDE thread you are yet to react to. Or do you also want the definition of spirit before addressing those too?}

DeepSight:


Surely you see the distinction I point out? That it is not on account that something such as mind has not preceded mind that my argument against yours is based on? To be clear - the argument is this simple: you have said that mind arises from matter and the activity of matter. If this is the case then the activity of matter is necessary to actuate mind. Thus there must be preceding actions and interactions of cells and neurons before mind does anything. Hence before mind even comes up with a will there must also be preceding actions of matter which actuate that will of mind. Therefore you cannot say that mind controls matter without ceding the argument. You are making a circular argument which reaches round right back to itself. It is a contradictory argument. I have explained this in detail.

As I said before, you will have to decide what comes first: the mind willing an action, or the cells and neurons making the mind will an action. This is not on all fours with saying that a self driving car cannot exist because cars that came before it were not self driving. The apt analogy to use the elements of your example would rather be that if the components that make a car self-driving are necessary for it to be self-driving, then you simply cannot declare the car self driving without the prior activity of those components.

I hope you see the difference. In your bad analogy you compare the existence of one thing to a previously existing model with different capacities. In the proper analogy which you should make, you should be looking at the existence of the one thing viz-a-viz the components that comprise it, and make it function.

Just to conduct a quick check to make sure you are being open minded about where you may have got things wrong with analogies: did you at least see what was wrong with your analogy of the TV remote?

Because what was wrong with it was that the components of the TV remote do not control you. Whereas the argument in this thread is about components that control you, components, the activity of which, allegedly spawn your mind. The same thing wrong with that analogy is wrong with your present one: you are talking of a prior existing type of car and not the components of the same car in question.



I will shortly. Let me have dinner.

_{In the meantime there are other responses of mine from the NDE thread you are yet to react to. Or do you also want the definition of spirit before addressing those too?}

Yes I will wait before I make any further responses because I continually get the sense that you are merely interpreting my position through yours and I need to understand yours so that I may perhaps properly address your posers.

Reed, pulling philosophy and logic from all corners. Ehehehehe! Let us see where this is headed. Carefully following.

HardMirror:


For lack of distraction when you are asleep, your brain is busy joggling most of these memories even the malformed ones.

I don't think our paths have crossed prior to this moment, hardmirror. Could you tell me how you came by your assertion above?

elated177:
Reed, pulling philosophy and logic from all corners. Ehehehehe! Let us see where this is headed. Carefully following.

You are welcome. Feel free to contribute your thoughts on the matter.

LordReed:


Yes I will wait before I make any further responses because I continually get the sense that you are merely interpreting my position through yours and I need to understand yours so that I may perhaps properly address your posers.

No worries, in short order, certainly before I turn in for the night. However I require you to swear a mighty oath. The mighty oath is that you will not seize upon my definition / description of "spirit" to avoid answering the posers I have already laid out, and those yet to come.

LordReed:
Hi DeepSight. So this thread will carry on with our discussions from other threads. I will start with the following reply to your comment. I will also subsequently add replies to your other comments.



Oh the analogy is very apt. A driverless car acts just as directed as though a human being was driving it because all its integrated systems work to provide a safe driving experience with all the same features of a human driven vehicle. The car will brake, turn, slow down, speed up, allow for car spacing from cars in front of it, follow lane markings, etc just as well as a human. It would be futile to now say that because you cannot locate the driver inside therefore it is unable to function without a driver.

Also driverless cars do have seats and steering and all the other accoutrements that a "normal" car has so the question would be how do we distinguish between a driverless car and a human driven one? Which is directly analogous to the question how do we establish that a human being is "a machine suited to house and facilitate the experience and activity of a resident "being."" rather than the machine with all its attendant functions as an integrated whole?

I am afraid your analogy is not apt.

Even though driverless cars can operate as if a human being is driving it, they can't, at this moment, operate exactly as human driven ones.

