Minds are Not Separate from Brains- Oh, Really? And Then The Immaterial

Extended dialogue after Law vs Craig: punnet2 punnet2 3 days ago ​ @Green Peacemst "What don´t you understand about the fact that Plato died in ca 400 BC/E, yet his mind´s works live on?" I understand that the work produced by Plato's mind/brain "lives on" because it was written down and preserved; and I also understand that Plato's brain does not live on, and therefore, neither his mind. What did you not understand when I said, "By the evidence, minds (at least the ones we can observe) are not distinct from brains, and are demonstrably affected by physical stimuli (brain damage, sleep loss, drug use)"? "The expression 'Mind over matter' has become a cultural standard for a reason." Whatever the reason, it does not serve as proof that the mind is separate from matter. "Minds cannot create something from nothing." "Where is your reasoning?" If you and Craig think minds can create something from nothing, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it. My reasoning is: You haven't met that burden of proof. "In the human context and material plane, humans do that in their frames of reference all the time." Yes, but designing and planning the Pyramids (to use your example), is not the same as creating matter out of nothing, which is the ability Craig assigns to his postulated (and unproven) "immaterial mind". "An immaterial entity has its own logical qualities that we can observe, and is not subject to our human contexts when considering the Big Bang the modern frame of reference for the Universe." By my reckoning, an "immaterial entity" is indistinguishable from a "nonexistent entity". It's easy to assign any ad hoc "logical qualities" you want to such a poorly-defined concept. Green Peacemst Green Peacemst 0 seconds ago @punnet2 " I understand that the work produced by Plato's mind/brain "lives on" because it was written down and preserved; and I also understand that Plato's brain does not live on, and therefore, neither his mind." Well, that´s where your understanding of his "work" is lacking. What is "Plato´s work"? Why do you call it his "work" if his brain is dead, and mere pottery from archeology is normally unidentified? What does it represent? Does it look like his brain? No, it uses words and ideas. Is it merely useful for food gathering or hunting? No, it´s not merely utilitarian. Your arguing reflects your lack of understanding, and rather, your lack of interest in understanding. As for the "drugs affect the brain and the mind", you merely parrot my prompting form of communication without addressing my refutation of your point and indication that in many acts like education, but spectacularly in hypnosis, the mind is capable of creating new levels of behavior, which is operating on the brain and nervous system itself. Here´s an interesting pop list with hypnotic experiments that you can assuage yourself with. A hypnotized woman told cold scissors were hot got burned with wounds that didn´t heal for months. "Mind over matter" doesn´t mean mind is separate from matter" Your answer indicates that you don´t have a knowledge base to evaluate empirically, nor research adequately, and simplisically merely negate verbally. Firstly, the "mind" is distinct from the brain, as my examples begin to suggest. Secondly, the mind of cultivated individuals produces conventionally recognizable items, like the 40,000 year old Lion-Man figurine, no less. The explosion in tool use complexity in the Upper Paleolithic also implies a change. Psychologist Julian Jaynes made a proposal about the "Bi-Cameral Mind and the Origins of Consciousness" by studying the language patterns of ancient societies. "designing and planning the Pyramids (to use your example), is not the same as creating matter out of nothing," That´s correct! It´s not exactly the same! It is a familiar context, and one in the physical world that also demonstrates how human minds create innovative structures that they themselves imagine in new ways, whatever their original inspiration. The architect leads and does most of the imagining, in particular. Similarly, a model of a building is usually built by modern architects to test their ideas. Building a small scale model out of twigs and clay blocks, etc is not the same thing as building a 40 story Giza pyramid from enormous blocks. Yet, it is an important manner of preparation and planning by humans using their minds, that can even lead tired brains to work longer and lose sleep temporarily, at least, even though it´s not that pleasant. The mind acts distinctly from the brain. Similarly, a chimpanzee can have some limited capacity as a higher primate to use a twig to fish for termites. Even to learn some communication from humans. Evaluating the possible immaterial Cause of the Universe requires understanding how a mind is not the same as the brain, and demonstrates immaterial qualities in creating recognizably non-natural figures and other products that never existed before, had no prior existence, were at one level of not existing, or being "nothing." That begins to identify a mind adequately. Yet, understanding all that takes study, which you have not done adequately and your argumentation is overambitious and unqualified. Your unwillingness or inability to understand, or admit the need to try to understand is your own lack of qualification, not a legitimate argument. Simplistic negation and contradiction is presuppositionalism, not argumentation. You even use assert that "immaterial" equates to "non-existent," and showing no adequate effort to inform yourself about key terms, project your lack of being informed as "ad hoc logical qualities." Craig´s basic Kalam argument is simple and coherent. It is your careless and uninformed attributions that demonstrate projection fallacy. Ad hoc is all you. No clarity about time, space, and matter-energy being extrapolated to a Big Bang singularity? No clarity about the conceptual coherence of the need for a Cause of those familiar scientific qualities? That "timeless" or non-time-dependent, "spaceless" or "non-space-dependent," or "immaterial" or non-matter-energy dependent? As a materialist, you would tend to think, "Well, black holes just suck everything in after trillions of years, and then another Big Bang happens. It´s a cycle." That´s naturalistic, and mechanistic. Naturally enough, and I myself used to think the Cosmos worked that way. However, the issue is exposed because that´s a naturalistic ideology. We don´t know what happens with Black Holes. Similarly, thinking about whether there was a Big Bang and what it was like still hasn´t been completely understood in mathematical astrophysics. That highlights that "science" is not just writing a "technical manual." "Science" is a form of natural, or scientific, philosophy. Philosophy itself has been modernized and diversified in a specific context, starting with the Christian Universities like Paris and the giant effort of Thomas of Aquinas who rescued Aristotle´s abandoned First Cause argument. Aquinas also laid out sound lawful knowledge and phenomena domains: Nature ("Science"), Human (Social Science/Studies disciplines), Eternal, and Divine-Philosophy of Metaphysics/Religion; Comparative Religion; theology; multidisciplinary). Moreover, emergentism has gained clarity with v Bertanaffly´s Systems Theory, and now F Capra´s Systems Theory of Life. The Big Bang Cosmology also entails the process of how the phenomena of physics led to chemistry to biology to anthropology to psychology to history, and in history then to sociology to philosophy, basically. This is all University-based scholarly philosophical language, and requires an adequately well-rounded understanding to argue intelligently. Understanding the meaning of a "mind" and how it is not just a brain is part of that. That´s your need, and your job. Your resorting to simplistic negation and denialism exposes your inability to say and admit, "I don´t know about this, and I want to learn and investigate this subject." That´s why it´s not just me vs you. It´s me and a community of scholars seeking truth vs you and your kind.