Materialism/Physicalism is incompatible with our ability to reason

[tim]

Belief isn't a something, it's a nothing. It has no properties, no tangibility; nothing which can be measured. It has no existence except in the person holding the belief.

But I've just told you that patients receiving a placebo also get better. So their "belief" that they "would" now get better must be something tangible, otherwise they wouldn't get better.
And belief is an observable psychological property, very tangible. That is someone with a belief that they can walk the tightrope over the Grand Canyon can do it and I can't and couldn't ever

Everything you are is all in your psyche and yet that can't be measured but take it away and you have nothing, no experience, no life.

 

[tim]

This is only interesting if belief is immaterial. If belief = brain function then it's just the physical affecting the physical.

~~ Paul

How can belief be composed of atoms ? How many do you need ? Does each atom "believe" a bit and when you get enough atoms "believing" the same thing you get the full belief ?

 

[David Bailey]

But if seems just as possible that only some people would have the necessary Psi ability to heal themselves, everyone else can do little to possibly nothing at all.

True, but as far as ultimate truth is concerned, this isn't really important. By analogy, it is far more relevant to the nature of consciousness that at least one person can perform at the level of, say Gauss, than that most cannot!

David

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

True, but as far as ultimate truth is concerned, this isn't really important. By analogy, it is far more relevant to the nature of consciousness that at least one person can perform at the level of, say Gauss, than that most cannot!

David

True. What we really need is a better understanding of Psi before we assume everyone can self-heal, but its existence can be proven by a single individual.

 

[Bucky]

Interesting. Recalls this presentation by Dr. Lissa Rankin:

I think she goes a little far though - I mean I don't doubt at the least it's good to be positive, and I do lean toward some mind-over-matter in health but not to the point I think people should risk not taking medicine? At least in many cases I'd advise against this.

I agree.
As much as I like the idea of mind-over-matter I wouldn't advocate what the Dr in the video says.

There are some great advices to make one life better and thus possibly improving well being, but I found her take to be hyperbolic at best. Surely the placebo effect does have a role, but we must realize that it's an umbrella term that describes many variables: the subjective reporting, the natural ups and downs of the ilnness itself, natural healing (which is always at work) and various errors (regression to the mean, etc...)

I find this article to clarify those problems quite well:
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/placebo-are-you-there/

By the way, the only study that I know of that shows a real tangible effects of placebo is that of Parkinson's patients. Even that is not particularly satisfying as they don't clarify how long does the placebo raise of dopamine lasts. :(

The only other instance I have heard of is a study done in Italy with expert mountaineers. Placebo oxygen admistered during hikes at high altitude seemed to increase a number of anti-fatigue neuro transmitters. The study was mentioned in a TV show but I am not able to find it published anywhere.

cheers

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

I agree.
As much as I like the idea of mind-over-matter I wouldn't advocate what the Dr in the video says.

There are some great advices to make one life better and thus possibly improving well being, but I found her take to be hyperbolic at best. Surely the placebo effect does have a role, but we must realize that it's an umbrella term that describes many variables: the subjective reporting, the natural ups and downs of the ilnness itself, natural healing (which is always at work) and various errors (regression to the mean, etc...)

I find this article to clarify those problems quite well:
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/placebo-are-you-there/

I have the same thoughts. I'd love to get Rankin on Skeptiko but I think Alex tried in 2014?

Woollacott would also be great.

 

[Bucky]

Dr Rankin reminded us of a couple of extreme examples of the placebo effect, and unless there is something wrong with the story about the cancer drug, that means that the mechanism does exist for the body to fix itself even in that extreme situation

Unfortunately there're too few cases such as those, especially well documented to build a case for it.
Given the tremendous incidence of cancer and other degenerative issue we should see some of those every day but we don't. More importantly how do we separate the natural healing ability of the body from the supposed mind-over-matter effects?

Think of Ozzy Osbourne. Science has even tried to seriously study his genetics and how the heck he didn't die after decades of drug and booze abuse! :D I don't think it's just a matter of strongly believing that drugs won't hurt you :)
http://www.hngn.com/articles/114996...rs-genes-are-mutant-explains-his-survival.htm

He's admitted to taking LSD every day for two years and once said that he "drank booze like water." ​

:)

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

If mental events are physical events doesn't it end up being panpsychic anyway in that patterns of atoms - or eddies in the quantum foam - would have be identified with certain thoughts/emotions/feelings?

If that's what panpsychic means, then yes. If it means that physical things have specific additional mental attributes, then no.

~~ Paul

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

If that's what panpsychic means, then yes. If it means that physical things have specific additional mental attributes, then no.

~~ Paul

If they don't have mental attributes, are you saying just the particular patterns of physical "stuff" are thoughts/emotions/feelings?

