Instigator / Pro
0
1760
rating
89
debates
76.4%
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The mind is obsolete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
Tags
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
1706
rating
562
debates
68.06%
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.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Thanks for participating.
I regret that I have made a mistake. I was supposed to be Con. Regardless, I hope I will also be able to argue for the other side.
SETUP:
Because of my mistake, I must make a change to the BoP. I will not argue for the nonexistence of a mind - rather I will argue for a material mind rather than an immaterial one.
The only option is a forfeiture from both sides and a tie if Con does not accept this change. Sorry for the inconvenience.
I will take it as a given that we assume science - period - without it, my position is impossible by definition.
We also assume the existence of some mind - period - without it, none of our positions would be possible.
It is clear that the (mind) which Con will propose is independent of the body or universe in general. I will propose a mind as dependent on the existence of my body.
I will format my argument as simple as possible. I will first attack the immaterial mind and afterwards defend the material mind. I proceed.
Part 1
REJECTING THE IMMATERIAL MIND:
During this part, I will use "mind" solely about the immaterial mind. I will use "brain" about the material mind.
Life is an illusion
A mind would inherently be immaterial and it would exist independently of the universe. If so was the case then our universe would be less real, after all, our actual identity would lie in the immaterial world rather than the material one. Our mind would exist outside of the universe, and we would live like people in the Matrix: everything we experience is illusions created by robots, god, karma, or something else. We might think we are free, but we are trapped inside another reality.
This brings up the question of morality and relationships. If we do not exist inside this world directly, then there is a layer of illusion that prevents us from interacting directly with our loved ones. What I mean by that is we cannot communicate directly - we need to use the means available to us, namely our bodies. That would be like typing with a friend over the internet. Yes - you are communicating - but there is a barrier between you called distance, the internet is only creating the illusion of community between you. As far as you know he could be a chatbot, you never meet him in real life so you have no standard to test his validity as a human being.
Thus as a direct result of believing in the theory of mind opens the possibility that your friends do not even exist. At least it takes their existence out of this universe and puts them in another one separate from yours.
This kind of viewing the world can easily undermine morality. In a computer game, you have no moral objections against killing other players - after all, you are hurting their character, not their real identity. A natural thing like murder could never damage the immaterial mind. Therefore, a natural act like murder would not have any implication on "the real world" in which the mind exists. '
But believing that our actions inside the physical world have no real meaning would justify all actions as being equal. Therefore, the theory of mind undermines morality.
djadsfsfd
aekjiaejeioc aoifoe osifejoaixewrioax sjfeoafm oidf odfio
Clearly, this proves my point.
The mind has no explanatory value
The theory of mind has no explanatory value. Claiming that a spirit or immaterial mind possesses our bodies would only add more questions. Why is that?
- Adding of a new, unknowable "reality"
- How does the mind work
- It is just another layer of deception
1. Claiming that "the mind" exists asks the question of where it comes from. Since the mind is immaterial this question will be answered solely by religion. The existence and properties of such an immaterial realm would be a religious claim, yet again. I said we would not consider religious claims less worthy of attention - however, the actual "explanatory value" does not exist. My point by saying this is not to break my own rule, but I want to show that a "mind" cannot be explained universally - but people will have their personal theories.
2. The mind cannot be explained scientifically, philosophically, or logically. Is it connected to the brain and able to affect it? Seemingly random quantum fluctuations make it so that science can never actually disprove the theory of mind by predicting a person's exact actions. Therefore we can apply Newton's Razor to it and deem the idea unworthy of scientific dispute. If the mind can affect the brain, can it not affect nonliving matter? Why not? The idea that a mysterious immaterial phenomenon controls my actions is rather unconvincing. How does it work, randomly or logically? Since the physical brain can give it information does that not mean it is a part of the physical world? I could go on and on, but Con gets the point. Explaining consciousness using "the mind" is like explaining the universe by saing"because it just is that way".
3. Yes - the mind would explain why humans experienced reality rather than just existing as individual atoms. But the mechanism of it still remains hidden. In fact, attributing consciousness to a mind does not answer our question. It is simply a way to dodge the question, kind of like claiming that "god" created the earth. While it might theoretically be true it does not add any understanding in any way.
