Processes are non-physical in themselves but processes are aspects of physical systems. Circulation, for instance, is not physical, in the sense that one cannot handle, weigh, dissect, etc. "circulation" - but it is obviously in no sense independent of physical systems.
We know of no mind that is independent of a physical system -- that is, a brain. "Minds" are the processes of functioning brains in the same way that circulation describes the process of functioning hearts.
You wanna hear something..... one day a girl was goign to take a shortcut through a dark alley, there was a dude there, so the chick prayed to God, and walked right by the man to her house. She later learned that another chick was raped in the same alley by the same man 15 minutes later. That's all the proof you need. God exists, trust me.
@roddyfrechette I am suggesting that mind and brain are separate. The brain being merely a tool that the mind uses. An evidence for this is that people who were considered brain dead experience consciousness away from their body during this time. [If you want me to make a citation; I will find it for you. I'm tired right now though].
This entire argument is based on the assertion that "subjectively aware entities are non-physical".
You've just asserted tat, without a shred of evidence or even a definition of what a "subjectively aware entity" is. If you define one, then i'll be happy to refute your assertion :)
A subjectively aware entity is any entity with a conscious belonging to a reality as perceived rather than independent of mind. The assertion that "Subjectively aware entities are non-physical" is self-evident [unless you do not have subjectively aware mind, I cannot prove that].
@EvansRowan123 You may have heard of the phrase "perception is reality". Everyone has a different perception and therefore a different reality. Realities can be distorted by emotions, drugs, or even illusions. "Rather than independent of the mind" means that your reality is dependent upon your mind and bias alone.
So, you mean something that thinks it can think? If you can think of any way to test if something can do that, then either it's already been proven, or it soon will be proven, that computers can do that.
@EvansRowan123 There is no way to test this unless you are the one who would be tested. I can only prove to myself that my mind exists. I cannot prove that your mind does; only you can, if you indeed are. I do not believe that a computer has subjective awareness since it shows completely objective characteristics only and it doesn't seem to be 'aware'. This is, of course, only evidence and intuition.
@EvansRowan123 Humans can have objectivity [in fact we do]. The key is that we also have subjectivity and we are aware of it, ourselves, and the environment around us. A computer shows no signs of subjectivity or awareness... let alone subjective awareness.
But you just said there's no way to confirm or refute whether something is subjectively aware.
Anyway, ignoring the point about computers and going back to the original point about subjectively aware entities, because it's simpler:
I believe that the appearance of subjective awareness is merely a function of the brain, and so it's completely physical. And that's all a matter of belief anyway, so your first premise is wrong because it's just a philosophical belief.
@EvansRowan123 Indeed I did say that there is no way to confirm or refute whether something is subjectively aware. However, that doesn't mean I can't show that a computer is likely not subjectively aware.
The "appearance" of subjectively aware entities does not constitute for a mind anyway. The proof that you are subjectively aware is the fact that you are aware of your perceptions and your mind and you are subjective about the environment. Obviously, only you can prove that.
@EvansRowan123 Think about your thoughts. When you think about a sizzling fillet mignon; does that sizzling fillet mignon manafest? Of course it doesn't. A dream is perhaps a better analogy. A thought can be see as a mere representation, a composition of properties... like a picture. A dream is a private reality and may not represent anything. Abstract thoughts are similar. Substance can be created in thoughts. Imagination is testimony to this.
@EvansRowan123 Those are both representations, not non-physical substances. An abstract thought or a dream are non-physical substances because they are not compositions of properties, they don't necessarily replicate anything in this universe.
@EvansRowan123 A fictional character can be representation of a non-physical substance which only exists in your mind (non-physical substance can be hard to represent however and are often represented by analogy). Most often though; fictional characters are a combination of properties taken from the real world and thus a representation.
Processes are non-physical in themselves but processes are aspects of physical systems. Circulation, for instance, is not physical, in the sense that one cannot handle, weigh, dissect, etc. "circulation" - but it is obviously in no sense independent of physical systems.
We know of no mind that is independent of a physical system -- that is, a brain. "Minds" are the processes of functioning brains in the same way that circulation describes the process of functioning hearts.
prodprod 1 year ago
You wanna hear something..... one day a girl was goign to take a shortcut through a dark alley, there was a dude there, so the chick prayed to God, and walked right by the man to her house. She later learned that another chick was raped in the same alley by the same man 15 minutes later. That's all the proof you need. God exists, trust me.
SilenaMBeauregard 1 year ago
Who ever said minds are not physical entities? Everything you think is just an electrical signal.
UnforgivingCookie 1 year ago
who created god?
thasnaps 2 years ago
God is self-referential. Causality does not apply to God because of the fact that He is not bounded by time.