The reason is due to the attendant problems or limitations which comes with such car models..

For instance, during extreme weather conditions, heavy rain fall, fog, snow etc, when visibility is very low, the cameras fitted into driverless cars to enable it observe road markings as it moves from point A to B becomes virtually useless. During such situations , it takes direct human intervention to be able ro navigate the driverless car to it's destination.


Also,, a driverless car unlike a human driven one, can't decide the correct decision to make between two bad choices.

When a car driven by a human being is suddenly faced with some school kids who have strayed into the road carelessly, the person behind the steering wheel can decide correctly to swerve away from hitting the human obstacle to an electric pole by the road side in order to save lives. The damage to the car can be taken of later.

But a driverless car faced with the same situation would obviously not act the same way as a human driven one. It would not know what to prioritize between the human obstacle and the electric pole. Avoiding the school children would only happen by chance .

There are other limitations too.

But I am sure you can see from what I already explained that there can be know comparison between the two car models and for this I don't think it is necessary any more to answer the question you asked at the end of your post.

triplechoice:




I am afraid your analogy is not apt.

Even though driverless cars can operate as if a human being is driving it, they can't, at this moment, operate exactly as human driven ones.

The reason is due to the attendant problems or limitations which comes with such car models..

For instance, during extreme weather conditions, heavy rain fall, fog, snow etc, when visibility is very low, the cameras fitted into driverless cars to enable it observe road markings as it moves from point A to B becomes virtually useless. During such situations , it takes direct human intervention to be able ro navigate the driverless car to it's destination.


Also,, a driverless car unlike a human driven one, can't decide the correct decision to make between two bad choices.

When a car driven by a human being is suddenly faced with some school kids who have strayed into the road carelessly, the person behind the steering wheel can decide correctly to swerve away from hitting the human obstacle to an electric pole by the road side in order to save lives. The damage to the car can be taken of later.

But a driverless car faced with the same situation would obviously not act the same way as a human driven one. It would not know what to prioritize between the human obstacle and the electric pole. Avoiding the school children would only happen by chance .

There are other limitations too.

But I am sure you can see from what I already explained that there can be know comparison between the two car models and for this I don't think it is necessary any more to answer the question you asked at the end of your post.

It's an analogy not a perfect correlation of function. It's almost as though you'd say it's a bad analogy because cars don't have blood. The purpose of the analogy is not to show that driverless cars are like humans but rather to illustrate the point that humans, like driverless cars, are an integrated whole, there is no "driver" or ghost in the machine instead there are systems working together to produce autonomy.

DeepSight:


No worries, in short order, certainly before I turn in for the night. However I require you to swear a mighty oath. The mighty oath is that you will not seize upon my definition / description of "spirit" to avoid answering the posers I have already laid out, and those yet to come.

I won't do that.

DeepSight:

- - - > This is just circular. It is logically impossible. You cannot derive mind from matter and at the same time seek to infuse mind with some inchoate separate will of its own by which it can control matter. This would be absurd because what you are in fact trying to do here is eat your cake and have it - you are trying to assert that all the thoughts and actions of mind arise from the interactions of matter and at the same time insist that mind controls the matter. This patently self contradictory.

Not quite as logically impossible as you think, Deepsight, though, "derive mind from matter" is kind of somehow as an expression. Derive as in take out of, or produce?

The matter I interacted with with my eyes in the thread you were in before this one motivated me to come here and see more because it interests me, or rather, interested the mind part of me. If not, I might be discussing football or bbtacha.

I then, through my mind, instructed the neurons in my body to move my fingers to do what I am now choosing to do now, which is, compose a response to you.

My point is, the matter played its part, but this response to the matter is a product of the totality of me and my own freewill that got me to this very point, if you'd pardon my butting in, and is not illogical at all when you consider who or what controls my mind.

DeepSight:

There is actually some scientific research on this matter which suggests that split seconds before we have a thought, take an action or make a decision, neurons have already coalesced in the direction of such a thought, action or decision.