Extension and conclusion of the previous arguments:
The mind adds more questions without explaining anything. It can only be answered using personal faith. It is a "god in the wholes" fallacy with the mind instead of god. It is clear that we cannot understand what "experience" actually is. I have no intention of proving that we know. Neither has Con. So the challenge I have for Con is this: Why attribute a complicated idea like experience to an unknowable mind instead of the scientific brain? Again, according to Occam's razor, the theory of mind should be discarded immediately from intellectual circles. It is a religious claim that only answers religious questions. It undermines morality and opens the possibility of life being an illusion. It undermines the importance of the brains that conceded the idea.
Part 2
PRESENTING THE MATERIAL MIND:
For this argument, I will assume that SOME MIND exists. I will use the correct prefixes material and immaterial.
Explanatory value
First of all, any mind will be based on logical structures. I do not accept the idea that "randomness" is a valid explanation for anything. Since only logical conclusions or causalities are not random, anything called a mind must make logical decisions. Any seemingly irrational or random choice is due to complexity - we already know that 100% logical computers can make irrational decicions. Our minds are much more complex and thus more prone to problems from complexity.
Now, here comes the syllogism:
P1: Humans have a mind - which must be logical and thus explainable (or else it's random)
P2: Only a material mind can be proved, explained or accessed
C: Humans have a material mind rather than an immaterial one - that is if we assume the most plausible option to be true.
I conclude that unless Con can explain the inner mechanism's of an immaterial mind using philosophy, that he has accepted this point
Argument by definition
I want to show that a material mind and an immaterial mind have the exact same properties of dependency on the material - thus Con would lose by definition.
I will use a syllogism yet again.
P1: If the immaterial mind is to have any relevance it is to actively interact with the physical world
P2: Since humans do not experience the immaterial reality their mind does not interact with the immaterial world
C: The immaterial mind is actually just a material mind in disguise
The logic is simple: since our obviously existing mind only interacts with our material world it can only be considered to be material - whatever it is.
Con would argue that if the mind hypothetically was to go to heaven or something similar, that it would necessarily be immaterial.
I argue that without a body or a brain our mind, immaterial or not, is useless and nonsensical. Remember that we know nothing except what information is stored in the brain, and any thinking we do is predicated on having this information. If we instead change the Immaterial mind to fit into an immaterial life in heaven we are no longer humans as nothing remains - neither body nor the properties of our mind. Therefore, if we are to keep our identity going to heaven or something similar then we must have bodies or something similar.
I conclude that the mind is best explained as material. So with current knowledge, my position is positively affirmed as correct.
Argument by science
It is obvious that science is doing great leaps when it comes to understanding our psychology and our brains. If you doubt the scientific ability to understand our psychology then you can read for yourself or prove me wrong. You could also read other debates on this site. I have no space and no will to discuss science because the specifics do not matter - only it's philosophical implications. If Con rejects this I will prove it next round.
I will once again use a logical syllogism.
P1: If our mind is immaterial it's not damaged by brain damage
P2: Our psychology is damaged by brain damage [1]
C1: Either the mind is damaged by brain damage, and is thus material
C2: or our psychology is tied to the brain rather than the mind - making the brain the new mind - making the mind material
Either of the conclusions would undermine the validity of an Immaterial mind. Does it not exist it is not relevant. But if it does exist but affects nothing it is not relevant either.
The mind is material rather than immaterial. "Material" of course meaning that it only interacts with material things - it does not exist in an immaterial realm.
Part 3
CONCLUSION:
If we define the mind as part of a human which experience the world - it clearly does not exist independent of our universe. That is - until we put faith over reasoning.
Therefore, the mind is material. Claiming this does not explain its properties but neither does calling it immaterial.
Con, your turn.
Again, sorry for the inconvenience - feel free to demand an unconditional tie.
SOURCES:
[1]: Our psychology is based on the state of our brain. Proven by psychological problems after brain damage.
Kelvin Lim: The psychological impact of brain injury can be long-lasting. People who have had head injuries may experience depression and anxiety, poor impulse control, verbal or physical outbursts, lack of empathy, general apathy or a tendency toward risky behavior.11
Con
#2
- Concepts exist only within the mind
- Our mind experiences both itself and the surroundings
- Consciousness provides the mind with information about the surroundings
- The mind is what makes us observe things
- Whatever the mind observes, we call a fact (for example, we have a body)
- The mind is the only thing we have full insight into.
- The mind is me
This is written by Pro in another debate. I will be the outline of my case. I'll expand on all and rebuke Pro's case in Round 2.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Thank you for your reply. I must say I am conflicted about fighting my own disciple.
I will start my case with a famous quote:
"Don't site deep magic for me, witch. I was there when it was written." [C.S.Lewis Narnia]
I do not understand why you never added your own ideas even with your leftover characters.
For the fun of it, you can watch this rap battle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QDLEn5tE3c
REBUTTALS:
For me, this will be torture. Just kidding XD
- Concepts exist only within the mind
Yes. But they are clearly based on our experiences. Read Aristotle.
- Our mind experiences both itself and the surroundings
Yes. But so does the brain.
- Consciousness provides the mind with information about the surroundings
Rather, consciousness is an attribute of the mind. It does not help our understanding of consciousness to move the mind from the material to the immaterial plane.
- The mind is what makes us observe things
Rather, our senses do.
- Whatever the mind observes, we call a fact (for example, we have a body)
- The mind is the only thing we have full insight into.
Yes. However, the mind has only access to our brain, or at least as we know of. Please explain what experiences are not rooted in the brain. For example, tell me how we can communicate with the immaterial real directly.
- The mind is me
By definition that is correct. If we define "mind" as "me", then of course we can only be mindful of the mind. This is an axiom. But tell me why it must be immaterial.
Summary: The points are good but a material mind like the brain would fit those criteria as well. You must prove that the mind is immaterial.
ARGUMENTS:
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.
The brain can be explained and explored, but not the immaterial existence. Therefore, the mind is best explained by studying the brain rather than using philosophy.
An immaterial mind that only interacts with matter - what a ridiculous idea XD
Good thing I never defended my view against criticism in the previous debate - or else my young disciple would have used my own words again.
SOURCES:
My sources: me.
My opponent's sources: me.
CONCLUSION:
Con has provided MY explanation for a mind. But when I made the argument I had already proved the mind to exist using logic. Con has skipped that part.
So in essence, my opponent is using my own ideas, without fully understanding them nor knowing how to use them or back them up.
My point still stands, at least one of them XD
Back to you, my young apprentice.
Con
#4
Here's how it works (and no, I'm not being clever for the sake of it this is genuinely why Materialism is actually wrong, I am not pretending in this debate):A syllogism is a systematic representation of a single logical inference. It has three parts: a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. The parts are defined this way:Syllogism 1:Major Premise (MP): Proving things in a non-physical way can still be valid proof.Minor Premise (mP): Material things can be proven to exist by physical means only.Conclusion (and also Contention so the symbol will be 'C' as my Conclusions will be my actual Contentions/Points of argumentation)...C1: The proof for the non-materialistic is both able to be and highly likely to be non-physical and is entirely capable of being valid in spite of being such.Syllogism 2:MP: Read C1mP: The difference between information and knowledge is that information is the stored physical data, 'thing' etc. and knowledge is the immaterial, superior-even reason why information is at all valuable.C2: The material world, in any proof-based sense of interpreting it, is itself proving that there is immaterial aspects to it, given that the value of material information is solely based upon the immaterial garnering of knowledge.Syllogism 3:MP: C2mP: Knowledge itself is 'stored' physically and used physically for motives that are either moral (based on physical emotions, converted into immaterial 'knowledge polarity' fixtures) or it is used in a way that directly helps garner more information (which is only valuable due to knowledge).C3: The material is a means to an immaterial end, no matter how we interpret it or use it.Syllogism 4:MP: C3mP: This debate itself, including the entire case by Pro is material in nature. The information stored here, both in the text of Pro's debate and the actual memory space in the audience/judge's brain that is going to store it and analyse it is of zero value to anything that is involved with the 'knowing' of the resolution being true or false if one doesn't convert it into 'ideas' that are parts of the immaterial storage of knowledge and morals that are based on the material only insofar as to be a means to enable these things.C4: If this debate is true, the knowledge of that truth existing at all is immaterial and can only exist as such during the entire process prior to material application of it.Syllogism 5:MP: Voting is done in a material manner, but the entire morality of voting according to who debated the best and convinced you of the truth is an entirely immaterial thing as it's a knowledge-polarity in terms of how one is to apply knowledge into the material world. (see C3)mP: C4C5: If this debate is true, the knowledge of that truth and moral imperative to vote according to that truth are both immaterial (and sole) motives to conclude that Pro is correct and to reward Pro accordingly for being so.Syllogism 6:MP: If there is no immaterial reality, there cannot be immaterial knowledge or immaterial morals to polarise how one applies that knowledge.mP: C5C6: If one votes for Pro, one is violating the immaterial knowledge and moral-code of a Debate-judge on this website and really everywhere. If one pays attention to them, Pro is by default incorrect and they are blackmailed into voting Con anyway.C69: Checkmate.
