Knowledge: My body's behaviour is partially influenced from outside the material world by me (I am an immaterial mind)

Knowledge: My body's behaviour is partially influenced from outside the material world by me (I am an immaterial mind).

Hypothesis: Every adult human's body's behaviour is partially influenced from outside the materialist world by an immaterial mind.

As we all know, there is currently a plausible account of every human body's behaviour which only refers to material causes.

If my hypothesis is true, does it mean that people like Dan Dennett are basically con-men, who have figured out that even though they know old-fashioned dualism is true, they can't lose the game if they just pretend that it isn't?

Other urls found in this thread:

nature.com/news/2008/080411/full/news.2008.751.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Not even a materialist, but I don't see how you can come to the conclusion. They probably just don't see what you are taking as evidence for dualism to be evidence for dualism.

>They probably just don't see what you are taking as evidence for dualism to be evidence for dualism.
In my view, they are basically just pretending they don't know why everyone else is deeply unsatisfied by their answers.

They say things like "consciousness is a trick", or "consciousness is an illusion". Now I know a lot about illusions and tricks. But what sort of being I am is not something that could be an trick.

Conciousness itself as it actually exists isn't a trick. People who use the word conciousness for a variety of silly definitions are tricking you, though.

>unsatisfying
"Being alone in the dark is scary" isn't a satisfying explanation for haunted houses, but that doesn't change how true it is.

>"Being alone in the dark is scary" isn't a satisfying explanation for haunted houses, but that doesn't change how true it is.
I don't know what you're talking about. Listen, this is what it's like to be me: there are lots of thoughts that arise in my mind naturally, and lots of behaviours that my body does on its own, but whenever I like, I can exercise veto power over these thoughts and some of these behaviours. That's what I am. I'm not identical with anything in the material world that has ever been suggested to me.

How could I ever believe that to be false? It's the basic knowledge of that I am. If science has a materialist explanation of my behaviour, I can admire the explanation for its cleverness, but of course I know it is false.

>but whenever I like, I can exercise veto power over these thoughts and some of these behaviours.
By measuring the electrical activity of the brain, scientists are able to predict what decisions someone is going to make in certain contexts before the person conciously "decides".
nature.com/news/2008/080411/full/news.2008.751.html

Now, here you are going to say that the limited context of the experiment means that it doesn't count. Just because the "brain" decides something before your "immaterial will" does in this context doesn't mean it does in all contexts. And this is actually valid objection. We shouldn't hastily make generalizations over a result like this. But it does call into question the model you're advocating here. And it doesn't matter if you find it unsatisfying if it's the truth.

> And it doesn't matter if you find it unsatisfying if it's the truth.
Well of course I agree with that. But really, how could some scientific theory ever convince me that I am wrong about my basic knowledge?

It would certainly be odd to think that the entire material world is just an illusion designed to annoy me by putting me in a situation where I form social bonds with other "people" and yet cannot convince them of what I know.

But that insane hypothesis is something I could accept under certain conditions. Under no conditions could I accept that I am wrong about my basic knowledge.

>But really, how could some scientific theory ever convince me that I am wrong about my basic knowledge?
It's convinced generations and generations of people they were wrong about what they considered their basic knowledge. No reason it should stop now.

Again, it's not that conciousness itself is a trick, just that the kind of conciousness people are implying when they use words like "immaterial will" is baseless.

>It's convinced generations and generations of people they were wrong about what they considered their basic knowledge. No reason it should stop now.
No, I'm using "basic knowledge" in a different sense. I don't mean things that seem likely, or that your parents teach you. I mean the things a person just knows.

If people who are like me, have started saying that a materialist account of their bodies is correct, they are simply in denial or embarrassed to speak the truth. Otherwise, they are not like me at all.

I don't really find it hard to believe that large numbers of educated people are in denial or embarrassed to speak the truth.

>I mean the things a person just knows.
That's also what I mean by basic knowledge. The things people "just believe" have been historically replaced, it's just that the subject here is slightly different.

