Are mental thoughts and human reason physical things...

what

No, thoughts are not made of matter. They do cause physical phenomenon, like matter movement and transformation, in the brain, though.
>would you be able to keep constructing those thoughts without the existence of the physical medium you call a brain ?
No, but you might not even be able to blow his brains out depending on the reference. If OP is the reference, then it's impossible to blow his brains out.
>because thoughts are a physical process
Thoughts are non-physical processes that causes physical processes.
>Thoughts are processes not objects that you can point to
Not all objects require a physical space, because not all objects are physical.
>There's no evidence for free will
You don't need evidences, in the scientific/physical sense, to reach knowledge or basic truths. Appeal to subjective experience is necessary for reaching philosophy, or even scientific method, without it, all scientific production is invalid.
>Literally all things are physical.
You experience qualia, though. They are, therefore, existant.
Also, you can't experience the physical directly, as it would be something beyond your subjective experience, but subjective reality is all you can access directly.

>Appeal to subjective experience is necessary for reaching philosophy, or even scientific method, without it, all scientific production is invalid

Yes, and everything we know about science (which is built upon the basic empiricism we all practice) ranging from physics to biology to neuroscience tells us that free will is an illusion.

>Also, you can't experience the physical directly, as it would be something beyond your subjective experience, but subjective reality is all you can access directly

Yes, and subjective/perceivable reality tells us that free will is an illusion.

You have to get over it or come up with some kind of theoretical framework that includes free will and test it.

I don't care if it exists or not, but as far as we know it appears that it doesn't.

>ranging from physics to biology to neuroscience tells us that free will is an illusion
It assumes cause and effect goes from past to present through appeal to population and authority (consensus among specialists), which are not strong arguments. While with the correct belief system (science being a specific belief system), the present could cause the past, thus allowing the existence of free will.
>Yes, and subjective/perceivable reality tells us that free will is an illusion.
Whose perceivable reality? Of people that hold authority over science? Of people that follow them? Of most people?
Why should I trust the consensus, if there has been countless examples throughout history of how people's consensus is unreliable?

It assumes no such thing and you've just done an about turn on your own previous statement.

I shall cease communicating from here on.

Have a good thread; I hope you find what you are looking for.

Causality has nothing to do with people, religion or authority retard. It's the physical rules of the universe that governs all the matter you see around in the universe, which includes you.

You don't understand science or philosophy.

You're also on a science and math board.

I think you should leave.

this fucking moron lol

> It's the physical rules of the universe that governs all the matter you see around in the universe
The physical rules don't imply causality, retrocausality is perfectly possible.
The ball falls because I dropped it. Or it might be that the ball having fell causes me to drop it in the present.
The reason the first is considered true is a matter of appeal to authority and population.
It seems that the janitor accepts this thread that is very philosophical, so it seems questioning science is acceptable in this board.

Also, it's impressive the hatred I am getting just because I said something false (according to you).

>retrocausality is perfectly possible.

[citation needed]

>retrocausality

Retrocausality would mean that actions would cause thoughts.

Free will is still doomed if you reverse the arrow of time.

amazon.com/Philosophical-Foundations-Neuroscience-M-Bennett/dp/140510838X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1471351916&sr=1-1&keywords=philosophical foundations of neuroscience

Buy/Borrow. Read. Understand.
gl hf

>The physical rules don't imply causality
You sure are trying hard enough

You don't need citation for every single thing, specially philosophical issues, this is not an scientific journal or wikipedia.
>[citation wanted]
Possibly. You could also take the view that the present is the source cause of everything, both past and the future. This way, what you do in the present (thoughts, emotions, actions) is free.

>reading a book by someone called "PMS Hacker"

I hope this helps
arxiv.org/pdf/1512.06689v1.pdf

>inb4 jewish lies
Fuck off, /pol/

Give us a quick summary of the arguments laid out in the book, user.

Just so I know what it's really about before I consider buying it.

>You could also take the view that the present is the source cause of everything, both past and the future. This way, what you do in the present (thoughts, emotions, actions) is free.
Not unless you show us that retrocausality is exclusive with forward causality (which it totally isn't in the scientific framework you invoked: they are two ways of describing the same thing).

>muh
>fucking
>qualia
You know what, I agree that introspection can be a reasonable method of inquiry into the mind. For example, it is totally reasonable to assert that there is such a thing as an inner monologue: it is very obvious to me that I can recite texts in my head.
On the other hand, philosocunts have done a terrible jobs at being convincing about the existence of qualia. It's badly defined and the only definition they can seem to agree on is "whatever it is that would help me prove that materialism is wrong". There is nothing happening in my spirit that would convince me of suck a thing existing.

No user, not possibly. That's exactly what would happen. Reverse causality and free will is still doomed.

>You could also take the view that the present is the source cause of everything, both past and the future

Yeah, you could continue making ad hoc attachments to arguments so that you never have to change your mind.

How exactly could the present be the cause of the past and the future?

In such a scenario you have causal arrows flying in both directions, which temporally isolate the present.

It's nonsensical, user.

If you disagree, then produce some form of valid argument in favour of such a scenario for others to consider.