Now, to grasp just how doomed Pro is, or how doomed Con is one must see that my chain of syllogisms is either entirely true of false based on whether or not I can assert and elaborate on that 'knowledge' and 'concepts' are outside the realm of the material despite operating via the materialistic brain and the senses involved with attaining information about the material world.To prove myself correct, I am going to absolutely corner Pro into surrender here by focusing entirely on what defines material (AKA physical) things and then prove that regardless of me being able to explain 'what' the other realm is, I can at least axiomatically prove that there is undeniably another realm if the voters are to in any shape or form process the debate, care about the debate and stick to the voting regulations. This is the key to my case; I am not saying that materialism is impossible as the main angle, that's actually contingent on the main angle being that Pro cannot ever win this debate in a materialistic world by anything other than nonsensical luck whereby all voters ignore the knowledge, moral values and concepts of logic involved with debating and voting in an honest matter on the debate at hand.If something is both necessary to be real for Pro to be declared the winner in any logically coherent and morally consistent manner based on the knowledge and concepts of the voter-base and voting moderators, it follows that if this necessarily real thing is incompatible with a materialistic reality or completely impossible to ascertain as being part of a materialistic realm of reality, then Pro needs there to undeniably be a realm of reality beyond the materialistic in order to justify that voters vote him to be the winner.The terms 'physical' and 'material' will be defined now and I will explore many applicable definitions and explain why the 'knowledge' of what's happening in this debate and the emotional urge to be true to it and vote with honesty and any intellectual integrity are all impossible to be physical and material. This of course applies to far more than that but I will specifically focus on them as this is so key to making Pro have to fight his own win condition in order to assert the resolution as true in spite of him admitting he doesn't in any coherent way, deserve to be voted the winner.physicalADJECTIVE‘a range of physical and mental challenges’1.1 Involving bodily contact or activity.The knowledge of what's happening in this debate, the ideas conveyed in it, the processing of burden of proof and the emotional moral polar-pull of that knowledge to be applied in an honest, well-reasoned vote all do not have any bodily function or activity in and of themselves that is verifiable as being them. The entirety of brain function and all that is the means to an end but the transfer from the taking in the 'rules of the site's Code of Conduct regarding debating and voting' and the conversion of that into both the ideas being registered to the person 'looking out from inside the head' is not in any way meeting this definition of physical, whether or not that 'inside the head consciousness' has physical means of controlling it and influencing it.physicalADJECTIVE2 Relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete.While the physically stored format of information is physical, everything that is involved with altering it into 'meaningful' AKA semantically-verified information and adding to 'knowledge' is something that still isn't understood at all, because there's absolutely no physical (or material) explanation for consciousness at all. There is only physical understanding of the material-realm and bodily functions of the brain and hormones that influence the conscious experience and lead to a 'magical process' that leads to there being someone inside the head who thinks, feels and knows but...There is a missing link, even in the Harvard-supported research into proving consciousness to be physical, to identify what exactly knowledge known to the conscious being is and what the emotions experienced turn into from 'hormones' into genuinely felt sensations.There is absolutely no way to explain it is in a physical sense because while you can prove consciousness to be materialistic in the sense of this definition, you cannot explain where, how or when knowledge is or feelings are 'operating' or absolutely tangible in a physical sense for the conscious being to 'access' with their conscious thinking. Instead, only the 'why' and the 'what' are explainable, meaning it isn't entirely unreal but it lacks any physicality.
When we look at the Code of Conduct of this websiteWe read it by first physically seeing letters on the page or hearing it read out by a blind-helping person. Then we interpret it, via the material realm but then something happens beyond anything you can explain in the material sense... There is something with only a 'what' and a 'why' element to its existence. This is entirely similar to what most religions see God as but I am not here to defend Theism. This isn't about a 'soul' or 'supreme being' I am not taking that stance here, I am talking about actual ideas and the feelings that guide all uses of said knowledge via morals.When you access the following concepts, you use your physical brain and eyes to read them and then use the immaterial world to guide you to ascertain what to push your nerves and brain to move to next and access and explore but you never EVER can explain WHERE the ideas they access are, HOW they exist and operate in any physical sense or WHERE they are. You only can explain WHY they work or need to exist and WHAT they are (which is entirely semantic and 0% 'material' or 'physical', whichever term/angle you prefer between the two).There is NO location of a concept, you only physically operate your brain to enable it to push through the physical and help your consciousness (which I conceded to Pro, in this Round, is chained to the material realm) and then try and 'locate' it despite it having no physical location at all. Your memory or mental wording of the idea is NOT the location of the actual idea, it is your language-restricted, logic-restricted and sensory-limited version of the idea in a way your brain can handle it but the actual idea is beyond the physical entirely because it has no HOW, WHEN or WHERE but has a WHY and WHAT so it exists in spite of lacking 3 essential elements to have things even plausibly be material (AKA tangible or concrete in existence, bodily perhaps).Tell me now, how the following can be read and kept physical without entering the 'semantic realm' to process the meaning and logic of it in an entirely non-material way and then to again enter that realm to process the debate logically via meanings and such and then eventually to physically type out and click 'vote' with the thinking being physical but the ideas and logic, as well as urge to vote and fear of not voting honestly (or guilt of not doing it, if you're not a sociopath or psychopath) ends up being physical?... IT NEVER DOES.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Thank you, CON.
Prologue
First of all: RM, please excuse me, the funny comments were for fun only. No disrespect intended. I entirely know that I am both younger and less experienced than you. If you felt insulted by my attitude: I apologize. I must say that I really respect you and your legacy on this site. I have read some of your debates and you are excellent.
But jokes aside, its an obvious fact that we are only talking about explanatory power - as I stated in the description. If the immaterial mind exists but cannot explain anything it is not a fulfilment of CON's BoP. He needs to show that an immaterial brain can actually be a good explanation for mental phenomena such as consciousness and experience. Since CON never showed us why the immaterial mind can explain he has not made any valid argument for this particular debate. Because of this, my rebuttal of his argument is offensive, not defensive. Even if everything he said was true my side would still be the victorious one, unless CON can elaborate on what his version has to offer.
Part one - implications of CON's claims
I. PROVEN TO EXIST
CON claims that only physical things can prove the existence of physical things. But we need to explain WHY this is the case. I will do it now:
P1: Assume that existence is divided into different dimensions
-- The material is one of them, as is the immaterial realm
-- The rules in each realm govern only the things within them
P2: Interactions happens only when the rules demand them to happen
C: Two things can only interact if they are inside the same dimension
CON's version was an assertion he never backed up, which renders his version inferior to mine. Since I used his own logic, CON must accept my conclusion to continue claiming the truth of his assertion. I conclude that interdimensional interactions are impossible (that is if CON's claim is true).
II. NON-PHYSICAL PROOF IS VALID
Since the word "prove" implies an interaction [], we can apply the previous assumption necessary for CON to accept. Proof can only happen or be done within a single realm. Immaterial things cannot interact with our material world. Only non-physical things can be proven non-physically, and only material things can be proven materially. Any attempt at proving things outside of your own reality would inherently be invalid and useless speculation.
I could potentially use a supercomputer to create a logical proof for why the tooth fairy exists. Would you accept that logically constructed idea to be true? No! Such "logic" would never be adequate proof, regardless of your ability to refute said logic. There is no significant difference between the tooth fairy and the mind, except for our bias toward them. Both exist in an immaterial realm, cannot be detected and their effects on this world are suspiciously specific - only affecting humans. There is no way to negatively affirm the existence of extradimensional beings, therefore the idea must be discarded according to Newtons Razor [].
I conclude that proving anything requires you to both be of the same realm to be considered valid.
Part two - rebuttals of CON's conclusions
III. INFORMATION VS KNOWLEDGE
CON asserts as a fact that knowledge is some kind of immaterial "value" that is fundamentally different from information. Let's check the Oxford dictionary:
Knowledge: Facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; [2]Information: Facts provided or learned about something or someone. [3]
The two words just represent different types of facts, they are basically the same thing. So CON's claim is factually incorrect. Let it be noted that CON's entire argument relies on this incorrect claim - so I have basically rebutted his entire argument by now. But my position accounts for knowledge, and I can even explain the phenomenon: Knowledge is simply our stored information, which has been conceptualized by the brain[]. The process involves experiencing reality through our senses and then letting the brain process it while sleeping []. Yes, this process is not fully understood by science, yet. But claiming that knowledge is immaterial is NOT a valid explanation, it simply makes the problem unsolvable by moving it outside the realm of logic and science. I conclude that knowledge is in fact material, and reject CON's unsupported assertion
IV. VALUE
CON claims that without the existence of an immaterial "knowledge" then our logic is nonsensical and comparable to blind luck. He also says that without such an immaterial value our thoughts are not valid. He claims that if we live in a material world then the voters have no logic to support their conclusions and ideas. He goes as far as to say that without an immaterial value nothing in the material world is important or true.
