Talk:Non-materialist neuroscience

Mental illness?
The subject of mental illness does deliver a blow to NMN. Schizophrenia, for example, is associated with irregular activity in the frontal lobes, hippocampus and temporal lobes of the brain. I feel like this is an important aspect the article doesn't mention. I'll probably do this myself later on, but for now I'll just mention psychiatric medication. Ibrahim Moizoos (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

On Egnor’s general argument
Egnor’s general conclusion: one set can be derived from another set—iff—they share the same properties.

All properties are predicates, but not all predicates are properties. The extensions of predicates make up sets; thus the extensions of properties are a subset of any given concept. Egnor's argument asserts that the derivation of any set from another set, seems to hinge on there existing an isomorphism between the properties of both sets (NB: I am not asserting that Egnor has any knowledge of set theory or formal logic for that matter!). An isomorphism would account for them sharing the same cardinality, as well as any structural features that they shared. In other words for one set e.g. any member of the set of matter to imply another member of the same set, there must exist a very narrow isomorphism class between both objects. This results in absurdity when we consider the following example: the set of cheese cannot be derived from the set of milk.

Leucippus Talk 00:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Ethical implications of the end result of neuroscience
I'm not against neuroscience, and if you are wondering about the section title, no this isn't an appeal to consequences either. Rather this is just how I see the evolution of neuroscience over time given some assumptions about how it can and or will progress. The basic premise of thought and mind as physical would mean that all our thoughts are matter, and physically observable. But it doesn't stop there, obviously, that also means our minds are malleable. This leads to the problem of mind control, literal mind control, realistic mind control. If you can come up with a way to either invasively (I'm biased against this because it seems a bit primitive) or a non-invasive way to change the brain, and given you know what parts of the brain to change to paint the metaphorical picture you wanted, the only thing between a tyrannical dictator and absolute brainwashing of political dissidents is power. You could not only make people slaves theoretically, you could make them ask to be. This is a pretty scary realization, and given human history, I don't think it is beyond political tyrants at all to pervert our discoveries and tools in such a way to oppress people.

I don't think there is a point trying to stop the progression of science out of fear of the end result though. Because the march of time will all but ensure it comes about, one way or another. I think we should be talking about this now to get a headstart on that issue, and start to think about what kind of protections can be put in place in the form of regulations, justice system, crime and punishment. But it just reminds me that the bigger issue is that democracy can allow for tyrants to rise, if they have enough money behind them, and the longer a system which has a flaw in it runs, eventually, that system critically fails. 86.10.101.16 (talk) 10:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Extra stuff in the meantime I looked up, this question has been around for a while. This paper goes into the philosophical implications of therapy as mind control (I think it is fair to use mind control in this way if it has a beneficial effect), but it also mentions consent. One thing that often is overlooked is that consent itself is a neurological event, when you make a 'decision' to consent to something, this is a physical process that happens in the brain, you may consider previous information in a form of 'intuition' (I mean intuition not as the magical kind, but educated guesswork based on prior information and experiences), before making your choices. But the moments you make that decision in themselves can be changed, you can fabricate consent in people (you can make the slave ask). This already sort of happens in reality, but it happens socially by means of deception and rhetorical argument, the entire act of trying to reframe things for people and 'convince' them aims to impact the decision making process and robs them of some form of free will by effort. If you can change someone's mind, you are, in effect, engaging in a form of mind control.


 * This is important for me because the concept of free will and consent is relevant to some of the most important functions of society itself, in law, you must have the capacity to make a decision of your own will, unimpeded by outside forces to be held to account in a meaningful way (not that I wouldn't stop a criminal who is currently dangerous). In the field of medicine, you need to gain informed consent from a patient, in interpersonal relationships, your partners must be free from any form of coercive control to have any meaningful consent, and the horrifying implications there is that people are prone to downplay how manipulative they can be because they're biased to see themselves in a positive light. (step one is fooling yourself.) 86.10.101.16 (talk) 11:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Why is this Gold?
This page is very far from our "Very best stuff."

