If You Were Offered The Opportunity To See Satan Would You?

[devildavid]

Then why would you insist on physical evidence? If something is non-physical, there would be (by definition) no physical evidence for it. What there would be is (possibly) some conceptual lack or gap in the physical world, which is what I think we do observe.

Look: suppose that God intervenes in every physical motion in the universe, but He does so in perfectly consistent ways for every such motion. What we would observe is no different than what we would observe if all motion were governed by consistent natural laws. The only difference between the two situations (i.e. God intervenes consistently/no intervention plus consistent natural laws) would be that in the case when God intervenes, we wouldn't be able to conceptualize how physical stuff alone does everything we observe. Now, I would agree that, in the absence of any reason to think God might so intervene, we may as well just go with the natural laws picture. But there may be reasons to not go with that picture, and those reasons have to be dealt with on their own terms.

Now as it happens, there seems to be some pretty good evidence that in fact the universe is not consistent, so I can't really think of a reason to be a materialist in the first place. It seems to be part of the definition of material substance that it is subject to consistent mathematically rigorous laws, and the evidence we have is that no such stuff exists.



Well, I think I agree there are aspects of reality over which we have no control. But I am not attempting to push a skewed "version" of reality. I'm attempting to arrive at the correct view of reality, using what I take to be the best epistemic standards and practices that we have.



I know, from personal experience, that this is false.



We can choose our perspectives, but I agree we should not do so according to our whims or desires. Rather, we should do so according to our evidence and our reasoning about that evidence.

I don't know what you mean by the universe not being consistent or what evidence you are referring to. Without that, I can't really comment on it.

What we choose, to some extent, is how to interpret our experiences. People can choose to see hidden purposes and gods and magic and all sorts of things with little harm to their survival. But reality remains the same, regardless of how we view it. People who survive a disaster will come up with many reasons why they did. But their beliefs do not impact the final outcome. It is more reasonable to conclude that physical reasons dictated the outcome, even if it is impossible to discover what all those reasons were. There can be a large gap between what actually happens and our interpretation of why and even how it happened. Someone can claim that prayer saved them while another credits dumb luck and another credits an heroic act. While the emotions are real, the actions that take place are not altered by them. Reality does not bend to us,we have to adapt to it.

 

[ashurbanipal]

I don't know what you mean by the universe not being consistent or what evidence you are referring to. Without that, I can't really comment on it.

Consistency is a supposed property of the universe and of all the objects in it. For example, if some object A is at location B at time C, it cannot also be at location D at time E. If some proposition is true, its negation is not also true. And so on. Consistency also implies maximal compossibility and the law of the excluded middle. So for any proposition, there is only one truth-value, either true or false. For the universe to be properly described as consistent, there can never be a violation of these and related rules. But in fact, it turns out there are lots of violations of consistency. Prior to the collapse of the quantum waveform, for example, Bell's inequality tells us that it's both true and false of some particle that it has some property or other. Quantum effects are usually thought by the public to be confined to the subatomic realm, but in fact quantum effects have now been demonstrated in objects big enough for human beings to see, and mathematically predicted for basically any object. The basic reality of the universe is that the stuff we see and experience has no definite properties until the collapse of the waveform, which seems to have something to do with observation, though here we have to be careful, since we don't know what is necessary for an event to count as observation.

Now, near the origin of the western tradition, Thucydides analyzed the difference between matter and mind in his examination of belief in gods. He said that supplication of the gods seemed to do no good; plagues, natural disasters, accidents, and etc. just seem to follow natural laws. If they were directed by the gods, they wouldn't do so. In short, when we're trying to figure out whether some series of events is consciously directed or governed by natural laws, we just have to ask this question: is the series consistent with some deducible law? If so, then it is not consciously directed. If not, the only other explanation we have is that it is consciously directed. His thesis was developed to a fine point by Immanuel Kant, who argued that the phenomenal world follows strict, immutable mathematical laws. It turns out that Kant was wrong, the world only follows stochastic laws. Laws? No, more like guidelines or rules of thumb. But whatever we call them, this incorrect view is what underwrites a kind of common sense within materialist positions--that, somehow, the entire universe can be reduced to stuff that follows non-existent mathematical laws. It's just false. Our best physics tells us it's false.

