Instigator / Pro
0
1777
rating
79
debates
76.58%
won
Topic
#2771

The mind is obsolete

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Winner
0
1

After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
1
1697
rating
556
debates
68.17%
won
Description

Are humans purely a biological machine - or do we have an immaterial part that makes us able to feel alive rather than just being alive. In short, do "I" exist, or do only a body and a brain exist? We will start out with the basic assumption that humans exist - and Pro will try to prove that science can explain our experience of being alive better than the philosophy of a mind. It does not matter whether or not each idea is religious or not - what matters is their explanatory value.

Definitions:

Mind: immaterial part of a human which experience the world - connected to but still contrasted with the purely physical body

Obsolete: outclassed by another idea or proven to be wrong.

-->
@Intelligence_06
@Sum1hugme
@Theweakeredge
@Undefeatable

Would any of you be interested in reading this debate?

-->
@Subaccount

Ok. I just finished my more urgent debates.

-->
@Benjamin

I'm going to my dad's house tomorrow for 2 weeks and I dont have access to this account there so respond now or I will automatically forfeit if you respond tomorrow.

-->
@Benjamin

That means you forfeited.

-->
@Subaccount

12 or 13 years

-->
@Benjamin

How long do you think

-->
@Subaccount

I am a bit tired as of now, I have some debates that are more urgent, so you will have to wait a bit.

-->
@Benjamin

It's your turn to create your argument on my debate.

-->
@Subaccount

Yes.

Click the "arguments" button, it is left to the "comments" and "votes" button.

-->
@Benjamin

You haven't created your argument yet

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: gugigor // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:

The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.

This factors in both the initial RFD, and the offered expansion in comment #28.
**************************************************

-->
@Subaccount

What do you mean?

-->
@RationalMadman

How am I lying?

I am simply stating an opinion, its the comment section.

-->
@Benjamin

It is your turn

-->
@Benjamin

That's not how you define it in your own description. You wanted to be Con, not Pro. Stop lying to win.

-->
@Subaccount

About the brain and the mind.

-->
@gugigor

Seriously. "The mind" was just the word for "the brain" before humans understood where it was located and what its function was. CON's syllogism tries to explain why some immaterial supernatural world exists. I clearly proved why such a supernatural world, if it exists, could not even interact with this physical world. Your vote mentions none of the arguments from my side, and does not even try to explain what "the mind" is. How can you claim CON proved the existence of the mind if neither you nor RM defined its properties.

-->
@Subaccount

Read it and you'll probably find out

-->
@RationalMadman
@Barney
@gugigor
@Benjamin

what is this debate about?

-->
@Barney

Pro only talks of our interaction of the physical world and how narrowing our physical experiences is able to reduce to the "brain", but I don't see anything clearly countering Con's objection that the mind may still have some relevance with regards to immaterial ideas (the "concepts" held in the "mind" rather than the physical manifestation of it)

-->
@gugigor

Would you mind giving your reasoning for why Pro's logical proof failed?

vote bump

-->
@gugigor

Your vote is not legal. You ignored the definition of "Obsolete: outclassed by another idea or proven to be wrong."

PRO never showed us why his idea of an immaterial mind was not outclassed, he simply asserted it was not wrong.

Did you even read my logical proof that an immaterial world could not interact with a material body.

You simply ignore most of my arguments to give the win to CON, your vote has been reported.

-->
@RationalMadman

no problem. I may go into more detail as my brain is mush right now, but under 20% brain (mind?) capacity I think your succinctness wins over Benjamin's logic. His argument isn't bad, but it's a little muddy with materialism vs metaphysical separation.

-->
@gugigor

Thanks for your vote. I like the feedback too.

-->
@Wagyu

Maybe you will be interested in this debate. Maybe you can read it, vote, and possibly learn how to improve your machines can think argument.

-->
@RationalMadman

They don't

-->
@Benjamin

if everyone spammed like you did, it would negate the reason you are doing it.

vote bump

Boat hump

Oh sorry it's covid, I can't.

vote bump

vote bump

vote bump

[10]: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbfYPyITQ-7l4upoX8nvctg

SOURCES FOR ROUND 3:

[1]: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/health-and-human-body/human-body/brain/
[2]: https://www.lexico.com/definition/knowledge
[3]: https://www.lexico.com/definition/information
[4]: https://www.lexico.com/definition/experience
[5]: https://human-memory.net/memory-storage/
[6]: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Occams-razor
[7]: https://www.britannica.com/topic/form-philosophy
[8]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concept
[9]: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/08/science-of-sleep/

bumb

bumb

bumb

bumb

bumb

-->
@RationalMadman

I might lose, I might win. Either way, my case will be right. Funny how you found no better way to rebuke my argument than use my other argument.

-->
@Sum1hugme
@Wagyu

When your opponent can find no better way to defeat your argument than using your own words - that is a sign that your grasp of the concept is superb.

-->
@RationalMadman

There has been a mistake

I am supposed to be Con

The BoP is so confusing. Either that or the topic is misleading.

also these definitions are suspicious, to say the least, and the resolution is confusing. "The mind is obsolete" and you're pro... so are you the one arguing that there is no mind? Because that's what that position correlates to

"I" exist as an expression of biological components reaching a threshold of a "mind".

Neato!