People are a psychophysical entity, a ghost in the machine. Neuroscientists wrongly ascribe to our brains the thoughts, dreams and reason people are capable of.

Anyway, its anti-neurosciences.

What possible basis could the have for making such a claim?

Making the claim in the introduction to the book, saying lets see how I came to that conclusion, and rationalizing for a few hundred pages.

People are bio-mechanical organisms and every singlr atom in your body follows the deterministic laws of the universe.

Anything else you add on top of this fact is semantics.

/thread

Well the author of the book will claim that if you arrange these atoms in a certain way, the human way, they produce something greater than their sum, and that is the mind, consciousness, soul, whatever.
The book also argues that neuroscience is immoral for keeping some private brain cells alive and multiplying them or something, I don't remember.

I'm going to summarise this book:

>hard problem of consciousness
>therefore dualism, ghost in the machine, magic, soul, spirit, woo woo

I'm sure nobody is surprised.

More like this:

1. The central error of cognitive neuroscientists is to commit the mereological fallacy, the tendency to ascribe to the brain psychological concepts that only make sense when ascribed to whole animals.
2. A whole animal is more than just the material that makes it up, proven by trying to create an animal by mixing these materials.
3. From 1 and 2 follows that psychological concepts are not wholly physical.

>that if you arrange these atoms in a certain way, the human way, they produce something greater than their sum, and that is the mind, consciousness

That's exactly what cognitive neuroscience proposes.

Consciousness is an emergent property of yet organic structure of the brain, the nature of which we do not currently understand.

>soul

Die.

>I'm sure nobody is surprised.
I really used to think philosophers of muh qualia hid something deep and meaningful behind the pop-philosophy.

Boy was I wrong.

>2. A whole animal is more than just the material that makes it up, proven by trying to create an animal by mixing these materials.
A book is more than just ink and paper because I tried mashing those up together and the result wasn't readable, herpaderp, I'm doing philosophy you guys.

But a book is indeed more than ink and paper. It also features knowledge, language, ability, all bunch of non-physical shit.
Whats your point? You are only proving me right.

>A whole animal is more than just the material that makes it up, proven by trying to create an animal by mixing these materials.

And there it is.

This entire book is an argument from ignorance.

We haven't mapped the brain; therefore, we cannot currently artificially reproduce a brain and see if consciousness arises.

We haven't fully cracked abiogenesis; therefore, we cannot create life from non-life, although we can create proto-cells from organic materials.

We do not understand epigenetics very well; therefore, we cannot reproduce an animal by playing around with its constituent parts.

So, we don't know how the organic structure of the brain gives rise to consciousness, how enzymatic replication of nucleic acids began or exactly how epigenetics programs cells for differentiation.

Therefore: we don't know.

Not, therefore spookiness or quantum skeletons.

Just: we don't know.

It may "feature" those things (nice vague term), but it's still literally just ink and paper.
That mysterious thing on top you are seeking is called "organization". Revolutionary concept innit.

Assume that there is a soul, and we will thus never be able to produce life or consciousness.
Using your logic, this truth will never be reached, because the "we don't know" defense and claims of argument from ignorance will be thrown at it to mask it.

Okay, the book features organization.
Where is it? Its not part of the atoms that make it up. So I guess its a non-physical thing. The soul of the book. A human can also contain such "organization" (nice vague term).

Not that user, but I'll just point out why you're a tard.

The book contains informations built upon structural forms; in this case, 3D renderings of 2D lines that we are programmed to process.

>Assume that there is a soul

No.

Oh look, your argument fell apart.

Are you implying that it's not possible to falsify the proposition that the world is materialist? Because that's obviously wrong.
Make a table levitate with your mind and voilà, materialism disproven.

Oh look, you can't argue or reason. Even mathematics uses this formula for proving shit, kid.

>it's a logical dissection of (a critique of the language used in) neurosciences. Hacker is a philosopher (in the tradition of Wittgenstein), Bennett is a Neuroscientist.
>by this critique, B/H show a lot of problems (for example the mind-body problem) only occur because of a logically flawed (useless) use of language
>Therefore, a lot of questions (like "is there a free will") are a construct of a logically flawed use of language
>Those flaws also occur because of certain metaphysical concepts managed to sneak into academic debate - for example a modification of Descartes' concept of the soul which identifies Descartes' soul with the brain. B/H show why this modification is unsustainable and logically incoherent.

Also just read: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hacker

Sorry for my flawed English, btw.

>organization is a vague term
Are you legitimately retarded?
>So I guess its a non-physical thing
The book is also not "made up" of it, you literal cavement. It's organized, it's not made up of organization.
Like, holy shit, this is kindergaten stuff.

You are devolving my post into a ridiculous strawman. Claiming that there is a non-physical aspect to a human is not the same as floating tables by wishing it so.

Why did this thread go so rancid so suddenly? People were arguing until several minutes ago.

>You are devolving my post into a ridiculous strawman
Then formulate it better. Were you or were you not accusing materialism of being unfalsifiable? Because if so all I have to show you are possible falsifications of it, however they do not have to be the falsifications YOU want.