What we choose, to some extent, is how to interpret our experiences. People can choose to see hidden purposes and gods and magic and all sorts of things with little harm to their survival. But reality remains the same, regardless of how we view it.

OK--suppose I agree. How does that commit me to changing my mind about anything I believe? What you've said is logically consistent with everything I've said.

People who survive a disaster will come up with many reasons why they did. But their beliefs do not impact the final outcome. It is more reasonable to conclude that physical reasons dictated the outcome, even if it is impossible to discover what all those reasons were.

I'm not making an argument from ignorance.

 

[devildavid]

Consistency is a supposed property of the universe and of all the objects in it. For example, if some object A is at location B at time C, it cannot also be at location D at time E. If some proposition is true, its negation is not also true. And so on. Consistency also implies maximal compossibility and the law of the excluded middle. So for any proposition, there is only one truth-value, either true or false. For the universe to be properly described as consistent, there can never be a violation of these and related rules. But in fact, it turns out there are lots of violations of consistency. Prior to the collapse of the quantum waveform, for example, Bell's inequality tells us that it's both true and false of some particle that it has some property or other. Quantum effects are usually thought by the public to be confined to the subatomic realm, but in fact quantum effects have now been demonstrated in objects big enough for human beings to see, and mathematically predicted for basically any object. The basic reality of the universe is that the stuff we see and experience has no definite properties until the collapse of the waveform, which seems to have something to do with observation, though here we have to be careful, since we don't know what is necessary for an event to count as observation.

Now, near the origin of the western tradition, Thucydides analyzed the difference between matter and mind in his examination of belief in gods. He said that supplication of the gods seemed to do no good; plagues, natural disasters, accidents, and etc. just seem to follow natural laws. If they were directed by the gods, they wouldn't do so. In short, when we're trying to figure out whether some series of events is consciously directed or governed by natural laws, we just have to ask this question: is the series consistent with some deducible law? If so, then it is not consciously directed. If not, the only other explanation we have is that it is consciously directed. His thesis was developed to a fine point by Immanuel Kant, who argued that the phenomenal world follows strict, immutable mathematical laws. It turns out that Kant was wrong, the world only follows stochastic laws. Laws? No, more like guidelines or rules of thumb. But whatever we call them, this incorrect view is what underwrites a kind of common sense within materialist positions--that, somehow, the entire universe can be reduced to stuff that follows non-existent mathematical laws. It's just false. Our best physics tells us it's false.



OK--suppose I agree. How does that commit me to changing my mind about anything I believe? What you've said is logically consistent with everything I've said.



I'm not making an argument from ignorance.

I don't think I have to claim that strict mathematical laws govern the universe in order to claim it is made of physical material. The mechanics of the universe may be complex, but it does not mean it involves something non-physical.

You are able to believe anything you want. But you can't objectively know that your belief accurately reflects reality. We all interpret our experiences to some degree. The more we use belief rather than knowledge in our interpretation, the more chance of error. The least chance of error is simply to say that we don't know. This position is stronger than a belief in a separate mind, soul, gods, magic, etc. Individual perception is the least reliable. The accumulation of all human perception backed with evidence and constant experimentation is more reliable. Nothing is 100% reliable. My feelings can easily fool me into believing things that have no foundation in reality. That is why, to the best of my ability, I try to understand the knowledge that has been accumulated by scientific methods in the most objective ways possible for man. And personally, I take a strong skeptical view of all subjective experience, including my own.

 

[ashurbanipal]

I don't think I have to claim that strict mathematical laws govern the universe in order to claim it is made of physical material. The mechanics of the universe may be complex, but it does not mean it involves something non-physical.

Well, sure--depending on how you define "matter," anything is possible. The problem is that if you don't define matter in contradistinction to mind, there's no reason to suspect that matter exists as a separate kind of thing. This was Berkeley's "master argument"--try thinking of, say, a tree that is not in a mind somewhere. Problem is, everytime you try, the tree is in your mind. The only reason to believe that matter isn't just a figment of my (or some) imagination is that it appears to have radically different properties than mental objects, and so we should have a separate category for it. Usually, when asking for some reason to believe in matter, materialists cite the power of science to predict phenomena--which means that matter must be subject to rigorous mathematically-describable laws.