I have at least five objections:
- An immaterial mind is highly unreliable because we cannot understand it, nor predict it, nor prove it is logical.
- An immaterial mind cannot affect the brain, which makes the conclusion and clicks the vote button. [see my points 1.i and 1.ii]
- Computer minds like AI prove that material systems can be logical and understand concepts [10]
- The immaterial value offered by an immaterial mind would be worthless in our material world.
- In a material world, my side is correct by definition.
The idea that material value is worthless in the material world is nonsensical and unsupported. I flipped the argument Back to CON - the immaterial mind has no value.
V. CONCEPTS
CON makes a blind assertion that "concepts" are necessarily immaterial. CON's claim can yet again be rejected using little more than a quick definition:
Concept: an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances [8]
This fits into the general theme of a material mind, not the immaterial mind. As stated earlier, a concept is created by the brain in order to organize information. We look at a lot of trees and slowly but steadily we build up a concept of what a tree is. Abstract concepts are not mental images of one specific tree, but rather a generalization of all our previous knowledge of trees. I want to use an expert article on memory [5]. The theme is memory, and it teaches us that our brain uses different layers of memory in order to structure information. Concepts are just the uppermost layer of knowledge, the ultimate generalisation. The word "thing" is the least specific word in existence, but still, the human brain can easily process it because it is a concept we are familiar with. Concepts might not have a specific "location", but they definitely exist inside our physical brain.
CON's view of concepts:
it exists in spite of lacking 3 essential elements to have things even plausibly be material
CON is continuing to make groundless assertions. Here are the 3 essential elements:
- How: because of the brain.
- When: now.
- Where: inside my brain.
I conclude that concepts are material information rather than "immaterial knowledge"
Part 3 - offensive arguments
VI. FORMS
I am fine with being restricted to language, logic, and senses. CON's claim is not a truism but built upon every faulty assumption he made. The material world is NOT proving that there are immaterial aspects to it. Trees do not contain "immaterial" knowledge within them, as CON needs to imply to make this conclusion. The knowledge exists within our mind, within our brains. The idea that "perfect" knowledge exists in some vague immaterial plane is an outdated philosophical idea, dating back to Platon [7]. He claimed that an immaterial world with perfect "forms" existed - the exact same claim CON made. But science was not built upon the ideas of Platon, but his disciple Aristotle [7]. He was the one to INVENT LOGIC - and he completely disagreed with his master. Aristotle held that a "form" is just how matter is arranged. It has no objective existence outside of this universe, like numbers. So in order to believe the mind is immaterial one must discard science and regress back to ancient times.
VII. INTERACTION
As I proved in part 1 using CON's own statement and some basic logical evidence, no two things can interact except if they exist in the same reality. Therefore, if the mind is immaterial then it cannot interact with our physical brain. But CON admits himself that the mind interacts with the brain. But if the mind is immaterial, and it can interact with our brains - then they are also immaterial. We could continue this train. Subsequently, everything in this material world would need to be called immaterial if our mind is non-physical. But if everything is special, nothing is special. Therefore, even if knowledge is immaterial it would not matter to us, the mind would still exist in the same reality as our bodies.
Therefore,
VIII. SIMPLICITY
Occams razor states that things ought to be explained as simply as possible [6]. The principle is also expressed as “Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity.” [6].
The theory of an immaterial mind is not any simpler than the theory of a material mind. It necessitates the existence of alternative dimensions, multiple layers of reality, and a lot of intellectual and scientifical abominations which clearly undermines modern reasoning and logic. There are certainly problems with the material mind. But those problems are not solved by the immaterial one, just moved into another dimension that we can never access or detect. In every way, the theory of an immaterial mind is worse than the theory of a material one:
- Less explanatory power
- Harder to believe
- Logically contradictory when you try to prove it
- More complicated
- Untestable
- Pseudoscientific
- etc
I conclude that CON's must address these problems before "proving" its existence. His infinite train of syllogisms is backed up by nothing more than blindly asserted premises.
IX. THE BRAIN
I will provide a brief list of scientific arguments for why the mind is the brain.