No, this doesn't follow. If I decide that doing pushups with your cock is a falsification of me wearing a pink thong, that doesn't make it so.
Further, you said that because we may be able to produce life later, this means we can produce life. You completely ignored the possibility that we may never be able to produce life, because it isn't part of the physical.
In order to prove X wrong, you just ignored X completely, built a theory that doesn't include it, and act victorious.

Math isn't science, it's symbolic logical reasoning you idiot.

Why would I assume there was a soul?

Why?

You assume X to see what the consequences of X existing could be, thus better understand whether X exists or not.
Assuming something to prove it right or wrong is standard practice in rational thinking.

>If I decide that doing pushups with your cock is a falsification of me wearing a pink thong, that doesn't make it so.
Are you trying to imply that psychic powers wouldn't be a falsification of materialism?

>Further, you said that because we may be able to produce life later, this means we can produce life.
That wasn't me but I'm happy to argue for it: that's not what he said at all. You brought that life-creation argument to the table, it's yours to defend, not us. All we have to do is show it's worthless.

>the possibility
Yes, and there's also the logical possibility that our thoughts are motivated by invisible unicorns, however you don't put forward theories on the "possibility" that may be true, you need to be able to give an account of why you believe they are plausible.

>Are you trying to imply that psychic powers wouldn't be a falsification of materialism?
I am trying to imply that lack of psychic powers wouldn't be proof of materialism.
Just because I can't levitate tables, doesn't mean materialism is a fact. Your posts assume it to be so.

>you don't put forward theories on the "possibility" that may be true, you need to be able to give an account of why you believe they are plausible.
It is as plausible, and as reasonable, and as unproven as materialism. You are just too engaged to see it, because you have this stupid tribe mentality about empirical thinking and rational thinking.

A giant sentient lemon that can never be detected as it dwells outside of our universe, is responsible for the quantum energy density fluctuations that led to a hot Big Bang phase transition and defined the physical laws of our universe.

It causes said fluctuations every time it farts.

A universe is born upon the the citrusy fart of our lemony overlord.

Explains everything desu.

Anyway, go on then there's a soul... Go ahead with your argument.

>I am trying to imply that lack of psychic powers wouldn't be proof of materialism.
That's not even the argument at hand here buddy, can you follow an implication arrow?
You accused materialism of being unfalsifiable. I gave you the result of a potential experiment that would show materialism to be false. That means materialism IS falsifiable, period.
Again, the falsification doesn't have to be the one YOU desire. You seem to have a hard time grasping that.

>It is as plausible, and as reasonable, and as unproven as materialism
Invoking pixie magic from outer space to explain how the mind works is in no way plausible, or reasonable. It's an hypothesis with unnecessary elements that you have absolutely zero justifications to believe in.

le ebin hitchslap, fellow pseudo intellectual
top shelf philosophical rhetoric

>That means materialism IS falsifiable, period.
Its falsifiable by impossible nonsense. This is practically unfalsifiable. Further, its arbitrarily chosen impossible nonsense. You could've said mind reading or throwing fireballs from my hands or whatever, equally stupid, equally irrelevant, and equally impossible.

By choosing it to be falsifiable only by impossible comic book logic, you are making it unfalsifiable.

Refusing to argue isn't gonna make you look smarter.
Justify why you include supernumerary elements into your hypothesis.

What do you mean with the word
>soul
???

I mean, if you ask me if a dog has legs, I'm able to tell you, he has legs, because I know what a dog is, and I know what legs are.

If I ask you, if a dog has a soul, and you're telling me "No, he doesn't"... well you better know what the word "soul" means - otherwise you're simply talking about things you don't know.

>impossible nonsense
Why is it impossible?
You are claiming that incorporeal thoughts have physical effects on the matter in our brain.
It's not far from levitating tables.

>practically unfalsifiable
You might be confused about what falsificationism is, my doode. Nobody said it had to be easy.

>impossible
Nothing logically impossible about it. Apparently that's enough for you to believe in something, isn't it?

>the self
>the soul
>being

Oh, I see.

And let's add that, since you're defending a book that calls itself "philosophical FUNDATIONS of neuroscience" in the first place, it is YOUR job to prove how any of that nonsense can have any impact on the actual scientific testable models of neuroscience.

Because right now, you are harshly defending the idea that nothing neuroscience can do has any bearing on those supposed "fundations of neuroscience", which is pretty much the same as saying it is completely worthless as a fundation, famalam.

I didn't use the word, the user I replied to did.

Ask him to define his use of the word, faggot.

user, there is a soul.

Now proceed with your deductive argument.

Well, I didn't quote him, too, because I was simply to lazy to do it. Of course it is also meant for the other user.
Nevertheless, you replied to it, which means, you are obviously talking about things you don't know, which doesn't seem to be very scientific, imo.

Btw.
>faggot
...really, who old are you. If you want to use language like that, just
>faggot
yourself to /b/

It's his term, so he defines it.

You faggot.

A soul is the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal. So all of a living being, which cannot be accounted for by its physical particles composing it.
Intellect, memories, emotions, and so on, is the soul.