I take it that Thucydides insight was something along these lines. Again, we know that mental "things" exist--images, emotions, willings, intentions, percepts, and so on. We are as intimately acquainted with those as it is possible to be, it would seem. We abstract from a subset of our percepts the existence of material substance--not merely stuff "outside" of ourselves (which could, after all, be the mental objects of God, or something like that), but stuff of a radically different nature. But the basis of that radically different nature is that it does not behave in any mind-like way or exhibit properties similar to mental properties. Get rid of this distinction between the properties of mind and properties of matter, materialism seems to be on very thin ice, if it does not fall through altogether.

You are able to believe anything you want.

I'm not so sure that's true. Try as I might, I cannot believe I am made of bananas, for example. Nor can I believe that 1+1=17. The relevant point, then, is that there must be at least some reason to believe what I believe. Doesn't mean it's a good reason, of course--just that it is a reason.

But you can't objectively know that your belief accurately reflects reality. We all interpret our experiences to some degree. The more we use belief rather than knowledge in our interpretation, the more chance of error. The least chance of error is simply to say that we don't know. This position is stronger than a belief in a separate mind, soul, gods, magic, etc. Individual perception is the least reliable. The accumulation of all human perception backed with evidence and constant experimentation is more reliable. Nothing is 100% reliable. My feelings can easily fool me into believing things that have no foundation in reality. That is why, to the best of my ability, I try to understand the knowledge that has been accumulated by scientific methods in the most objective ways possible for man. And personally, I take a strong skeptical view of all subjective experience, including my own.

Man...there's a lot to unpack there. Too much for a forum like this. I'll tackle the "objective" bit, though: it's not entirely clear what this word could mean. One way to cash it out is to say it means what two or more observers in a position to make an observation would agree on about that observation--but that is clearly problematic, as it implies that, if two or more observers don't agree on anything about some event, the event didn't happen.

Another, apparently more promising way to cash it out would be to say that what is objective is a view from nowhere. As more and more observers are recruited into making an observation, the point of view spreads out to some average between them, until finally, when all observers are recruited, the viewpoint is from literally everywhere all at once, and so might as well be nowhere. Such a viewpoint can have nothing to do with human observation, however, since all observation is necessarily from a point of view, and so objectivity is basically irrelevant, in the same way that adding successive 1's is irrelevant to making apple pie. No matter how many 1's you add together, you'll never get to a number that constitutes, in a literal sense, apple pie--you won't ever get to (say) 4,764,321 (or any other number) and suddenly have apple pie appear in your mouth.

What objectivity seems to mean is something that does not exist.

 

[devildavid]

Well, sure--depending on how you define "matter," anything is possible. The problem is that if you don't define matter in contradistinction to mind, there's no reason to suspect that matter exists as a separate kind of thing. This was Berkeley's "master argument"--try thinking of, say, a tree that is not in a mind somewhere. Problem is, everytime you try, the tree is in your mind. The only reason to believe that matter isn't just a figment of my (or some) imagination is that it appears to have radically different properties than mental objects, and so we should have a separate category for it. Usually, when asking for some reason to believe in matter, materialists cite the power of science to predict phenomena--which means that matter must be subject to rigorous mathematically-describable laws.

I take it that Thucydides insight was something along these lines. Again, we know that mental "things" exist--images, emotions, willings, intentions, percepts, and so on. We are as intimately acquainted with those as it is possible to be, it would seem. We abstract from a subset of our percepts the existence of material substance--not merely stuff "outside" of ourselves (which could, after all, be the mental objects of God, or something like that), but stuff of a radically different nature. But the basis of that radically different nature is that it does not behave in any mind-like way or exhibit properties similar to mental properties. Get rid of this distinction between the properties of mind and properties of matter, materialism seems to be on very thin ice, if it does not fall through altogether.



