Fine, but where is the supporting evidence? There are numerous scientific studies that show it is not really the case our thoughts are merely reduced to our brains. That is far too simplisitic an understanding, and isn't supported by the fuller research. Research that has been known for some time, which it seems to me, many materialists tend to ignore.Justhuman wrote:Thoughts are not immaterial in the sense of the opposite to material stuff. Thoughts are virual, they do not reside anywhere else than whithin the neural patterns of our brain. So thoughts do not control anything, our brain does.Kurieuo wrote:I believe the mind to be a faculty of the soul that, for us as physical beings, requires certain physical states to obtain in the brain and central nervous system before the mind can function.Justhuman wrote:I'd have to reread the "delusions of free will" posts to refreshen my mind...Kurieuo wrote:I think you have that back-to-front. I'd point out we experience precisely that immediately and directly with ourselves, an exterion of our will over the natural and material realm.Justhuman wrote:Besides that, I don't believe in any form of immaterial power that can create, or control, a material realm.
Do you mean that the will controls material substances directly?
Some might consider one’s brain being touched with an electrode causing a memory to occur as evidence for such. Yet, such doesn't show mental states are reducible to physical states. Rather this only demonstrates that the mind is causally connected to the brain and not that they are identical.justhuman wrote:To me our will is merely the computational result of neural and biological processes, which is confined whithin the thought patterns in the brain. It is not an immaterial extension of ourselves.
Given the distinctiveness of mental and physical properties, there is a reason to embrace the two as difference substances however interlinked and connected they might be.
Why isn't it a problem to you that the material (physical) control the immaterial (conciousness), yet the other way around presents some problem? Lack of knowledge about how something works, doesn't mean it can't work. In any case, I think it's a false dilemma. The relationship as I see between mind and matter appears direct and immediate.justhuman wrote:Besides, how can something immaterial control something material?
Consider the question of how turning a key can start a car? It starts the car because there is an system inbetween the key and the car’s engine such that turning the key causes the engine to start. The "How” question is a request to describe that intermediate mechanism.
Yet, as far as I experience, my control over my fingers as I type this message is rather direct and immediate. I don't really think much, yet I have thoughts, develop an intention to communicate a message, and just start typing. Everything just happens, my mind (will, thoughts, desires, intention) and body (brain, neurology, fingers) is so intimately tied together.
Furthermore, many philosophically inclined Theists who consider the ontology of reality are often Idealists. In a manner of speaking, everything is running on "God's mind" so-to-speak, such that what we call physical reality is simply that which we experience in the mind-constructed world. Consider how at quantum levels particles behave with observation changing the result (e.g., double-slit experiment). It mightn't be that "minds" or consciousness run on the physical order, but on the most fundamental levels the physical order running on mind.
In fact, there is quite a bit of research that shows that our mental force changes to our brain chemistry with OCD patients and what-not. The brain appears plastic and can change. People via pure will power can rewire brain neurology.
As a side, here's a video that makes a case for the "soul".
As per the video previously linked, take Wilder Penfield who is known for his experiments in applying electrodes to the motor cortex, where patients were made to involuntartily raise their arms, vocalise and recall memories. Yet, he could not involuntarily cause patients to act i.e., stimulate their will. He concludes, "There is no place in the cerebral cortex where an electrical stimulation will cause a patient ... to decide." Ergo, the "mind" is not in the brain chemistry, and cannot be explained by it.
Or, what about "unified perception" and the "visual binding problem"? To give a rundown, in the brain there is a part where colour information is had, and a part for helping with shapes. The entire visual system of the brain has been mapped. Yet, the is no place in the brain where shapes and colours are unified into the one picture we directly experience. To quote, "There is now overwhelming biological and behavioral evidence that the brain contains no stable, high-resolutoin, full field representation of a visual scene, even though that is what we subjectively experience." (Martinez-Conde et al., The Neural Binding Problem(s) 2008 p.5). If the entire visual system is mapped, then we KNOW our brain cannot produce our subjective experience of unified perceptions, it cannot be explained by looking at the brain alone. Therefore, the brain cannot explain the mind, but rather appears itself to be a tool used by the mind.
Additional studies show that our subjective experiences shape brain chemistry. That is, people appear to be able to re-wire and re-mould their brain, create new pathways, through mere will power. You have probably heard often of such rehabilition methods with brain-damaged people. The evidence suggests that we are able to change the way our brains work through mental effort. Sure, there are limits, but rather than our brains being our be-all and end-all of "WHO WE ARE" it seems they simply serve a utilitarian function to us, enabling us to process and experience physical phenema. Our will however, our decision making ability, our unification of physical experiences, our intentions, and the like, are more deeply seated and not found in our brains.
Highly recommend giving that video linked to at end of my last post a watch.