Neurons could not possibly have coalesced my reaction to this post split seconds before my eyes perceived the material that constitutes what I am responding to, though i do wish that could happen. My eyes perceived the material of the post and my my mind digested and made it comprehensible to me, and I am now using my mind to respond in material form so I'm glad its not your position.

DeepSight:
You simply cannot eat your cake and have it. There is no way you can insist that you have conscious control of anything if indeed the prior activity of cells and neurons - which you have no control over - determines all the activity of your mind.

My Lord, please show where you said the above. In fact, let me go look for your position, because I don't quite get it.

DeepSight:
In short, mind over matter. There is just no way you can logically get around this.

Oh yes one can very easily logically get around "mind over matter. One can be dumb and stupid and not as conscious as some and be swayed by any odd matter that blows ones way such that it could be claimed that matter is over ones mind. I'd in fact claim it is rather very common too that matters is over many minds.

Apologies again. I blame buda which is me myself and I, material and mind and thoughts and actions and all.

budaatum:


I then, through my mind, instructed the neurons in my body to move my fingers to do what I am now choosing to do now, which is, compose a response to you.

The totality of your position on this matter may not be the same as the totality of LordReed's position which has advised my objections. Using LordReed's position to address the above, my problem with it is simple. We would not be able to say as you have said - "I then, through my mind instructed the neurons in my body to move my fingers" - for two reasons. In the first place, with LordReed's position since all that mind does is a product of the prior action of neurons, then such action of neurons must precede your mind instructing the same neurons to actuate itself into willing the neurons to act on the fingers. I am already weary of explaining how this is circular. It is evidently circular and self contradictory, thus impossible and absurd. I dont know what else to say if anyone fails to see how this is circular.

Secondly, LordReed says that we cannot consciously control cells and neurons so you are on your own here, in this your act of instructing neurons in your body to act.

triplechoice:

I am afraid your analogy is not apt.

Even though driverless cars can operate as if a human being is driving it, they can't, at this moment, operate exactly as human driven ones.

His analogy is worst than not apt. My Lord thinks because the driver is not in the driverless car the car is not being driven by a human. He does not consider the a priori programming done by humans so the driver can be absent as actually driving the car because that is not what he is used to.

There is a salesperson definition of self driven car but that is not quite appropriate here unless my Lord's car programs itself to drive itself after cobbling all the necessary materials to constitute itself into a car.

Now, this might sound like it fits the human too, seeing that we do not ourselves cobble all the necessary materials together to constitute ourselves into humans. But in fact, we do constitute ourselves into humans, albeit one step removed, as our children, who are not exactly ourselves but you get what I mean, I hope. My car never had a baby.

triplechoice:




I am afraid your analogy is not apt.

Even though driverless cars can operate as if a human being is driving it, they can't, at this moment, operate exactly as human driven ones.

The reason is due to the attendant problems or limitations which comes with such car models..

For instance, during extreme weather conditions, heavy rain fall, fog, snow etc, when visibility is very low, the cameras fitted into driverless cars to enable it observe road markings as it moves from point A to B becomes virtually useless. During such situations , it takes direct human intervention to be able ro navigate the driverless car to it's destination.


Also,, a driverless car unlike a human driven one, can't decide the correct decision to make between two bad choices.

When a car driven by a human being is suddenly faced with some school kids who have strayed into the road carelessly, the person behind the steering wheel can decide correctly to swerve away from hitting the human obstacle to an electric pole by the road side in order to save lives. The damage to the car can be taken of later.

But a driverless car faced with the same situation would obviously not act the same way as a human driven one. It would not know what to prioritize between the human obstacle and the electric pole. Avoiding the school children would only happen by chance .

There are other limitations too.

But I am sure you can see from what I already explained that there can be know comparison between the two car models and for this I don't think it is necessary any more to answer the question you asked at the end of your post.

The way that you have addressed the analogy does not go to the root of the example made and only dwells on superficial comparison. As such I agree with LordReed;s response to you on this. You should address the analogy from the very root of its applicability as an example.

budaatum:


My car never had a baby.

DeepSight:


The totality of your position on this matter may not be the same as the totality of LordReed's position which has advised my objections. Using LordReed's position to address the above, my problem with it is simple. We would not be able to say as you have said - "I then, through my mind instructed the neurons in my body to move my fingers" - for two reasons. In the first place, with LordReed's position since all that mind does is a product of the prior action of neurons, then such action of neurons must precede your mind instructing the same neurons to actuate itself into willing the neurons to act on the fingers. I am already weary of explaining how this is circular. It is evidently circular and self contradictory, thus impossible and absurd. I dont know what else to say if anyone fails to see how this is circular.

Secondly, LordReed says that we cannot consciously control cells and neurons so you are on your own here, in this your act of instructing neurons in your body to act.

I honestly do not get my Lord's position apart from what you say it is, but if it is that "all that mind does is a product of the prior action of neurons", I will be surprised.

The material you presented in this post was received by my eyes which are cells. The message in the material was brought to my mind through my neurons, and I am controlling my cells by sending messages through my neurons to the cells in my hands to type this response to you this very moment, which I am checking for errors with my eyes that are made up of cells and with my mind which is also made up of cells all under my very conscious control and instruction, so claiming I can not "consciously control cells and neurons", sounds odd to me. If my cells were to respond without my me controlling them, well.....

I am of course assuming agreement that my hands are cells and my eyes are cells too, as is my brain, three parts of my body at the least involved in this response, and I am assuming neurons are what are carrying the instructions to the cells that are helping me type out my response.

What say you, my Lord?

LordReed:


It's an analogy not a perfect correlation of function. It's almost as though you'd say it's a bad analogy because cars don't have blood. The purpose of the analogy is not to show that driverless cars are like humans but rather to illustrate the point that humans, like driverless cars, are an integrated whole, there is no "driver" or ghost in the machine instead there are systems working together to produce autonomy.

Then you should have pointed this out. Because you committed a fallacy, when you insisted that your analogy was apt when it was not.

And I never concluded your car analogy was bad because of what powers the car , "blood" but by comparing the functions of what both car models are capable of .That's the difference

I actually did a triple take trying to understand your final summission. If you point is not to show that driverless cars are not like human being why use it in the first place. But you still ended up making the comparison after

A driverless car is not really driverless in the true sense of it. A human programmer who from time to time updates the mapping
software which controls the car is by proxy the one still in control.

Cars cannot drive themselves if they are not made to do so by humans. That is it

DeepSight:


The way that you have addressed the analogy does not go to the root of the example made and only dwells on superficial comparison. As such I agree with LordReed;s response to you on this. You should address the analogy from the very root of its applicability as an example.

I thought I jumped into this. I think I would have to read from how it all began between you two

LordReed:


Oh the analogy is very apt. A driverless car acts just as directed as though a human being was driving it ...

That, my Lord, is because a human being is driving it. The programming done by the human is for all intent and purpose, driving.

Think of it this way. I programmed the oven to roast my chicken. Self roasting oven, my Lord?

budaatum:


I honestly do not get my Lord's position apart from what you say it is, but if it is that "all that mind does is a product of the prior action of neurons", I will be surprised.

That is what we must be left with from what he says.

budaatum:


My Lord, please show where you said the above. In fact, let me go look for your position, because I don't quite get it.

I never did, its an inference he is making. I am yet to respond to that part of his submissions because it seems I am not communicating properly because anytime I attempt to clarify my position he just seems to ignore it and insist that that is what my position infers.

DeepSight:

In summary the discussion here centers around LordReed's position that mind derives from matter and my opposing position that mind is distinct from matter, matter being only a tool or vehicle for mind.