I'm not so sure that's true. Try as I might, I cannot believe I am made of bananas, for example. Nor can I believe that 1+1=17. The relevant point, then, is that there must be at least some reason to believe what I believe. Doesn't mean it's a good reason, of course--just that it is a reason.



Man...there's a lot to unpack there. Too much for a forum like this. I'll tackle the "objective" bit, though: it's not entirely clear what this word could mean. One way to cash it out is to say it means what two or more observers in a position to make an observation would agree on about that observation--but that is clearly problematic, as it implies that, if two or more observers don't agree on anything about some event, the event didn't happen.

Another, apparently more promising way to cash it out would be to say that what is objective is a view from nowhere. As more and more observers are recruited into making an observation, the point of view spreads out to some average between them, until finally, when all observers are recruited, the viewpoint is from literally everywhere all at once, and so might as well be nowhere. Such a viewpoint can have nothing to do with human observation, however, since all observation is necessarily from a point of view, and so objectivity is basically irrelevant, in the same way that adding successive 1's is irrelevant to making apple pie. No matter how many 1's you add together, you'll never get to a number that constitutes, in a literal sense, apple pie--you won't ever get to (say) 4,764,321 (or any other number) and suddenly have apple pie appear in your mouth.

What objectivity seems to mean is something that does not exist.

We can believe anything because our beliefs can be delusional. Our emotions may fool us. The brain can go haywire and be unable to discern facts from fiction. I could believe that 1+1=45.3. The brain is not perfect and is subject to damage and deterioration.

Mental things are not like physical things. They are entirely different in nature. My actual thoughts only exist in my brain and nowhere else. No brain, no thoughts. Without a physical brain, ideas, concepts, and thoughts are not possible. That they can be expressed to others does not change their nature.

The observers are just data gatherers. Put enough data together and you get facts. Test the facts and you get objective reality. It really isn't that hard. There is no such thing as a view that might as well be from nowhere. Reality is observed, and it is not dependent on those who view it.

 

[ashurbanipal]

We can believe anything because our beliefs can be delusional. Our emotions may fool us.

OK, sure. I thought you were making a different claim.

The brain can go haywire and be unable to discern facts from fiction. I could believe that 1+1=45.3. The brain is not perfect and is subject to damage and deterioration.

It's not clear to me that the brain is what discerns fact from fiction, though it is obviously involved in doing so.

Mental things are not like physical things. They are entirely different in nature.

Yes, this is correct. And they are different in more ways than you've identified.

My actual thoughts only exist in my brain and nowhere else. No brain, no thoughts. Without a physical brain, ideas, concepts, and thoughts are not possible. That they can be expressed to others does not change their nature.

None of this follows from anything you've said, or anything we've observed, at least as far as I am aware.

The observers are just data gatherers. Put enough data together and you get facts. Test the facts and you get objective reality. It really isn't that hard.

I can do all of that without anyone's help. Any of that can be done on the data of mystical experience, by the experiencer. It looks to me like you need to invoke some kind of mumbo-jumbo to get objective reality.

There is no such thing as a view that might as well be from nowhere.

Yes, that was my point...and that is why there is no such thing as objective reality--at least not in the way that most people seem to believe.

Reality is observed, and it is not dependent on those who view it.

I agree with about half of that.

 

[devildavid]

OK, sure. I thought you were making a different claim.
It's not clear to me that the brain is what discerns fact from fiction, though it is obviously involved in doing so.
Yes, this is correct. And they are different in more ways than you've identified.
None of this follows from anything you've said, or anything we've observed, at least as far as I am aware.
I can do all of that without anyone's help. Any of that can be done on the data of mystical experience, by the experiencer. It looks to me like you need to invoke some kind of mumbo-jumbo to get objective reality.
Yes, that was my point...and that is why there is no such thing as objective reality--at least not in the way that most people seem to believe.
I agree with about half of that.

