Raymond Tallis argues that your brain waves are not themselves thoughts.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/137/Against_Neural_Philosophy_Of_Mind
Against Neural Philosophy Of Mind
-
owl of Minerva
- Posts: 373
- Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm
Re: Against Neural Philosophy Of Mind
This article shows the flaws in Neural Philosophy of Mind. The views of Eliminative Materialism are extreme. It denies not just the existence of mind, independent of the physical brain, but also the existence of the macro elements, four of which are apparent to sense perception. It is doing to secular humanism what secular humanism did to religious concepts; invaliding their existence. There is a theory in physics that mind is an element in its own right, as widespread and deeply embedded in nature as light or electricity. This theory is that elemental mind interacts with matter at an equally elemental level, at the level of the emergence into actuality of individual quantum events.
Re: Against Neural Philosophy Of Mind
Obviously something is interacting with the brain and since that thing is invisible to scientific probing, scientists have no option than to claim "the brain did it" and leave the invisible out of the equation - for the obvious reason that the invisible cannot be studied...at least not by the process of science.
If there is a Ghost in the Machine and we are "it", we needn't think science will be the device which can show us that this is the case. What we are shown is evidence that something is happening. We cannot see in the evidence that the something is caused by the brain activity, or that the brain activity is caused by something else...So we have the same evidence which can be interpreted differently.
The different interpretations are based upon premise. Either premise might be correct.
1: The brain did it [directly]
2: Something else did it [indirectly]
Are we each simply a figment of the brains 'doings'?
How can we find out which position is most likely the better explanation?
Obviously science cannot give us any other answer, so we have to look elsewhere. Are there clues/hints which can be found in those other places which - when pieced together - might gives us a better overall picture to help us decide which of the two options best fits all the evidence?
Are 'we' [minds] the product of singular brains producing solely isolated islands of thought and subsequent being, or are 'we' minds interconnected and all the product of a bigger mind in which we are within, experiencing?
For me it seems obvious that if we are to examine option [2] we are forced by that to take it to the conclusion we are minds within a Mind.
If there is a Ghost in the Machine and we are "it", we needn't think science will be the device which can show us that this is the case. What we are shown is evidence that something is happening. We cannot see in the evidence that the something is caused by the brain activity, or that the brain activity is caused by something else...So we have the same evidence which can be interpreted differently.
The different interpretations are based upon premise. Either premise might be correct.
1: The brain did it [directly]
2: Something else did it [indirectly]
Are we each simply a figment of the brains 'doings'?
How can we find out which position is most likely the better explanation?
Obviously science cannot give us any other answer, so we have to look elsewhere. Are there clues/hints which can be found in those other places which - when pieced together - might gives us a better overall picture to help us decide which of the two options best fits all the evidence?
Are 'we' [minds] the product of singular brains producing solely isolated islands of thought and subsequent being, or are 'we' minds interconnected and all the product of a bigger mind in which we are within, experiencing?
For me it seems obvious that if we are to examine option [2] we are forced by that to take it to the conclusion we are minds within a Mind.