We argue that, "Non-materialist neuroscience is a reactionary, anti-science movement — like creationism and intelligent design". (Be very afraid!)

But what support do we have for that argument?
 * The claim that a few authors and scientists are the "primary proponents" of the movement.
 * A refutation of a single obscure blog post by one of the proponents.
 * A critique of a single peer-reviewed, scientific article by three other proponents.
 * A summary of some contemporary neuroscience that the critiqued neuroscientists well understand.

If there was a "movement" I'd expect a lot more than a few proponents and a tiny literature. Where are the prominent leaders? Where are the devoted followers? Where is the political influence? Why haven't heard about in the news?

And just where does "non-materialism" fit in with the centuries of related philosophical and scientific discourse.

How could it be improved? Drop the ominous and ad hominem focus on the "proponents" of a supposed "movement." Give a decent overview of "non-materialism". And either treat the critiqued authors as scientists publishing in good faith or give us some decent snark about these obvious charlatans who somehow fooled their peers at the Royal Society.

I'm not going to do this, because I pretty much disagree with the article. So I'd suggest we demote it. Gcolvin (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)


 * "A summary of some contemporary neuroscience that the critiqued neuroscientists well understand."
 * That's not meant to be read by the people being critiqued, but by the people reading this article.
 * "And just where does "non-materialism" fit in with the centuries of related philosophical and scientific discourse."
 * It doesn't fit, in the same way creationism doesn't fit into biology.
 * "If there was a "movement" I'd expect a lot more than a few proponents and a tiny literature. Where are the prominent leaders?  Where are the devoted followers?   Where is the political influence?  Why haven't heard about in the news?"
 * Some movements are really small, and uninfluential. Also, the article does give examples of "primary" proponents, i.e, leaders: Michael Egnor, Denyse O'Leary, and Mario Beauragard.
 * Some movements are really small, and uninfluential. Also, the article does give examples of "primary" proponents, i.e, leaders: Michael Egnor, Denyse O'Leary, and Mario Beauragard.

--2600:4040:475E:F600:F827:752E:27ED:166E (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * there exists something called demote where you can request that this be promoted. (On this wiki, promote and demote mean te opposite of what you think it does.)

In Defense of Dualism
I have added an essay that explains why I believe that reports of dualism’s demise have been greatly exaggerated. The argument examines consciousness under Occam’s razor and concludes that it survives only through its interdependence with volition in a non-material mind, which is a perspective you might not have seen elsewhere. See Essay:The Death Knell of Dualism?. More Than Magnetic Ink (talk) 08:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Materialist telekinesis?! Don't think so...
I have an issue with this paragraph:

"Perhaps most amazing, tricks that have always been relegated to the supernatural and never demonstrated are being mastered through appropriate application of materialism. Telekinesis or "mind over matter" has long been ruled over by the side-show frauds of the paranormal world. But now through the use of materialist predictions and modern technology humans really are capable of affecting matter outside themselves through thought alone. One recent study used fMRI data to allow subjects to navigate through a maze on a computer by merely thinking in which directions they wanted to move."

How exactly does the study at the reference demonstrate that, "...humans really are capable of affecting matter outside themselves through thought alone."? The phenomenon described in the study requires much more than "thought alone", it requires an fMRI machine, a computer programmed to interpret the fMRI data to correspond with desired movement, and a virtual robot 'avatar' to access the interpreted data feed, allowing it to navigate the maze according to the input derived from the fMRI interpretation. That does not represent anything resembling a materialist type of 'telekinesis'. It's a total over-reach to make that claim, and why would we think that telekinesis exists in any form? All this study does is bypass the part of the nervous system that allows us to use our arms and hands to control a joystick or a mouse. The paragraph seems to suggest that there is a materialist explanation for 'telekinesis', which there is not. That paragraph is not at all of the quality of the rest of the article, so I am going to remove it. FairDinkum (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with your reasoning, it was a good decision to remove it. - Linneris (talk) 11:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC)