The Disembodied Mind Argument

[Kyuuketsuki]

Not sure if this should go in Philosophy or Science but here is where I am (I was looking for stuff on NDE's and found it)  

The Disembodied Mind Argument (DMA) for the Non-Existence of God

1. If God exists, then he exists as a disembodied mind.
2. If DMA is true, then disembodied minds cannot exist.
3. DMA is true.
4. Therefore, disembodied minds cannot exist.
5. Hence, God cannot exist.

Terms
God: A transcendent Being, immeasurably superior to human beings.
Disembodied: Not possessing a physical form.
Mind: sentient consciousness, awareness of the self as a discrete entity.

Discussion
Every mental event that has ever occurred, as far as we are able to determine, has been accompanied by a corresponding physical event. We know, for example, that certain types of brain damage are associated with a corresponding loss of brain function. Further, every mental or physical act ever performed, from falling in love to picking up a spoon to stir your coffee to breathing in an out, is preceded/accompanied by brain function. Minds have been shown to be so dependent on brains that it would be intellectually perverse to deny it

The legitimate, logical implication of the above is that the mind is so fully dependent upon the brain that minds cannot exist without physical brains. This is seen to be true in that when brains become so physically disorganized (as a result of, say, a severe road accident) that all mental functions cease.

Michael Tooley summarizes this as follows:
(1) When an individual's brain is directly stimulated and put into a certain physical state, this causes the person to have a corresponding experience.
(2) Certain injuries to the brain make it impossible for a person to have any mental states at all.
(3) Other injuries to the brain destroy various mental capacities. Which capacity is destroyed is tied directly to the particular region of the brain that was damaged.
(4) When we examine the mental capacities of animals, they become more complex as their brains become more complex.
(5) Within any given species, the development of mental capacities is correlated with the development of neurons in the brain.

All of the above are facts - not opinion, not emotionalism. My definition of 'God' this time is not dependent upon any particular religion's concept of God (it wasn't last time, either, but you seemed to disagree). I deliberately reduced the definition of God to what seem to be the most minimal terms, to answer this objection. If you object to God being described as transcendent or superior to humans, I'll have to ask for your definition and we can go from there.

Possible Objections
These would seem to be confined to four areas: Near death experiences; out of body experiences; apparition experiences; and past life experiences. Trouble is, not a single one of these is a serious threat to DMA. ALL of them are explicable via purely naturalistic methodology. And, since they are sense phenomena, naturalistic explanations are to be preferred over non-naturalistic ones.

There you have it, then. Overwhelming evidence that minds do not exist without brains, so much evidence that it might even fit into the Commonality of Experience category. Since those things which cannot be the same and it's opposite in the same place and the same time (square circles, married bachelors, disembodied minds), God not only does not exist, but CANNOT exist.

Thoughts?

Kyu

[PipeBox]

[Titan]

I'm not following this that well... I guess the problem I'm having is that it is starting with the claim that God is a disembodied mind that has to interact with space and time whenever a thoughtful function occurs. But if God is not bound by space and time then this theory would fall apart.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I'm not following this that well... I guess the problem I'm having is that it is starting with the claim that God is a disembodied mind that has to interact with space and time whenever a thoughtful function occurs. But if God is not bound by space and time then this theory would fall apart.

As I understand it they are saying that God cannot exist because mind is a function of matter (neurones specifically, I suppose computer circuits too).

Kyu

[Titan]

That is based on the assumptions:
1. All thought is only possible through neurons
2. All matter is held within this universe as described by the first four dimensions
3. Something outside of those dimensions cannot interact with something within the dimensions.

[PipeBox]

Did anyone even read the link?      

Right, I've completely come off the rails of this thread now.  Done.

[Titan]

However it does demand that Christians speaking on its behalf make statements on the nature of God, which opens up a lot of other avenues specific to their responses.

Isn't the term "Christian" a term concerning the nature of God?

The Christian gets to say he isn't certain of his views and that there are many possibilities, whereas the atheist can't fathom that the Christian can pick one of a thousand different possibilities, with no information to back that particular claim, and take no issue with it. But I guess that's the same as always. Christian Theology's greatest goal is to find an interpretation of the entire Bible that isn't at odds with reality in any way. The atheists, on the other hand, would say that the theologians are approaching it from the wrong direction.

I think I follow what you are saying here. Just remember that there are actually MANY ways to discount a multitude of religions out there. I'd love to show some. There reason I say this is because Christianity doesn't necessitate discounting other religions for no reason.

[Zarathustra]

1. If God exists, then he exists as a disembodied mind.
2. If DMA is true, then disembodied minds cannot exist.
3. DMA is true.
4. Therefore, disembodied minds cannot exist.
5. Hence, God cannot exist.

Terms
God: A transcendent Being, immeasurably superior to human beings.
Disembodied: Not possessing a physical form.
Mind: sentient consciousness, awareness of the self as a discrete entity.

Although I hate to play the devil's lawyer on this one I feel it is adamant that I should. The deductive argument rests on unsubstantiated (or even worse: selfdefined) assumptions... This is the typical fallacy, that atheists have a problem with, when theists "deduce" their conclusions. - And rightly so!
Therefore I don't like this syllogism. Mainly because I am an atheist, BECAUSE I prefer a higher standard of reasoning.