Like there is an "indwelling immaterial being" inside of buda? Reminds me of a story I can only recall as Shokolokobangoshe, where a Man Friday sort of being, parasites off a Robinson Crusoe sort of being.

Where would this "indwelling immaterial being" dwell, and how does it manifest its presence, if it does at all?

DeepSight:
While LordReed says that there is "no ghost in the car" (that there is no spirit in the body) I say that there is an indwelling immaterial being which is the actual "personal being" which the functions of the body serve.

There is a ghost in the car. The ghost in tbe car is the indwelling immaterial spiritual being that the programmer programmed into the materials that constitute the car and make it car, or rather, drive. The programmer dwells immaterially, and not physically hence spiritually, like a ghost, in the car driving it. Remove the spirit (program) and the car wouldn't drive. In fact, self driven cars should be called 'indwelling immaterial spiritual ghost driven cars' from now on. I would not agree with you however, Deepsight, that an "indwelling immaterial spiritual being" drives buda. Least, not until you explain what it is and how.

That said, remove the spirit that drives buda from inside buda and buda too wouldn't drive so you might have a point, though I will be Igbo regarding it and say, if buda directs, and the "indwelling immaterial spiritual being" directs opposingly, buda will get rid of that particular "indwelling immaterial spiritual being" and get an "indwelling immaterial spiritual being" that serves buda.

budaatum:


I honestly do not get my Lord's position apart from what you say it is, but if it is that "all that mind does is a product of the prior action of neurons", I will be surprised.

The material you presented in this post was received by my eyes which are cells. The message in the material was brought to my mind through my neurons, and I am controlling my cells by sending messages through my neurons to the cells in my hands to type this response to you this very moment, which I am checking for errors with my eyes that are made up of cells and with my mind which is also made up of cells all under my very conscious control and instruction, so claiming I can not "consciously control cells and neurons", sounds odd to me. If my cells were to respond without my me controlling them, well.....

I am of course assuming agreement that my hands are cells and my eyes are cells too, as is my brain, three parts of my body at the least involved in this response, and I am assuming neurons are what are carrying the instructions to the cells that are helping me type out my response.

What say you, my Lord?

My position is not "all that mind does is a product of the prior action of neurons", if it was I wouldn't say the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. The mind is more than just neurons firing that much should be clear to even the casual observer.

budaatum:


That, my Lord, is because a human being is driving it. The programming done by the human is for all intent and purpose, driving.

Think of it this way. I programmed the oven to roast my chicken. Self roasting oven, my Lord?

Well that's going past the purpose of the analogy which is just to show that the individual human being is a single unit made of parts seen and unseen.

triplechoice:


Then you should have pointed this out. Because you committed a fallacy, when you insisted that your analogy was apt when it was not.

And I never concluded your car analogy was bad because of what powers the car , "blood" but by comparing the functions of what both car models are capable of .That's the difference

I actually did a triple take trying to understand your final summission. If you point is not to show that driverless cars are not like human being why use it in the first place. But you still ended up making the comparison after

A driverless car is not really driverless in the true sense of it. A human programmer who from time to time updates the mapping
software which controls the car is by proxy the one still in control.

Cars cannot drive themselves if they are not made to do so by humans. That is it

This is what I said:

The purpose of the analogy is not to show that driverless cars are like humans but rather to illustrate the point that humans, like driverless cars, are an integrated whole, there is no "driver" or ghost in the machine instead there are systems working together to produce autonomy.

I agree, I should have made it clearer that it was just an analogy. I guess I just assumed that by saying this is like that, it would be taken that I was making an analogous comparison, not saying they are the same.

LordReed:


I never did, its an inference he is making.

I have serious problems with this, but let me start by asking if it is an inference which you deny or repudiate. Because that would be eminently bizarre given your position thus far.

For my part I am not even sure that it is an inference so much as a direct summation of what you have conveyed. For you have said that the mind arises from the activity and interactions of matter - this is the root issue of this thread. How is this different from saying that the prior actions of matter spawn mind and all its actions?

Tell me, I mean, just conduct a "spot the difference" for me.

I have very long experience with people suddenly becoming uncomfortable once a mirror is held up to their own statements - once their very own statements are reflected back to them - but this must be one of the strangest cases, because what I have given you, as I have said, is not so much an inference of anything, as a direct summation of what you have said. To infer something is to derive another fact from a specific fact or statement. I have not here derived another fact from what you have said, I have merely directly summed up what you have said.

But I will touch upon this better in my next post.

DeepSight:


I have serious problems with this, but let me start by asking if it is an inference which you deny or repudiate. Because that would be eminently bizarre given your position thus far.

For my part I am not even sure that it is an inference so much as a direct summation of what you have conveyed. For you have said that the mind arises from the activity and interactions of matter - this is the root issue of this thread. How is this different from saying that the prior actions of matter spawn mind and all its actions?

Tell me, I mean, just conduct a "spot the difference" for me.

I have very long experience with people suddenly becoming uncomfortable once a mirror is held up to their own statements - once their very own statements are reflected back to them - but this must be one of the strangest cases, because what I have given you, as I have said, is not so much an inference of anything, as a direct summation of what you have said. To infer something is to derive another fact from a specific fact or statement. I have not here derived another fact from what you have said, I have merely directly summed up what you have said.

But I will touch upon this better in my next post.

LoL. Are you suddenly forgetting that this back and forth start primarily because I told you that a deterministic interpretation of methodological naturalism is not my position? Or are you forgetting that I have asked you more than 3 times to provide evidence for your ghost in the machine and you have yet to provide any? If anyone is uncomfortable here it might be you since you seem to be having selective amnesia all of a sudden. LoLz.

LordReed:


My position is not "all that mind does is a product of the prior action of neurons", if it was I wouldn't say the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. The mind is more than just neurons firing that much should be clear to even the casual observer.

The whole being greater than the sum of the parts does not in anyway detract from the fact that your position is that it is exclusively actuated by, instigated by, those parts. Unless you are willing to now openly declare that there is some other factor at work beyond those parts alone. Are you ready to do so? Because if you are, frankly I can see little else to be discussed: you would have ceded the debate.

The whole being greater than the sum of the parts is true of almost every machine, from complex ones right down to simple ones - and it by no means detracts from the parts being the exclusive elements which actuate that whole. The whole being greater than the sum of the parts is simply a matter of function - of how something acts as a result of the combination of its constituent parts. It does not imply that there is any extraneous part involved. Thus in saying that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, you do not sidestep the fact that the parts are still the exclusive elements which constitute that whole.

To my mind, the real problem we are having here is your refusal to accept that the software is one of those parts - you are sticking with the hardware (matter) alone. The software is the immaterial component you have left out of your equation which is the reason I have problems with it.

To render the point in a simple and more direct fashion - and hopefully bind it fast to the mind of readers, let me set out the following (even though I would have thought this unnecessary - nevertheless from your attempt to split an unsplittable strand of hair, I am compelled to -)

- - -> Your position is that mind arises from matter
- - -> You have not indicated any other element or component required for the spawning of mind, other than matter

1st conclusion: It is your position that mind arises exclusively from matter.

- - -> Your position is that mind arises from matter
- - -> You have not indicated any other element which actuates the actions of mind, other than the actions of matter

2nd conclusion: It is your position that the actions of mind are actuated exclusively by the actions of matter

Taking the 1st conclusion and the 2nd conclusion together, the inevitable 3rd conclusion is that the prior actions of matter are responsible for all the actions of mind. And as I said before, this is not even an inference. It is a mere direct summation of what you have conveyed.

If you wish to say that this is not your position, then please point out what other element (other than matter) is involved in actuating the actions of mind.