The brain is where all thinking resides.
Mystical experience is no different from brain states. It does not produce data, but it produces emotional experiences.
Objective physical reality is where we exist. Without it, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

If one person goes on a mystical journey they always go alone and cannot observe and collect any evidence. They only have stories to tell. I can travel to a physical place with someone and share the experience even though each of us will observe it differently the physical reality of it does not change. Our inner thoughts are purely subjective and can't be demonstrated to be otherwise. One man can dream up a soul and another can dream up a gods and another can dream up a hidden world of magic. Physical reality is much closer to objective than that. We don't get to make it up; it just is. If we jump into the deep end of a pool we either sink or swim, no matter what is in our minds.

 

[ashurbanipal]

The brain is where all thinking resides.

Why do you think that?

Mystical experience is no different from brain states. It does not produce data, but it produces emotional experiences.
Objective physical reality is where we exist. Without it, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

And, why do you think any of that? Look: your merely claiming these propositions are true is not sufficient to show that they are true. Of course, the same applies to me, but I can give reasons why I think basically any thing I think.

If one person goes on a mystical journey they always go alone and cannot observe and collect any evidence.

Why can't they observe and collect evidence? Is it because they are alone? My point has been that such is really the case for everything you may think is "objective." When a scientist looks into a microscope, she is looking "alone," as it were. And so when the next scientist goes to confirm. And so on. What you seem to rely on is that different individuals with the same training seem to make the same observations. I think that's actually false; it's merely been granted authoritative status in our society. It is, rather, the case that there is some approximate similarity between the observations.

The same thing seems to happen with mystical experience.

They only have stories to tell. I can travel to a physical place with someone and share the experience even though each of us will observe it differently the physical reality of it does not change.

Sounds like you're arguing my case for me.

Our inner thoughts are purely subjective and can't be demonstrated to be otherwise. One man can dream up a soul and another can dream up a gods and another can dream up a hidden world of magic.

You seem to think that there is no consistency across cultures in the mystical experiences of individuals. But in fact there are consistencies, as a great many scholars have demonstrated by now.

Physical reality is much closer to objective than that. We don't get to make it up; it just is. If we jump into the deep end of a pool we either sink or swim, no matter what is in our minds.

This also does not seem to be quite true. I agree it's mostly true. But not entirely, though it's not a point I want to argue.

 

[devildavid]

Why do you think that?



And, why do you think any of that? Look: your merely claiming these propositions are true is not sufficient to show that they are true. Of course, the same applies to me, but I can give reasons why I think basically any thing I think.



Why can't they observe and collect evidence? Is it because they are alone? My point has been that such is really the case for everything you may think is "objective." When a scientist looks into a microscope, she is looking "alone," as it were. And so when the next scientist goes to confirm. And so on. What you seem to rely on is that different individuals with the same training seem to make the same observations. I think that's actually false; it's merely been granted authoritative status in our society. It is, rather, the case that there is some approximate similarity between the observations.

The same thing seems to happen with mystical experience.



Sounds like you're arguing my case for me.



You seem to think that there is no consistency across cultures in the mystical experiences of individuals. But in fact there are consistencies, as a great many scholars have demonstrated by now.



This also does not seem to be quite true. I agree it's mostly true. But not entirely, though it's not a point I want to argue.

When your disembodied mind communicates with mine I will give credence to your view. As long as we are two physical beings using physical computers typing out electronic messages my view works much better.

 

[ashurbanipal]

When your disembodied mind communicates with mine I will give credence to your view.

How do you know they don't? Do you know where "your" thoughts come from? Mine appear to emerge into consciousness nearly fully formed. For all I know, some of those are actually from my next door neighbor's mind, or the mind of some farmer in the Ukraine, or etc.

As long as we are two physical beings using physical computers typing out electronic messages my view works much better.

No it doesn't. The matter is far from being that simple.

 

[RAMOSS]

How do you know they don't? Do you know where "your" thoughts come from? Mine appear to emerge into consciousness nearly fully formed. For all I know, some of those are actually from my next door neighbor's mind, or the mind of some farmer in the Ukraine, or etc.



No it doesn't. The matter is far from being that simple.

Isn't it? It can be shown that cognitive ability is impaired when the brain is damaged... but no other part of the body that does not directly effect the health of the brain (such as impairing the oxygen flow to the brain) has an effect on how people think. THere is also zero evidence of 'spirit', outside the physical confines of the body.