You see "4" presupposes "2", which means that it can never lead to "5". The argument is flawed, it is not logically coherent. What's worse: "3" is a groundless claim, that is only intruduced in order for "2" to arrive at "4". The truth is that you could easily skip those stages then, which should make it apparent that the argument has problems:
1. God must exist as a disembodied mind
2. Disembodied minds are not possible
3. Therefore god does not exist.

Even now, "2" is clearly a baseless claim. All the adversary has to do is remove the non-cartesian part of the mind definition: Mind now only equates awareness of self, thereby reducing the syllogism to an empty one.

Note: I don't think that you can reduce the mind in a cartesian sense, it is certainly a necessary condition that it is sentient. I am merely pointing out, that this syllogism is easily refuted. As most attempts to disprove god, the pink unicorn, fsm and so forth are. They are all evidencetranscendent ideas, that is important to remember.

[Wechtlein Uns]

Not sure if this should go in Philosophy or Science but here is where I am (I was looking for stuff on NDE's and found it)  

The Disembodied Mind Argument (DMA) for the Non-Existence of God

1. If God exists, then he exists as a disembodied mind.
2. If DMA is true, then disembodied minds cannot exist.
3. DMA is true.
4. Therefore, disembodied minds cannot exist.
5. Hence, God cannot exist.

Terms
God: A transcendent Being, immeasurably superior to human beings.
Disembodied: Not possessing a physical form.
Mind: sentient consciousness, awareness of the self as a discrete entity.

Discussion
Every mental event that has ever occurred, as far as we are able to determine, has been accompanied by a corresponding physical event. We know, for example, that certain types of brain damage are associated with a corresponding loss of brain function. Further, every mental or physical act ever performed, from falling in love to picking up a spoon to stir your coffee to breathing in an out, is preceded/accompanied by brain function. Minds have been shown to be so dependent on brains that it would be intellectually perverse to deny it

The legitimate, logical implication of the above is that the mind is so fully dependent upon the brain that minds cannot exist without physical brains. This is seen to be true in that when brains become so physically disorganized (as a result of, say, a severe road accident) that all mental functions cease.

Michael Tooley summarizes this as follows:
(1) When an individual's brain is directly stimulated and put into a certain physical state, this causes the person to have a corresponding experience.
(2) Certain injuries to the brain make it impossible for a person to have any mental states at all.
(3) Other injuries to the brain destroy various mental capacities. Which capacity is destroyed is tied directly to the particular region of the brain that was damaged.
(4) When we examine the mental capacities of animals, they become more complex as their brains become more complex.
(5) Within any given species, the development of mental capacities is correlated with the development of neurons in the brain.

All of the above are facts - not opinion, not emotionalism. My definition of 'God' this time is not dependent upon any particular religion's concept of God (it wasn't last time, either, but you seemed to disagree). I deliberately reduced the definition of God to what seem to be the most minimal terms, to answer this objection. If you object to God being described as transcendent or superior to humans, I'll have to ask for your definition and we can go from there.

Possible Objections
These would seem to be confined to four areas: Near death experiences; out of body experiences; apparition experiences; and past life experiences. Trouble is, not a single one of these is a serious threat to DMA. ALL of them are explicable via purely naturalistic methodology. And, since they are sense phenomena, naturalistic explanations are to be preferred over non-naturalistic ones.

There you have it, then. Overwhelming evidence that minds do not exist without brains, so much evidence that it might even fit into the Commonality of Experience category. Since those things which cannot be the same and it's opposite in the same place and the same time (square circles, married bachelors, disembodied minds), God not only does not exist, but CANNOT exist.

Thoughts?

Kyu

Oh please. Watch and learn:

Minds are composed of nothing more than a bundle of phenomenal relationships. Since no single phenomenal relationship in the mind can be said to be essential to the existence of the mind, all of the parts of the mind are non-essential, given that they are all non-essential to the essense of it's existence. Since the mind is nothing more than a bundle of phenomenal relationships, it can not be said to "exist" in the sense that it is permanent. Remove the phenomena, and it no longer exists.

If god is a "mind", then he is simply equivalent to the phenomenal relationships filling that mind and does not exist inherently in himself. Furthermore, if he was a disembodied mind, he would have no way of acquiring the relationships through sense impressions, and thus, could not truly exist. Even if he did though, he stil wouldn't exist. Because all that exists is phenomena, well, all that exists is phenomena.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Oh please. Watch and learn

Maybe I would ... if I understood it!

Kyu

[Zarathustra]

Oh please. Watch and learn

Maybe I would ... if I understood it!

[wheels5894]

She is restating the theory of social construction. Among these is that there is no soul, only intentionality, hence no mind without matter. This is the simple way of putting it

Well, I am not familiar with various theories on this topic but is there any shred of evidence that would support the existence of a soul or of an afterlife which would imply a mind that is not tied to one body? If not, the above would seem to describer things quite well.

[Zarathustra]

is there any shred of evidence that would support the existence of a soul or of an afterlife which would imply a mind that is not tied to one body?

None whatsoever. But it is a hard notion to put to sleep, since it's build into our language in so many ways, only a few being religious. (For example: " My body feels weird to day" "I love you with all my heart and all my soul." and so on.)

[Kyuuketsuki]

She is restating the theory of social construction. Among these is that there is no soul, only intentionality, hence no mind without matter. This is the simple way of putting it  

Kyu

[Zarathustra]

She is restating the theory of social construction. Among these is that there is no soul, only intentionality, hence no mind without matter. This is the simple way of putting it  

Kyu

I don't think she did. She just approached your argument from a different position. (Which is philosophically more sound.)