Any pattern, or certain particular patterns? And don't you need minds to have patterns?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

If they don't have mental attributes, are you saying just the particular patterns of physical "stuff" are thoughts/emotions/feelings?

I think so, but it's possible that there are fundamental attributes that we haven't discovered yet.

Any pattern, or certain particular patterns? And don't you need minds to have patterns?

Certain sorts of patterns of physical things and processes. I don't think you needs minds for this.

~~ Paul

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

Looking back at Evolution vs. Naturalism: Why they are like oil and water + Morhoff's commentary/critique it seems to recall the varied examples of evolution-toward-deception Hoffman brings up with his Interface Theory of Perception.

Of course Reason itself, as per the Nagel quote above, is such a mystery it's hard to know what to make of all this...

I think so, but it's possible that there are fundamental attributes that we haven't discovered yet.


Certain sorts of patterns of physical things and processes. I don't think you needs minds for this.

~~ Paul

But physical things and processes are just ultimately patter[n]s of matter?

So if I'm understanding correctly, certain isolated patterns of matter have mental qualities but other patterns do not even though it's all ultimately matter?

 

[steve001]

But I've just told you that patients receiving a placebo also get better. So their "belief" that they "would" now get better must be something tangible, otherwise they wouldn't get better.
And belief is an observable psychological property, very tangible. That is someone with a belief that they can walk the tightrope over the Grand Canyon can do it and I can't and couldn't ever

Everything you are is all in your psyche and yet that can't be measured but take it away and you have nothing, no experience, no life.

A belief is an idea, that's all it is. Check the definition for the word tangible.

 

[tim]

A belief is an idea, that's all it is. Check the definition for the word tangible.

Tangible can also mean real, Steve. And belief is real.

 

[Dakota Rider]

Placebos make people "believe" they have received medication, but they haven't actually...but because they "believe" they have, they get better. So belief has affected the physical. No ?

Sure, beliefs can affect the physical, and you don't even have to look to the placebo effect to see that. People believe in God, so they physically go to church.

What I was saying is that if what we call "belief" is itself just a physical process, the doings of a physical brain, then it's unremarkable that it can affect the physical world. What I was asking about was when Ian said "It's the familiar 'the mental cannot possibly affect the material' which materialists continually trot out time after time after time, even professional philosophers!"

So apparently he thinks that a materialist would say that the mental couldn't affect the material, which I questioned, because if a materialist views "the mental" as a physical process, why wouldn't it be able to affect the physical? That statement seems like the opposite of what a materialist would say, and I'd like to see a reference of one actually saying that.

 

[billw]

Certain sorts of patterns of physical things and processes. I don't think you needs minds for this

Are advanced mathematics that accurately describe and model physics physical?

Cheers,
Bill

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

But physical things and processes are just ultimately patter[n]s of matter?

Yes, but if you don't like pattern then pick any other word that doesn't imply mental content.

So if I'm understanding correctly, certain isolated patterns of matter have mental qualities but other patterns do not even though it's all ultimately matter?

Yes. Although surely it's on some sort of spectrum. And, as I said, it's possible that there are funda-mental mental attributes that we haven't discovered yet.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Are advanced mathematics that accurately describe and model physics physical?

I'd think of mathematics as a physical process, yes. I don't think there is any special underlying reason why math is so good at modeling the world.

Also note that math is just fancy counting or fancy sets.

~~ Paul

 

[billw]

I'd think of mathematics as a physical process, yes.

Electro-chemical reactions in brains, that caused neurological processes causing muscles, bones, and cartilage in fingers to write "E = mc2", which accurately describes the relationship of energy to mass in relation to the speed of light, right?

Cheers,
Bill

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Electro-chemical reactions in brains, that caused neurological processes causing muscles, bones, and cartilage in fingers to write "E = mc2", which accurately describes the relationship of energy to mass in relation to the speed of light, right?

Right. But you make it sound like it happened 10,000 years ago after some human pondered a mud pit for a few minutes. You're ignoring thousands of years of culture and science that led up to that equation, including many incorrect or semi-correct equations that came before it.

You seem to be ignoring the evolution of meaning and ideas.

~~ Paul

 

[billw]

Right. But you make it sound like it happened 10,000 years ago after some human pondered a mud pit for a few minutes. You're ignoring thousands of years of culture and science that led up to that equation, including many incorrect or semi-correct equations that came before it.

You seem to be ignoring the evolution of meaning and ideas.

~~ Paul

I'm not ignoring anything. I think it's f%&ing amazing that matter could do that without a mind, no matter how many billions of years of "evolution" are involved. More amazing then psychic phenomena being real.

Cheers,
Bill