My first person experience doesn't tell me weather mental phenomena are physical or non-physical.  The idea of physical is something that I wasn't born with, but something that I learned latter in life.  If personal experiences should make it obvious that mental phenomena are not physical then why wasn't I born knowing these things.  After all I have always had experience even if my method of interpreting them has changed. 

     Saying that scientists have not made a strong case for the mind being physical is about the same as saying scientists have not made a strong case for waves being physical.  After all waves travel threw a physical medium, yet they are not the median themselves.  Let’s consider waves moving threw the ocean.  There is a 100 percent correlation between the existence of ocean waves and the existence of the water, but as Paisley has repeatedly pointed out correlation does not equal causation.  Just because every ocean wave we observe is traveling threw water doesn't mean that ever ocean wave has to travel throw water right?  Maybe ocean waves have some kind of none physical element that we can’t observe.   The idea that ocean waves are not a physical phenomenon is ridicules.  I don't see how saying that the mind is none physical because it can’t be descried in the same terms as a brain is any different then saying that ocean waves are none physical because they can't be described in the same terms as water.  Obviously ocean waves are physical phenomena, and so are human minds. 

Hey everyone, check it out. Paisley thinks that he is lord and master of this thread. If you don't follow his rules then you are barred from participating in this thread. Wow, I didn't know he could do that. I guess starting a thread gives you total control over who is allowed to comment in it.

So Paisley, I didn't watch the video. I listened to it in the background while I did other stuff. Do I have your permission to keep posting? Or should I delete all of my old posts to conform to your rules on this thread? From now on I'll be sure to ask you permission before participating in discussions. I wouldn't want the moderators to ban me from the site for commenting in threads that I am barred from participating in.

Maybe we need a way of flagging threads that Paisley is in complete control over, that way we know that we aren't allowed to comment in them.

But in all seriousness Paisley, by the time you are fifteen minutes into that video it is pretty clear how full of shit Wallace is. He so grossly misrepresents the physical basis of the mind and is so confused on quantum mechanics that I pretty much discounted him as being a serious scholar by 15 minutes into it. I can easily imagine someone hearing his mind-bogglingly odd statements about quantum mechanics and stopping the video since he has proven himself to be a quack. Toss in some misrepresentation of other peoples' views and a fundamental misunderstanding of the mind and you get a man who does not deserve your attention for that long. To use internet speak: I kept listening to the speach, but only for the LOLs.

I don't respond to drive-by critics. If you're not willing to watch the video in its entirety, then you shouldn't expect me to respond to your posts.

Settle down. It is a speach, listening to it is the only thing that you can do. If you watch it while listening to it you don't gain anything extra out of it. Seeing his face while he talks does not make his points more clear than not seeing his face while he talks. Why not just listen to the speach while looking at something else?

While you are at it, stop acting like you are in control of this thread. I was joking around with my last post, but seriously, don't act like you get to determine who takes place in this discussion. That is just not the way internet forums work. Deal with the fact that Wallace reveals his intellectual sloppiness a few minutes into the speech or don't post lengthy videos at all. It is not our fault that you choose such a poor candidate for your cause. If we all can't take this man seriously that is your problem. It is not being a drive by critic to point out that he is too full of bullshit to justify listening to for lengthy periods of time. Think of it this way, I think I am the only one here to bothered listening to the whole thing, and I did it only because I wanted some comedy to listen to while I wrote a dreary lab report. Thank you for giving me some humor while I write boring things, but don't act like your poor choice of representative is our problem.

But I understand that you don't want to defend this man's positions, so instead you will demand that we stop commenting on him as a way of giving yourself an excuse not to respond to our posts.

Physicalism is a monistic view that the universe is composed entirely of matter and energy and the relationships between them. You're suggestion here (by sin of omission) is that these "non-material forces" are somehow not physical. In fact, in that very same section, it states: "Physicalism is a philosophical position holding that everything which exists is no more extensive than its physical properties; that is, that there are no kinds of things other than physical things."