Ichthus91 1 year ago
your 'mind' is your brain functioning dumbass
roddyfrechette 2 years ago
@roddyfrechette I am suggesting that mind and brain are separate. The brain being merely a tool that the mind uses. An evidence for this is that people who were considered brain dead experience consciousness away from their body during this time. [If you want me to make a citation; I will find it for you. I'm tired right now though].
Ichthus91 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ichthus91 "[If you want me to make a citation; I will find it for you. I'm tired right now though"
Find it for me.
armpitpuncher 1 year ago
This entire argument is based on the assertion that "subjectively aware entities are non-physical".
You've just asserted tat, without a shred of evidence or even a definition of what a "subjectively aware entity" is. If you define one, then i'll be happy to refute your assertion :)
EvansRowan123 2 years ago
A subjectively aware entity is any entity with a conscious belonging to a reality as perceived rather than independent of mind. The assertion that "Subjectively aware entities are non-physical" is self-evident [unless you do not have subjectively aware mind, I cannot prove that].
Ichthus91 2 years ago
"a conscious belonging to a reality as perceived rather than independent of mind".
Can you explain what that's supposed to mean?
EvansRowan123 2 years ago
@EvansRowan123 You may have heard of the phrase "perception is reality". Everyone has a different perception and therefore a different reality. Realities can be distorted by emotions, drugs, or even illusions. "Rather than independent of the mind" means that your reality is dependent upon your mind and bias alone.
Ichthus91 2 years ago
So, you mean something that thinks it can think? If you can think of any way to test if something can do that, then either it's already been proven, or it soon will be proven, that computers can do that.
EvansRowan123 2 years ago
@EvansRowan123 There is no way to test this unless you are the one who would be tested. I can only prove to myself that my mind exists. I cannot prove that your mind does; only you can, if you indeed are. I do not believe that a computer has subjective awareness since it shows completely objective characteristics only and it doesn't seem to be 'aware'. This is, of course, only evidence and intuition.
Ichthus91 2 years ago
What's a "completely objective characteristic" supposed to mean?
What's the alternative?
And what evidence is there that computers have them, and human brains don't?
EvansRowan123 2 years ago
@EvansRowan123 Humans can have objectivity [in fact we do]. The key is that we also have subjectivity and we are aware of it, ourselves, and the environment around us. A computer shows no signs of subjectivity or awareness... let alone subjective awareness.
Ichthus91 2 years ago
But you just said there's no way to confirm or refute whether something is subjectively aware.
Anyway, ignoring the point about computers and going back to the original point about subjectively aware entities, because it's simpler:
I believe that the appearance of subjective awareness is merely a function of the brain, and so it's completely physical. And that's all a matter of belief anyway, so your first premise is wrong because it's just a philosophical belief.
EvansRowan123 2 years ago
@EvansRowan123 Indeed I did say that there is no way to confirm or refute whether something is subjectively aware. However, that doesn't mean I can't show that a computer is likely not subjectively aware.
The "appearance" of subjectively aware entities does not constitute for a mind anyway. The proof that you are subjectively aware is the fact that you are aware of your perceptions and your mind and you are subjective about the environment. Obviously, only you can prove that.
Ichthus91 2 years ago
Yes, but is there any reason i should believe that being subjectively aware makes me non-physical?
EvansRowan123 2 years ago
@EvansRowan123 Think about your thoughts. When you think about a sizzling fillet mignon; does that sizzling fillet mignon manafest? Of course it doesn't. A dream is perhaps a better analogy. A thought can be see as a mere representation, a composition of properties... like a picture. A dream is a private reality and may not represent anything. Abstract thoughts are similar. Substance can be created in thoughts. Imagination is testimony to this.
Ichthus91 2 years ago
What about this text, as you're reading it?
What about graphics in a computer game?
Those are generated by a computer, which is entirely physical. Those are "like a picture" too.
So who's to say that the human brain, which is many times more complex than the most powerful supercomputer we have, is not physical too?
EvansRowan123 2 years ago
@EvansRowan123 Those are both representations, not non-physical substances. An abstract thought or a dream are non-physical substances because they are not compositions of properties, they don't necessarily replicate anything in this universe.
Ichthus91 2 years ago
What physical substance does a fictional character or monster in a video game represent?
EvansRowan123 2 years ago
@EvansRowan123 A fictional character can be representation of a non-physical substance which only exists in your mind (non-physical substance can be hard to represent however and are often represented by analogy). Most often though; fictional characters are a combination of properties taken from the real world and thus a representation.
Ichthus91 2 years ago
Okay... i don't see how the ability to represent things that don't exist automatically means the mind doesn't exist either?
EvansRowan123 2 years ago