>I don't really find it hard to believe that large numbers of educated people are in denial or embarrassed to speak the truth.
Again, whether or not you believe in something or find it unsatisfying has no bearing on whether it is true or not. Buy yes, there is potential for cognitive dissonance here. In the same way that we live our day to day lives disconnected from how actual physics work (even physicists) so too might neuroscientists and the educated live their day to day loves disconnected from how the brain actually works. If it is culturally pragmatic to act as though it exists, that is a separate issue to whether or not it actually does.

>That's also what I mean by basic knowledge.
But knowledge is justified true belief. So nobody is ever wrong about knowledge, because knowledge is true.

Now you might say I just THINK it's knowledge, but it isn't really. But then what part of it am I wrong about? Am I wrong that it's true? (I reflect: no, it is true). Am I wrong that it's justified? (I reflect: no, it is justified by my experience).

I mean we're not talking about theories of disease here. I'm just telling you what I am.

>(I am an immaterial mind).
Expound upon this. As far as I'm aware every thought we have takes place in our brain, which is part of the material world, due to chemical processes that we generally know to also be part of it. Is this wrong?

>Is this wrong?
Yes.

Now when I say "immaterial", you should simply take it as "not material". Material forces are the forces dealt with by the study of physics. When I exercise a veto, I cause my body (including my brain) to behave differently as an outside influence.

And while that definition has always made for a nice soundbite, it glosses over the difficulties in actually pinning down exactly what "justifications" are valid and which are not. A Nessie believer might justify their belief with the photos, while rejecting the sonar data. They reflect: is my belief about Nessie true? Yes, it is. Is it justified? Of course. Thus, Nessie exists.

Now here you might say I've sown the seeds of my own demise. I myself am also vulnerable to the pitfalls pointed out in that assesment. What makes my justification in the sonar data more valid than their justification in the photos? Which is why, again, I have never liked that definition. But assuming we stick with it, then everyone is free to believe in whatever they want as knowledge, and I suppose that's better than people somehow not being allowed to believe in things. But, ultimately, as it has been historically, our objections will become irrelevant in the face of what is predictive and accurate. If the "materialist" model of the mind is more predictive than the "immaterial will" model, it will be accepted.

But everything that happens in our brain, including the process of thinking is explained by chemistry and physics.

>They reflect: is my belief about Nessie true? Yes, it is. Is it justified? Of course. Thus, Nessie exists.
No, that's not the same as what I do. You see, "Nessie" is an element of a proposed model called "the physical world". It's easy to doubt anything in the physical world (see: The Matrix), so justifications to do with the physical world are always tentative.

I'm a step back from the physical world when I know what sort of thing I am, my basic properties. Here, my justification is private and unquestionable.

>Here, my justification is private and unquestionable.
So you're very explicitly running away from potential questions, then. I'm not sure why you're accusing the materialists of being in denial when living in such a glass house.

>But everything that happens in our brain, including the process of thinking is explained by chemistry and physics.
I'd like to point out two things:

First, it certainly is not the case that we have a materialist account of my body's behaviour that explains every tiny little thing. I don't find it hard to believe that if someone studied my body closely enough, they might actually find a sneaky little impossibility.

But the second point is simply that the study of human bodies progresses on the false assumption that they are only governed by physical forces. I don't have any problem with that. But if you start with a false assumption you might get a very pretty answer, which will of course be false as well.

The other issue is that it presumes reductionism. That because these chemical processes correlate to certain decisions that they are the sole cause of those decisions or that nothing immaterial supervenes on these processes that leads to the decisions. The data that you can abstract from the actual phenomena through those experiments aren't equivalent to the actual qualia or phenomena of making the choice, they are just a means of abstracting that which is easily quantifiable from the phenomena..

>I'm just telling you what I am.
Ok but that doesnt matter.
The material world is independent of your experience. What you "know" isn't valid because it is baseless. There is no objective evidence for something you just "know."

People in the past have "just known" that there is a God. They've just "known" that they were God. What is "just known" is ultimately subjective and thus ultimately meaningless.

That's not to say you're wrong. But your reasoning is absurd.

I'm sorry, but you have it backwards. I think you exist and are the same sort of thing as me. But I can easily imagine that being false.

If I'm going to be serious about my epistemology, the "material world" is a thing I made up to explain my sensations. My sensations were all I started with.

So it's not my sensations that can be wrong, it's anything and everything else.

By the way, I do just know God. I suspect that most or all people also do. This would explain a lot of human history to me.