The term "phsyicalism" is a form of materialism that also includes the concept that properties and relationships convey information. Information does not exist external to the physical. Information affects interactions, and is the source of supervenience, which is sufficient to explain the mind as an aspect of the brain.

Corrected.

Your lack of response is indicative of your refusal to deal with anyone who does not surrender to your baseless fantasy.

But it doesnt matter if you dont respond because everyone reads the "drive-by-critics". Probably the best way to deal with your refusal to participate in the discussion would be to simply ignore you and carry on the critique without you.

It is obvious that you think that if anyone exposes wallace's baseless claims and points out his lack of knowledge of physics that they didn't watch this ridiculus video.

Please explain how watching the video makes what wallace is harping on about true. 

Yes, I read what you said. This is how I know that you didn't actually watch the video. Evidently, your tack is simply to parrot the comments of some skeptical blogger. You pulled the same stunt with the Dean Radin video. Next time, either watch the video or don't bother responding.

Actually, the "yahoo" on Wikipedia cited Stoljar.

Clearly, probability waves and geometrical points (mathematical abstractions) are not physical.  The reason there's no "ghost in the machine" is because the "machine" itself is a ghost. It's completely ephemeral. You have not been able to grasp this simple fact. But it is understandable. Grasping the ephemeral is difficult.

Paisley, it's a long video, perhaps you should muster up the energy to sum up exactly what it is you're intending to debate here. The thread title is a rather ambiguous statement about the philosophy of materialism possessing some flaw, it's supported by a link (uncommented), which, if I am not mistaken, is a form of posting subject to specific forum policy - you may not be aware of - that, I'm pretty sure, was written with the intent of deterring forumers from linking other material as essentially their whole post; basically what you've done in the OP.

Later you have indicated almost as ambiguously that the issue you wish to debate is whether introspection is a necessary exercise in the study of consciousness. It is fair debate, then, for anyone to attack the premises of Wallace's argument to that effect, right? That is, providing what you want is to debate Wallace's conclusion of introspection being necessary, then you should probably be prepared to defend his premises as well, or if not provide alternative premises that beget the same resolution. Don't you think?

That is, of course, if that's what you actually want to debate here, and I've given you the reasons why I'm not sure about that already.

So, if you please Paisley, can you do us all the favour of clearing up precisely what your argument is here? And then maybe we can all begin to agree on what constitutes a relevant response to that argument.

... and obviously misrepresented what Stoljar wrote. "Non-physical" isn't the same as "not traditionally material".

Clearly, human behaviour is a whole host of things bubbling up from emergent chemical evolution. Our ability to abstract and communicate is a result of physical memory retention and using physical means to communicate. I need you to point to the ghost in all of that.

Is this a "God is everything" argument?

Grasping what you're on about is difficult, I'll give you that. What, exactly, is ephemeral? Do you mean the "machine"? What machine are we talking about? In fact, what are we talking about, here? How do you describe something that you'd have to once again borrow physical attributes to describe? If everything is God, what's the point of calling any one thing "God"?

No offense Nigel but seriously dood have you not figured this out, everytime and I mean EVERYTIME paisley does this, he avoids any direct quesiton that shows a problem with his premise of the OP, as well if you give him direct evdience of his complete misunderstanding of a definition of a word, or subject he changes the topic, attacks your character, or tries to say that you don't know anything because he tries to use a very vague definition (conciousness is conciousnes awareness is a example) and then accuses you of not knowing what the defintion is. This is his tactic, avoidence really.

What aren't you getting? You come with preconceived notions of what the video is about based on a skeptical blog of Wallace's views and then you make drive-by snide remarks that really have nothing to do with the subject matter of the presentation.

I'm simply calling a spade a spade. You're not a free-thinker. You're just a closed-minded slave to the dogma of materialism, who doesn't have the basic deceny to listen to a man's argument before going into attack mode.

No, I am not avoiding it. You're misrepresenting what Wallace said. He simply quoted Koch in order dispel the myth that NCCs (neural correlates of consciousness) are equivalent to consciousness.