Do you have any objective evidence to the contrary?

 

[devildavid]

How do you know they don't? Do you know where "your" thoughts come from? Mine appear to emerge into consciousness nearly fully formed. For all I know, some of those are actually from my next door neighbor's mind, or the mind of some farmer in the Ukraine, or etc.



No it doesn't. The matter is far from being that simple.

You are engaging in guesswork based on thoughts in your head. Without your brain you would be unable to do this. Thoughts are not things that float around looking for minds to enter. They are created in individual brains by physical individuals and are contained within the individual unless shared through physical communication. Thoughts do not magically appear. They are the result of brain activity. No brain, no thoughts.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Isn't it?

No. Physical evidence of something non-physical is not exactly impossible, but it would be very difficult to get. Suppose for a moment, just for the sake of simplicity, that Newtonian mechanics is apparently the correct physics (perhaps in this hypothetical scenario we just never made any observations that led to Relativity or Quantum Mechanics). Now suppose also that the truth is that in every interaction between pieces of matter, there is some extra uniform force that adds one unit to each term in the equation that governs motion. So that instead of a=f/m, the truth is a+1=f+1/m+1. No observation we could possibly make would reveal the truth, since the 1s just drop out of the equation. So for the practical purpose of understanding how matter behaves, it doesn't, er, matter. However, for the purpose of trying to understand reality as it is, physical observation would be insufficient in that case, and we would have to resort to other means to determine truth. To reiterate: both models predict just the same observational consequences.

Anyway, hopefully the point is obvious: just think of mental substance or spirit stuff or what-have-you as the added "1" and you see the problem.

But now as it happens, this analogy doesn't describe the actual situation. In fact, it looks like those extra factors are not constant, and we don't know where they come from most of the time. The claim that "well, everytime we've tried to find them, we discover that they're physical" is false, since we try to find them pretty much every time, and only count ourselves successful when they turn out to be physical.

This is just one example of the manner in which we've got a scotoma in our view of the world. It just seems obvious to most people that we are physical beings in a physical universe, but in fact, that view has to be taught, since it was far from obvious even a few hundred years ago.

Once you see there's no reason to privilege that view, the evidential base starts to look very different. I'm assuming you read my remarks on Thucydides, above--if you haven't, here's the first part:

Now, near the origin of the western tradition, Thucydides analyzed the difference between matter and mind in his examination of belief in gods. He said that supplication of the gods seemed to do no good; plagues, natural disasters, accidents, and etc. just seem to follow natural laws. If they were directed by the gods, they wouldn't do so. In short, when we're trying to figure out whether some series of events is consciously directed or governed by natural laws, we just have to ask this question: is the series consistent with some deducible law? If so, then it is not consciously directed. If not, the only other explanation we have is that it is consciously directed. His thesis was developed to a fine point by Immanuel Kant, who argued that the phenomenal world follows strict, immutable mathematical laws. It turns out that Kant was wrong, the world only follows stochastic laws. Laws? No, more like guidelines or rules of thumb. But whatever we call them, this incorrect view is what underwrites a kind of common sense within materialist positions--that, somehow, the entire universe can be reduced to stuff that follows non-existent mathematical laws. It's just false. Our best physics tells us it's false.

 

[ashurbanipal]

It can be shown that cognitive ability is impaired when the brain is damaged...

No, all that can be shown is that the ability to express cognitive ability is damaged. But I agree it's a reasonable inference that this means cognitive ability is actually impaired, and one that I personally believe in most cases. However, how does this in any way show that the brain is a necessary condition for cognition? That conclusion just does not follow from the evidence. Moreover, looking closely at that evidence, it rather strongly suggests that the brain is not a necessary condition for cognition.