- Every single thought begins with a piece of sensory information. [5]
- Brain damage damages the mind (look at my first round)
- All information is stored in the brain, even knowledge and concepts
- The brain is thinking, it doesn't need immaterial help
- It is our consciousness (see next argument)
X. CONSCIOUSNESS
A national geographic expert article on sleep clearly tells us that consciousness is controlled by the brain, not some immaterial interdimensional value-granting being. It is about sleep, and it tells us a lot about the brain, which leads us to the conclusion that our consciousness is indeed a product of the brain. Take this quote for instance:
Our brain profoundly alters its behaviour and purpose, dimming our consciousness. [9]
The brain can dim our consciousness, which means that most certainly it IS our consciousness. Because if the brain is responsible for all cognitive aspects, then what can you attribute to an immaterial mind? Nothing! Readers, if you believe your consciousness is a part of your mind, then the mind is dependent on the brain.
I conclude that the brain is the sole factor in one's mental state.
Epilogue
SUMMARY OF MY ARGUMENTS:
- Only a physical mind can interact with a physical body
- The non-physical proof is not valid unless we already assume that the mind is non-physical
- Information and knowledge are just different types of facts
- An immaterial mind would render value worthless in our realm
- Concepts exist within the brain
- The material mind requires fewer dimensions and is, therefore, more logical
- The brain accounts for all cognitive aspects
My entire first round was ignored, extend all arguments.
CONCLUSION
The mind is dependent on the brain, and it might very well BE the brain. CON has not made any convincing case. I have fulfilled my BoP beyond doubt.
The mind is not immaterial.
Back to you, CON.
SOURCES
Look in the comments
Con
#6
Concepts don't exist within the brain, the physical processes involved with them do.
The consciousness that perceives reality and handles non-physical information must inherently be non-physical itself. The syllogisms have barely been challenged by Pro.
The real question Pro is avoiding is what the mind is vs the brain. The entire branch of philosophy that handles soul vs brain isn't obsolete. In fact in Round 2 I showed Harvard University research into solving what exactly consciousness is and the 'mind'.
Absolutely nothing Pro has said explains how we can be dealing with completely non-physical information, such as the information required to vote on this debate, unless we have a non-physical mind. The text on the screen isn't the meaning of the words, it's the physical medium of delivering said meaning. The mind is using the brain to handle a lot of processes involved with converting the physical into the non-physical format that the mind deals with.
You can't vote Pro on this debate without using your mind. It therefore can't be obsolete.
Round 4
Pro
#7
CON has decided to mix up the words in order to win. Here are some examples:
Information
At the beginning of this debate, CON tried to sneak in a hidden assumption that some kind of immaterial "value" called "knowledge" is important for the validity of PHYSICAL information. But now he has contradicted himself by calling even information non-physical. I do not know what kind of conspiracy theory that is, but I know that both the dictionary and science would reject any such blind assertions. Information in science is anything that can be expressed through mathematics and alike. Information is by many scientists seen as the most fundamental building block of reality - including matter. This means that information is material. If CON wants to claim that information and matter are fundamentally different and existing in different dimensions then it's fine. However, do not let him push that false claim down our throat. Platon, the inventor of the ideas CON fights for, lived in a long-forgotten era when claims did not need to be tested to be called accurate. However, the claims of CON has been proven incorrect.
Mind
Previously CON stated that he wasn't advocating for a soul, but he has made it clear that he really does. The soul he proposes uses the brain, processes the information from the brain into consciousness, and performs much more mysterious and pseudoscientific tasks. His idea of the mind has never been explained, CON's tactic has been to hide his real ideas behind a slur of words. Now he claims that I am attacking the philosophy of soul vs the brain, which is absurd. A soul is not the same as a mind by definition, and that is a question for another day.
Let me debunk some quotes from CON
Harvard University research into solving what exactly consciousness is and the 'mind'.
If you look into the article provided by CON it clearly tells us that science has located the 3 physical locations of consciousness - the only problem is that they need to prove that it is exactly these three places. Nowhere do you find scientists claiming that "consciousness" is immaterial.
The mind is using the brain to handle a lot of processes involved with converting the physical into the non-physical format that the mind deals with.
What does this even mean? This is ridiculous when you consider my last round: I utterly destroyed the claim that a non-material thing could interact with a material thing. But CON, instead of acknowledging this, hides his weakness. He proposes that the brain can convert X from physical to non-physical for the mind and body to use. I honestly cannot even imagine what X would be, but regardless this mysterious substance is crucial for CON to even have a chance. I would not base my argument on an undefined X, but RM its your own choice. But you must accept the implications of that choice, including the fact that you argument makes no sense without a magical
The consciousness that perceives reality and handles non-physical information must inherently be non-physical itself.