>that nothing immaterial supervenes on these processes that leads to the decisions.
Perhaps the procedure is guilty of reductionism, but this is guilty of introducing an entire separate framework into the equation we have no actual evidence of.

The evidence comes from our actual experience of phenomena, which always comes first before any sort of scientific/mathematical abstractions are used to make modifications on it so to explicate it in clearer terms. Our experience itself cannot be reduced down to a quantitative abstraction, we simply don't experience reality that way. It is a more properly empirical view. The reductionist view is neater, making it good for developing more experiments, but ontologically it does'nt work out.

>I'm not sure why you're accusing the materialists of being in denial when living in such a glass house.
It's not a glass house, it's an indestructable house that is invisible to anyone else.

The problem is that if you are the same sort of thing as me, then deep down you know I'm right. But you can deny it in public as much as you want, and you'll never lose the public game of arguing with me.

If you're not the same thing as me, then I am engaged in an absurd activity.

>I'm convinced of some subjective thing x
>how dare other people not beleive x even though I beleive it!
>therefore everyone other than me is a fraud

Classy

This seems to show that the "impulse" or inclination to make a certain decision is there before we are aware of it. But this is already common knowledge. As says, we sometimes choose to resist inclinations.

To use that experiment as an argument against free will and dualism, both sides would have to presuppose not only that all decisions are necessitated by these sorts of impulses but that all all these impulses are somehow inextricably linked to brain states. Which is something that indeterminists and dualists might have a hard time swallowing.

I really can't wrap my mind around any dualist position.

Everything happens through causality due to physical interactions of components. If something happens and it's not caused by physical things interacting, how else could it possibly happen?

I just don't understand how anything can be explained without materialism, what else is there?

We actually experience things like being spooked in haunted houses, but that doesn't make ghosts a more valid explanation of anything.

I'm not denying it in public, I simply accept reality as it is most convincingly presented to me and move on with my day. How my brain "actually" works doesn't matter to me on more than an intellectual level except in such contexts where knowledge is useful for something, same as how the electromagnetic repulsion between objects meaning they never actually touch doesn't affect my behaviour except in contexts where said knowledge is useful for something. Or, if you'd like another metaphor, it's like the Monty Hall problem. Despite the difficulty of accepting that switching doors is the correct desicion if you want the car, once you can accept it on an intellectual level you will likely switch if you are certain the rules are being followed because it matches reality better.

>I just don't understand how anything can be explained without materialism, what else is there?
Well there are at least two other things, me and God. I don't know if there is anything else. There might be!

> If something happens and it's not caused by physical things interacting, how else could it possibly happen?
If something else caused it. I mean you're just saying "How could materialism not be true? Materialism is true!"

>Despite the difficulty of accepting that switching doors is the correct desicion if you want the car, once you can accept it on an intellectual level you will likely switch if you are certain the rules are being followed because it matches reality better.

You keep using these examples of tricks or heuristics gone wrong. But they're not the same thing.

Now I was never fooled by the Monty Hall problem, because I have cautious heuristics in that area (I'm a mathematician and my assumptions about my intuitions have been beaten to a pulp).

But no matter how cautious I get, I'll still know what sort of thing I am!

>God

top kek

I don't know I guess I'm just too far gone, too indoctrinated, too much physics education. I really can't bring myself to understand the dualist position no matter how much I read about it. Everything I know operates based on physical laws, it seems so arrogant to me to think "me" is an exception to that

You already know dualism is true. I'm not trying to be mean, I was in denial for years. I'm in STEM as well.

Did you identify as a materialist at any point?

What compelled you to your current understanding?

Is there any specific readings you would recommend for me that would convince me otherwise?

One thing I don't understand about dualism is where exactly immaterial substance comes from. Does it just magically arise out of my brain? Did my mom break off a chunk of her's so I could have some? But where did the chain begin? How and at what point did a material organism derived from evolution ever make use of something immaterial?

>Did you identify as a materialist at any point?
Most of my life. I was an atheist materialist. Well, as I now understand it, I was pretending to be.

>What compelled you to your current understanding?
I noticed that my objections to God were all emotional, whereas my objections to revealed religions were all rational. I decided to rethink whether the baby should go out with the bathwater.

Then I just existed for a moment, and remembered that I always knew that I am an immaterial mind, and I have a relationship with an all-powerful being that loves me.

>Is there any specific readings you would recommend for me that would convince me otherwise?
I would recommend that you don't read anything, but stare at a wall.

>they are basically just pretending they don't know why everyone else is deeply unsatisfied by their answers.

we know its you, David.

>Then I just existed for a moment, and remembered that I always knew that I am an immaterial mind, and I have a relationship with an all-powerful being that loves me.

Doesn't sound very rational to me.

Reason is using logic on evidence. Some evidence is private. There are some conclusions that you might come to that are perfectly rational, but which can't be shared without people doubting your evidence.

The enemy of theism and dualism isn't science, it's peer pressure.

I'm kinda disappointed, I find that explanation deeply unsatisfying.

My objections to God are not emotional, I just don't see evidence for it nor do I feel the need for it. There's no reason for me to think God exists, unless I use it as some sort of abstract term for everything like Spinoza.

Staring at a wall... I think that if I truly was an immaterial mind then I would be able to do it. I could just contemplate with no input and realize that my prior convictions were wrong. This just doesn't work, I can't induce such mental changes without actively working towards changing my mindset, and I can't do that without observing evidence.

>But no matter how cautious I get, I'll still know what sort of thing I am!
Your certainty of what kind of thing you are is just as intuitive as a naive approach to Monty Hall. It's not that the educated pretend to be switchers while secretly maintaining that remaining is the correct choice, it's that their intuitions about it have been, as you said, beaten to a pulp.

Knowledge is justified true belief. You lack the justification part.

>There's no reason for me to think God exists
If I'm right, then you know God exists. There's no way to put this that doesn't sound extremely rude. I think you have forbidden yourself to notice that you know things that you can't justify to other people.

I think it's your interactions with other people that have resulted in you burying your knowledge. Perhaps you associate what you know with an undesirable social class.

This whole "justified true knowledge" thing sounds like self-hypnosis. Complete with built-in defense mechanisms against criticism.

And of course the inevitable forgone conclusion "God loves me", how convenient.

Even if I 'know' God, I'm still going to say that I don't know, I'm still going to act as if I don't know, I'm not going to pray, I'm not going to contemplate my relationship with this 'God'.

What does 'knowing God' even do for me?
What is the point of it?
Why WOULDN'T I refuse to say I don't believe something with no evidence?

I think your'e employing a sort of psychological defense mechanism, perhaps due to your intrinsic fear of the nothingness of not having a consciousness

>What does 'knowing God' even do for me?
>What is the point of it?
It's not something that's supposed to have a point, it's supposed to be true. I'm not offering you self-help, I'm trying to get you to remember what you know.

>Why WOULDN'T I refuse to say I don't believe something with no evidence?
As a social act? Sure, you could do that. It might be socially advantageous. It would make me look like a fool.

But you have the evidence. Not all evidence is third-person.

>I'm still going to act as if I don't know, I'm not going to pray, I'm not going to contemplate my relationship with this 'God'.
Well I wouldn't be so sure about what you're going to do. I barely know what I'm going to do tomorrow.

Personally I take a moment sometimes to notice what God wants me to do. But I don't pray that God affect the physical world for me. As far as I know, God would have no reason to do that.

Not him.
I have no problem Thinking about mental subjectiev experience as another dimension, another way of looking at myself in parallel to say an MRI image or the way i see myself in a mirror.
I can also accept the idea that a full existence as a human being contains more then sciene can explore using its specific and current methodologies.
In spite of all that i dont see how god enters into the picture or what you even mean by god.
Perhaps that is a good start, what do you mean by "god"?

(you)

Here is an analogy. Its not accurate but it gives a hint.
Imagine a room with someone jumping in the middle of it.
Now imagine there is a camera filming him and you see it on a screen.
Also imagine there is a microphone recording the room and the man inside.
You have speakers through which the audio is coming.

So, lets say that your internal experience of yourself is the audio in the analgoy, while a recording of your brain's neruological functioning is video feed.

Both the microphone and the camera are recording the man jumping, one records how it looks and another how it sounds. The moment the man stops you will see it on the video feed and hear room noize through the speakers.

Both are connected with whats going on but translate it differently.
The same is with your brains image in the MRI machine and your personal internal mental experience.
They both capture the same thing but differently and partially.

The MRI is the culmination of the scientific methods of investigation of reality while your internal sensation and experiecing is something else.
ATM it seems like scientific methodology by its definition cannot explain or address the internal experiencing of you as an entity.

>what do you mean by "god"?
God is a person, like you or me. Just like us, it can make choices, but its sphere of influence extends to everything, not just the bodies that we influence.

God loves us, and wants us to behave in a certain way. If you reflect, you'll feel what God wants you to do.

Huh? The mind and body are 100% materialist.

If there is a soul, it has nothing to do with the material brain.

From observation, all of your body's behavior is through the material world including your thought patterns. I mean you can think of some non-material mental constructs, but it requires stuff like language and observation which is of course materialist.

I'd like to add that certain conclusions about your future can be deduced once you consider God's properties.

Since God loves us, and has control over everything, we are not going to stop existing. So, why are we in this situation here, where we are tied to human bodies in this world? I don't understand exactly, but no matter what the reason is, it must be to teach us something. Which means that we will keep our memories of this place in the long-term.

Hrm... After internal reflection God wants me to eat all that I can, fuck all the women that I can, kill all the enemies as I can, and do all the drugs that I can.

Also I have a gut feeling that my interpretation is right and that the rest of you are going to hell.

Then you should do that. If you're lying, you'll only be hurting yourself in the long run. This is because alignment with God's wishes creates an unmistakable feeling, that is the only thing worth having.

I am okay with this sort of understanding as long as it acknowledges that you can't have certain mental states (audio) without the corresponding physical states (video), there has to be internal consistency between them.

>the rest of you are going to hell.
Hell (eternal torture) cannot exist. God loves us. Some suffering may be a good lesson for us, but in the long term our lives will be good.

I dont understand how you get from ,internal mental experience being different to scientific methodology and a god existing.

No no, you don't have to say "gut feeling", its your True Justified Knowledge, and no one is allowed to say that you are wrong.

I'm pretty sure Stalin and Hitler had unmistakable feelings about things.

I don't "get" to God existing, I just know it.

Scientific methodology is just a trick for predicting how the world will act in the future, under the assumption that it acts according to rules. It is highly successful in many areas.

Gnosis or Divine Revelation.

For all I know, they were following God's instructions perfectly. God could command two people to kill each other. I don't see why not.

Whatever the purpose of this world is, nothing that happens in it matters that much in the long run.

So predestination? clavinism? I have not recieved this divine revelation so how am i to know god?

So its ok if God tells you to kill millions of people?

Seems like a dick.

Apparently you just "reflect" and then you "remember" that you "know" that God loves you, kek.

What does "ok" mean?

I mean if you hear a clear voice in your head telling you to kill as many people as possible? Or that you had an indisputable feeling that all the Jews had to die and you act on it.

No, what makes something "okay"? I want to answer your question so I need to know how you are defining it.

meant for

I mean if sit down and contemplate the universe and you get this undeniable revaluation to go genocide a people? Is that God's will?

If it is and its okay. As in that that's what god really wants you to do, then doesn't that mean god is a dick?

What does "okay" mean?

No, that doesn't make God a "dick"... "dick" is an insult that humans use for another human that doesn't behave how they'd like.

God isn't the right category to insult. You're bringing a small idea into a big place.

There is no good reason to do anything other than following God's advice. I mean, what authority do we really have to call other people dicks, let alone God?

Why is there suffering? Why is there evil? If God is all loving then how could he allow this to be. An all loving God would give us the best of all possible worlds. Is there not room for improvement in this world? We do not live in the best of all possible worlds, but we live in the world that we have. The truth is that we are all gods.

Kosher or Halal

How can you tell if you are following god's word?

What if your a genetic sociopath? Or hear voices?

How can you tell the difference between god and satan?

How can you tell if other people are inspired or is it just because you agree with them?

If what you are saying is true, then wasn't Muhammad right?

>Why is there suffering? Why is there evil?
I don't know why there is suffering. Why shouldn't there be?

As for evil (whatever you think it is), obviously there is evil because people choose to do evil.