What relevance does a hypothesis on quantum gravity have with evolutionary theory and the emergence of consciousness?  Perhaps I should refresh your memory. In that thread, I posed the question: Why was consciousness naturally selected if, on the materialistic worldview, consciousness is not causally efficacious? Of course, we came to an impasse because you were too dense to see that the only possible causal role that consciousness could have was the exercising of free will. 

I'm not trying to blur the boundary. This is the actual description that science presents of the phenomenal world. It reduces everything to probability waves and/or geometrical points (having location, but lacking dimension) in space-time. 

I'm the one who should be asking the question: How does this support your worldview that only the physical exists? Answer: It doesn't.

I don't know how mathematical abstractions interacting with each other in the void give rise to emotion. I was hoping that you could explain this to me.

You have failed to established that the so-called physical is actually, well, physical. Quite the opposite. It is unintelligible to speak of mathematical abstractions existing independently of a mind that abstracts.

I'll call and raise you on that "correction." I'm afraid you have already conceded the point earlier in your post when you said that "mathematical descriptions of physical phenomena are non-physical."

In a sense, you actually do believe in the concept of phlogiston. You believe that mass/energy is a material substance when it's really not a substance at all.

Why is consciousness not causally efficacious?  You have never given this argument, and without this argument non of your other arguments make much sense to me.  Are you saying that consciousness in a materialistic world view can not be causally efficacious because in is not physical?  If so then your argument is based on circular reasoning.

Quote mining doesn't work on forums. You should know this. Here is what I said:

I started that off with 'lets say...." I did not concede that point, I merely said that lets say you are correct on that matter, so what? Don't quote mine me. There is little that I will take offense to, but grossly misrepresenting my views in unacceptable. Only by posting that fragment of a sentance from me were you able to distort what I said into seeming like I conceded that point.

Yes, like I said: the mind that conceives of it is processing information encoded in neurons. There are no non-physical concepts in your mind. There is only information processing performed by your neurons. All those abstract ideas are only chemicals and dendrites in your head. Your brain can not contain non-physical things within it, it only has those dentrites connecting neurons that allow chemicals and currents to travel around. Don't pretend as though abstract concepts are anything more than chemical interactions in your head when you think of them.

In no sense to I beleive in phlogiston. I think you are playing fast and loose with the word 'substance' here in order to confuse the matter. Obvious energy is not a substance in the way that water is a substance (unless you take into account that the water's mass could be converted into energy or that energy can be converted into matter, in which case matter and energy aren't a whole lot different than one another). But energy is still physical. It is not a 'substance' in some senses of the word, but energy is physical all the same.

So lets see here: in just one post you attempted quote mining and a linguistic trick in order to grossly misrepresent my views. Well play, sir. This is the equivalent of the nut shot for debating.

wait... Pasty still comes here? and i'm missing all the fun?!?

You bastards should have said something!

It seems like Paisley can't last more than a few posts without some ad hominem party.

I think it's just the frustration that we haven't converted to ... something. Magic, maybe? I don't think I've seen a positive assertion, just the criticism of a point of view that we all agree is outdated (old-school materialism). Maybe he's just jerking our collective chain -- I haven't been able to figure it out, truthfully.

It doesn't have to have applications to be true, ever hear of pure mathematics?

That's not what I said. It's called applied mathematics.

I said pure mathematics as in math for the sake of math.

/facepalm

So what doesn't have applications in math isn't true?

Oh and to not derail Hamby's thread

And what applications do you see from me being a hyper-negative obnoxious girl?

Yes, I have given the reason (in another thread) why it is not causally-efficacious. It's called "sufficient causation." If the mental can be sufficiently explained in physical terms, then there's nothing left for the mental to do. And, if you take issue with this, then please explain what active role consciousness could possibly play other than free will. 

I'm not going to quibble over the terms "discuss" and "debate." Now, unless you have actually watched the video and wish to DISCUSS it or DEBATE it, then quit wasting my precious time. I have little patience for your mother hen nonsense.

What I find frustrating is the deliberate attempt to hijack my threads by trolls.