Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Burl

Neuroscience refutes materialism

Recommended Posts

Neuroscience supports dualism.  Intellectual activity and products are inherently non-materialistic.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good fine, Burl!

Enjoyable and enlightening: this guy is a doctor-philosopher-scientist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's much of what we have discussed but from a knowledgeable authority, expanded and deepened and with the research cited and well organized.  Nice to have it in a tidy 15 min. pkg.

Not the last word on the subject, but a rather solid base to build a discussion around.  I thought the idea of "Free Won't" rather clever, and a scientific Popperian disproof of the non-reality of free will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK I got as far a the two first bits of evidence

 

1)  Certain faculties are not localized as predicted by some in the 1800s is evidence that the mind is separate from the brain. No this is nonsense. 

2) Split brain patients still function but only with subtle noticeable effects is evidence for dualism … give me a break. These same split brain patients are some of the best evidence we have that we unconsciously confabulate.

 

This doctor is not as good as others make out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also Egnor is a ID supporter, so that tarnishes his credibility a little.

 

Really Burl, you should know better. 

  • There was a good doctor called Egnor,
  • Burl, my clever friend could not ignore
  • Dear God, materialism
  • It is such a big schism
  • Contemplating, friend's head became sore

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, romansh said:

OK I got as far a the two first bits of evidence

 

1)  Certain faculties are not localized as predicted by some in the 1800s is evidence that the mind is separate from the brain. No this is nonsense. 

2) Split brain patients still function but only with subtle noticeable effects is evidence for dualism … give me a break. These same split brain patients are some of the best evidence we have that we unconsciously confabulate.

 

This doctor is not as good as others make out. 

You missed some points.  In any case, Egnor is more qualified than you and more organized than your wobbly potshots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Burl said:

You missed some points.  In any case, Egnor is more qualified than you and more organized than your wobbly potshots.

Then perhaps Egnor should use his qualifications.

Would you care to address the first two points? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, romansh said:

Then perhaps Egnor should use his qualifications.

Would you care to address the first two points? 

Egnor is publicly known.  You and I are anonymous, but at least I posted my degrees.  Egnor is certainly better qualified than either of us.

I take all of his five or six evidences as the best available to me.  He cites all his sources, while you merely cast aspersions.

When someone more qualified than me brings me cited evidence, I believe him.  To do otherwise would be irrational.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Egnor rules!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#3 ...Because we don't have seizures of the intellect we materialism is possibly refuted?

This is of course nonsense. Lennox Gaustaut  syndrome causes severe reduction of this so called intellect. My son had this. 

#4 is a really good example of materialism being true. Unless our good Egnor is claiming fMRI pick up the immaterial. 

#5 So that we have not been able to predict ahead of time the "won't" aspect means we have free will? Really?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, we have people of good will who look at the same 'evidence' and come to different conclusions. So they have differing opinions, they have different beliefs.

Like people of good will in religion who disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thormas said:

So, we have people of good will who look at the same 'evidence' and come to different conclusions. So they have differing opinions, they have different beliefs.

If you don't have the capability to debate the evidence, say so thormas. 

 

Otherwise keep posting Egnor rules! It demonstrates your capability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Burl said:

Egnor is publicly known.  You and I are anonymous,

Who was Einstein in early 1905?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, romansh said:

If you don't have the capability to debate the evidence, say so thormas. 

Otherwise keep posting Egnor rules! It demonstrates your capability.

Rom, there is the ability among higher creatures (humans) to move between serious comment and humor. Lighten up a bit after all you dabble in 'poetry' and I simply read it and endure:+}

This (materialism) is not a burning topic for me and not one that keeps me up at night. I simply don't buy this belief, this opinion, as the lens through which I view everything. Seemingly it was being presented by some as the way of reality and the evidence for it so overwhelming that it was beyond question. Obviously, as has been shown, this is not the case. There are scientists, philosophers and others who don't buy materialism and actively dispute its so called evidence. Evidence presented, case made: it is one belief or opinion among others and disputed in its own community. Given your response to Sheldrake's arguments, you are not a fully committed materialist yourself.

I prefer to discuss (or debate at times) areas of much more important to me, that I actually believe. You don't have substantial knowledge in these areas but I don't question your capability to debate them. 

Egnor rules! Materialism drools (a little poem of my own, enjoy):+}

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, thormas said:

Rom, there is the ability among higher creatures (humans) to move between serious comment and humor.

Egnor rules! Materialism drools (a little poem of my own, enjoy):+}

OK fair enough.

God is Love.  http:// roflmao.gif

Just as a curiosity … did you note Egnor's errors and why did you not tell Burl … that's Egnor's opinion. Instead of:

On 6/11/2019 at 3:34 PM, thormas said:

Good fine, Burl!

Enjoyable and enlightening: this guy is a doctor-philosopher-scientist.

 

Edited by romansh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, romansh said:

God is Love.  http:// roflmao.gif

Just as a curiosity … did you note Egnor's errors and why did you not tell Burl … that's Egnor's opinion. Instead of:

See, all creatures, even made up ones, rejoice at the news that God is Love, well done!

It was obvious that Egnor was presenting his opinion - why then state the obvious. Plus it was a good fine and enjoyable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/13/2019 at 5:29 PM, thormas said:

It was obvious that Egnor was presenting his opinion - why then state the obvious

See you avoided again … did you notice Egnor's errors?

You may have found the presentation enjoyable, but a blanket statement that it is enjoyable is false. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, romansh said:

See you avoided again … did you notice Egnor's errors?

You may have found the presentation enjoyable, but a blanket statement that it is enjoyable is false. 

Rom, you have avoided making a single refutation to any of Egnors's cited evidentiary statements.  You managed two disparaging grumps with zero evidence.  

You have not even begun to make a logical case countering Egnor.  Maybe list his five or six points and their citations.  I don't have access to a scientific data service but you claim to be a scientist so it should be available to you.

I believe the only blanket statement Egnor made was that dogmatically postulating materialism as the only paradigm is simply an excuse to remove the immaterial from discussion, which is an illogical and unscientific judgment.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

image.gif

Maybe you should change internet debate coaches :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, romansh said:

See you avoided again … did you notice Egnor's errors?

You may have found the presentation enjoyable, but a blanket statement that it is enjoyable is false. 

It was apparent that Egnor pointed out errors in materialism and just as apparent that materialists, including you, think he is in error and point it out. So, we're still dealing with opinion and disputed evidence on both sides.  I side with the non materialists and let them speak for themselves, As I said this holds limited interest for me and my blanket statement that it was enjoyable is a reflection of my reaction and therefore true. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...