Cris
“ The argument is simple - you say that there is no evidence (meaning evidence by the reductionist molecular paradigm) for god - I point out that such a paradigm doesn't even accommodate the notion of the mind. ”
Well no not really. My assertion is that there is no credible evidence of any type for gods, whether you use reductionism or not, I’m really not particular.
I haven't seen you step one foot out of the reductionist paradigm - you insist that the self as context is a material phenomena (electrons, neurons etc) and that this points to no evidence of god - my point is that this doesn't even indicate the mind.
And as for the mind – this appears to be an emergent property of a physical brain, and again there seems no reason to suspect or propose anything else.
No reason if you don't examine the data at hand I am sure ...
“ Then you are either not familiar with the level of understanding in neurology or you have access to knowledge not available to the experts in the field - can you provide one credible link (excludes isaac asimov) as evidence that the self as context is concomitant on the brain? ”
So I began this discussion with a fundamental statement about credibility which is my primary point. It is not that we know how self is generated but that there is no credible alternative to a physical perspective.
This is an example of your rigidity within the reductionist paradigm - you have also just destroyed any premise for the mind because it doesn't fall within the physical perspective
I.e. a supernatural theist speculation has no precedent or even a hint at a possibility, so why suggest it?
If you peruse theistic ideas with the same attention you peruse evidence on neurology I can understand why you make such statements
“ “ Theism is based on faith (absence of evidence). ”
So is any field of knowledge, particularly in th e beginning stages ”
No, that is false. Faith is the conviction that something is true in the absence of evidence, this is an irrational approach.
You mean like when a student makes the decision to study physics on the basis of being enamoured by the concept of electrons and protons?
A rational approach is to speculate about the possibility
sounds like faith to me ....
then search for evidence in order to form a hypothesis.
... followed by practical application - the same as any bona fide tehistic endeavour
At no point in the process does one rationally assume the speculation is true,
True enough to search for evidence - ie faith
and even if evidence is found and a theory is developed, the issue will remain open to question, and will often remain as inductive conclusions with varying degrees of strength.
all made possible by exhibiting the initial stage of faith
“ At the moment we are at the point of discussing what processes of knowledge constitutes evidence - until we resolve your fixation on the reductionist paradigm (which cannot even determine the nature of such self evident articles as the mind) we can't make much progress ”
All you are saying here is that you have no way to show that a supernatural concept is a valid alternative to a natural universe
But your "natural universe" doesn't even include the mind
but that you insist that everyone else accepts the idea as if it is a valid alternative.
No
As I said above, we are at the stage of determining whether the reductionist paradigm is the absolute method for determining every facet about reality
Surely the onus must be on you to show that there is anything else other than a material paradigm.
Before we get in to that part seriously, we must examine what constitutes evidence - if you wan to say "prove god by the reductionist paradigm" it is not surprising that it will no bear any results since such a paradigm has many weaknesses (or does your faith prevent you from seeing that?)
“ well since these "entirely physical" paradigms don't even accommodate the mind, ”
But they do as I’ve explained above.
lol - really?
I must have missed a link somewhere ....
“ its difficult for you to even clearly understand how that the conceptualized self emerges from the brain, what to speak of the self as context. ”
Do you not understand the concept of an emergent property? For example; take a quantity of bricks and build a house with them. They remain a quantity of bricks but when arranged in a certain combination a house emerges. Similarly given a quantity of neurons and a particular arrangement, a mind emerges.
This analogy actually illustrates the opposite - you can show clear evidence of the relationship between a brick and a brick house - Can you show equally clear evidence between neurons and electrons and why a mother crocadile rolls her eggs in her mouth to assist the hatchlings to emerge?
“ Well I guess a simple beginning would be to just examine the self as context even in one life - the body we had as a baby is completely different form the body we will have as an old man - physically they are completely different, yet we still retain the same sense of self - even though we were completely physically different we acknowledge that it is the same person in the photo album. ”
But only if the brain remains intact.
With or without memory, it is understood to be the same self - do criminals get out free from crimes by pleading forgetfulness? Why?
For example damage to the brain could result in amnesia. While the photos would remain there would be no recognition of the younger self. Other diseases of the brain could also destroy ability to think, to use memory, to realize identity, etc. And note that in early childhood there is no self-awareness or recognition of identity until sufficient neurons have connected. All of this tends to indicate that self is a product of the physical brain rather than as something independent.
And this is all the conceptualized self which is contingent on the self as context - the self as context is like the canvas and the conceptualized self is like the paint on the canvas - no matter what shape the painting is in, its on a cavas
“ I think you missed what was in the articles - particularly the one on Pibram (you may have to take a few of the links to get the background knowledge).
Basically they make the stand, which cannot be refuted, that there is no evidence to suggest that the brain is the source of self as context. ”
Apart from overwhelming inductive correlation between healthy brain function, damaged brain, and resultant effects. And additionally there is no credible alternative offered.
You can only make such claims because you cannot properly distinguish between the self as context and the conceptualized self