CON claims that consciousness is non-physical. Well, his own source debunks this claim, by explaining that consciousness is located at three regions in the brain. The only uncertainty factor was the potential for inaccurate information. In other words, there is a potential that consciousness is based in another PART of the brain, but no evidence whatsoever supports CONs claim that consciousness is non-physical.
The syllogisms have barely been challenged by Pro.
Why waste a ton of space debunking each individual syllogism when I can just present simple logical evidence for why it is based on false premises. I did so during round 3, and received no rebuttal from CON. I have removed the first syllogism from being valid, and since CON chained them up nicely they all fall like domino pieces. I also find it strange that these complaints come from CON, which has refused to even address any of my arguments this entire debate.
The real question Pro is avoiding is what the mind is vs the brain.
No, I claim that the brain and the mind are the same, or that the mind exists because of the brain, not vice versa. CON is the one avoiding this crucial topic, by refusing to even explain where the mind fits into the brain or even why it exists and how it functions.
You can't vote Pro on this debate without using your mind. It therefore can't be obsolete.
The biological mind is a book written by Alan Jasanoff. It explains how the entire body makes us who we are - no soul is included. The book is written by a professor in biology and gave rise to a National Geophics article, read it for yourself. So CON's claim that the mind is necessarily Immaterial is factually wrong. Since the material mind is factually correct and proven scientifically - in addition to my logical evidence in round 3 - the mind exists in my world. The only difference is that my mind is logical and testable while CON's mind is magical and mysterious. Therefore, the material mind validates voting on me, while the immaterial mind makes the decision magical and mysterious.
CONCLUSION:
CON never addresses my point, so all of my arguments are valid. I debunked CON's case by showing that they are baseless assertions, they relly on faulty definitions, misinformation and logical inconsistencies. CON has not fulfilled the BoP. He had to show why the immaterial mind had explanatory value. Instead, he tried to prove that it exists, to which I forcefully rejected his claim and his only defence was the fact that I didn't take on his whole syllogism just removed its foundations. So in essence, voting CON is not even possible as he never gave any explanatory power - the ONLY weight in the debate as written in the description. Thus, voting CON would violate the rules regardless of whether or not the mind and the tooth fairy theoretically exists in CON's world. Thus...
Vote PRO.
Thanks, CON. It is clear which side is rational and which side is mad.
Con
#8
The 'addressing of points' is optional in a debate because if one's side is irrefutable, it follows that the other side needn't be addressed.
The entire concept of voting and all ideas in fact, as well as meanings of words, are non-physical. My Round 2 explains this in-depth. The only way this is capable of being processed is if there is a non-physical lane of reality in which our 'mind' operates, not identical or 'inside' the brain itself but interacting with it in some way.
The 'mind' is not obsolete, you can't even vote on this debate without using your mind.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
this debate was frustrating because Pro was arguing for how the physical locations of where the brain allowed men to think made the mind obsolete. However, Con's truisms highlight the idea that even the vague idea of "mind" can prove non-physical ideas, and that only the physical proof can give evidence for the physical material. Pro thinks the immaterial mind is too arbitrary and ambiguous to grasp at, but Con has all the evidence he needs. He shows that the actions generated by whatever mind still results in physical things that can be shown. Yes, Pro argues that the chemical reactions that allow for these thoughts are still from your brain, but Con shows that more abstract processes with idea of holding concepts feels like it can hold equal amount of understanding in it. Pro doesn't address the missing link from the Harvard research, and as such, Con puts substantial doubt in that the mind is not relevant any more. The idea of the personal identity is still upheld by Con due to showing that he stores information in an arbitrary and not completely known way. Very confusing debate.
Would any of you be interested in reading this debate?
Ok. I just finished my more urgent debates.
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.
That means you forfeited.
12 or 13 years
How long do you think
I am a bit tired as of now, I have some debates that are more urgent, so you will have to wait a bit.
It's your turn to create your argument on my debate.
Yes.
Click the "arguments" button, it is left to the "comments" and "votes" button.
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.
**************************************************
What do you mean?
How am I lying?
I am simply stating an opinion, its the comment section.
It is your turn
That's not how you define it in your own description. You wanted to be Con, not Pro. Stop lying to win.
About the brain and the mind.
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.
Read it and you'll probably find out
what is this debate about?
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)
Would you mind giving your reasoning for why Pro's logical proof failed?
vote bump
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.
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.
Thanks for your vote. I like the feedback too.
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.
They don't
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
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.
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.
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!