>How can you tell if you are following god's word?
If you are doing what God wants, you just know it.

>What if your a genetic sociopath? Or hear voices?
Voices are sensations. God is further back.

>How can you tell the difference between god and satan?
What's Satan?

>How can you tell if other people are inspired or is it just because you agree with them?
You can't.

>If what you are saying is true, then wasn't Muhammad right?
About what?

An all loving God would not let suffering exist. If there was a God then he is responsible for all death that ever occurred on earth. If God exits and he lets suffering exist then God is not all loving he is in fact an evil being.

God loves us. That doesn't mean God would give us a life of unending pleasure. That's not what I would give someone I love.

God has given us a varied life. No matter how much we suffer, we can be content if we follow God's will. And we can know we will not stop existing.

What God are you ever talking about OP? Christian God? You sound like a born again Christian.

No, I'm not a Christian.

Ultimate love is not the answer. A human being is more complex than some love God you believe in.

Money is your God OP. You cannot be content without eating, drinking, and living in a home and using the Internet. If you didn't have money you would see that you are not happy at all. God wants you to be content and happy so he makes you work. Without work you cannot be happy and content. Therefore God is money and God is evil.

>You cannot be content without eating, drinking, and living in a home and using the Internet.
Sure I can. Actually I haven't used the internet in a while.

>If you didn't have money you would see that you are not happy at all.
What do you mean "I'd see that I am not happy"? Don't I know when I'm happy? I'm not always happy, but money seems to not have much to do with it.

>Therefore God is money and God is evil.
???

>"dick" is an insult that humans use for another human that doesn't behave how they'd like.
"Love" is a word humans use to describe human feels, too.
But you seem to have no problem extrapolating human emotions onto your idea of God. Why is he arbitrarily good and gives advice?
Seems like your idea of God is actually just your own intuition that you are associating with another. I'm not blaming you, we humans are highly social.

So I get why you want to universalize your own emotions and claim that God makes them Objective aspects of the world. It's pretty grandiose of you but hey I don't know your life, maybe you need this kind of delusion to keep going.

You made a classic mistake though, However, in your narcissistic superiority complex, you didn't realize that by insisting that everyone who doesn't feel the same way about the universe must be deceitful, you ended up alienating people who you are trying to communicate with.

Oh for fuck's sake. I'm arguing with a Gnostic.

Why even...

>But you seem to have no problem extrapolating human emotions onto your idea of God.
Love isn't an emotion, it's a state of being, one for another. To love someone is to want them to thrive.

>Why is he arbitrarily good and gives advice?
I never said God is "good". I have big uncertainties about what that word is supposed to mean. And guidance is easy to find in God.

>you didn't realize that by insisting that everyone who doesn't feel the same way about the universe must be deceitful, you ended up alienating people who you are trying to communicate with
That's just a guess. It might be everyone, it might be half of the people, it might just be me.

I do think it's very suspicious that the same core idea seems to crop up over and over again in human history, each time with added implausible fluff.

The analogy does'nt work though. In that case you are talking about us experiencing x, thinking it is y, when it is actually z. But here we are not talking about any particular object of experience like in your example, but experience itself. In your example there is qualia involved in our experience of the ghost regardless of whether or not that experience corresponds to a real object or not, and that experience itself is not reducible to the quantifiable abstractions that the physical sciences provide us so to explicate phenomena by.

I'll say it more plainly, your view of God is actually just your own anthropic traits, filtered through your own fascination with dualism.

Why do you think that you "just know" how "God" loves you? It's a self-referential state.

But ultimately you seem harmless so that's fine. Actually it's just being irrationally insistent that more annoying than anything but I can't stop you from typing whatever you want.

>Why do you think that you "just know" how "God" loves you? It's a self-referential state.
I don't think that I know, I just know.

>fascination with dualism
I don't have a fascination with dualism. What I have a fascination with, is the fact that "dualism" is a word! How could any other situation possibly be the case?

>How could any other situation possibly be the case?
Multiple arguments have been advanced throughout the thread.

There is no argument to be had!

Raise your left arm.

>There is no argument to be had!
Yeah, not if your conclusion is "you already secretly agree with me, stop arguing."

I know dualism exists. I know an all loving God exists............... Because I just know.
>OP