For example, take the studies done with people who have had a radical calostomy. The usual trope (which has turned out to be false anyway) is that you can show such a subject the word "red" spelled in blue letters. When covering the right eye and asking that person what word is present, they'll say "red," but when covering the left eye, they'll hem and haw and finally say "blue." That's the picture that Gazzaniga presented to the public, but it's a false picture. In fact, on those and similar tasks, individuals with radical calostomy only perform that way some of the time, and their performance on some tasks directly contradicts any straightforward theory of the brain producing the mind. A subject in the above situation performs that way, say, 8 out of 10 times. What's going on in those other two times? Their brain hasn't changed; they have to have completed the tasks correctly some other way.

What is in evidence, then, is that the mind is a distributed process, similar to a situation in which multiple computers run the same program in a networked situation, various tasks being offloaded to each CPU. Damage one of those CPUs, and it takes the whole system down. Unplug one of those CPUs, and the program keeps on running.

I posted, a little while back, a thread that included a study that inclines even more towards that kind of model from calostomy cases. Here's that link again:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170125093823.htm

When I was getting my MS in cognitive science, my university had access to some of the films Speery and Gazaniga made of their original studies, and I watched all of them. I realized even then that the story that had been spun to the public about split brain cases and the implication was exactly that: a story that had been spun to support a certain view (namely materialism). Calostomy cases functioned as one of the strongest pieces of evidence for materialism, and it turns out, they actually seem to support dualism in a more straightforward manner.

I could go on, but this is just one point in a many-year study of the implications of neuroscience. Hint: it does not support materialism nearly as well as most people think.

Do you have any objective evidence to the contrary?

I mean this question sincerely: evidence to the contrary that no other part of the body (aside from the brain) affects cognitive processes?

 

[ashurbanipal]

You are engaging in guesswork based on thoughts in your head.

My point would be: no more than you are.

Without your brain you would be unable to do this.

How do you know? Show me that you're doing more than guessing.

Thoughts are not things that float around looking for minds to enter.

Ditto.

They are created in individual brains by physical individuals and are contained within the individual unless shared through physical communication.

Ditto.

Thoughts do not magically appear. They are the result of brain activity. No brain, no thoughts.

Need I say it?

To avoid seeming too coy: you're asserting a position as if proven that is, in fact, unprovable in principle, and far from something anyone can reasonably say is probably true. That hasn't stopped people from saying it, but the wake-up from materialist slumbering is underway, gradual as it is. Another way to say the same thing is that you're assuming what you set out to prove. Anyone can do that and produce a valid argument, but it does not follow that the argument is sound--the truth of the premise (which is also the conclusion) is still in question. As far as I can tell, from reviewing the evidence from neuroscience and other fields usually marshalled into lining up for ontological materialism, the best claim that can be made is that materialism is not astronomically improbable. Expanding our evidential base to include everything available, however, shows fairly conclusively that materialism is almost certainly false.

 

[RAMOSS]

No. Physical evidence of something non-physical is not exactly impossible, but it would be very difficult to get. Suppose for a moment, just for the sake of simplicity, that Newtonian mechanics is apparently the correct physics (perhaps in this hypothetical scenario we just never made any observations that led to Relativity or Quantum Mechanics). Now suppose also that the truth is that in every interaction between pieces of matter, there is some extra uniform force that adds one unit to each term in the equation that governs motion. So that instead of a=f/m, the truth is a+1=f+1/m+1. No observation we could possibly make would reveal the truth, since the 1s just drop out of the equation. So for the practical purpose of understanding how matter behaves, it doesn't, er, matter. However, for the purpose of trying to understand reality as it is, physical observation would be insufficient in that case, and we would have to resort to other means to determine truth. To reiterate: both models predict just the same observational consequences.

Anyway, hopefully the point is obvious: just think of mental substance or spirit stuff or what-have-you as the added "1" and you see the problem.

But now as it happens, this analogy doesn't describe the actual situation. In fact, it looks like those extra factors are not constant, and we don't know where they come from most of the time. The claim that "well, everytime we've tried to find them, we discover that they're physical" is false, since we try to find them pretty much every time, and only count ourselves successful when they turn out to be physical.

This is just one example of the manner in which we've got a scotoma in our view of the world. It just seems obvious to most people that we are physical beings in a physical universe, but in fact, that view has to be taught, since it was far from obvious even a few hundred years ago.

Once you see there's no reason to privilege that view, the evidential base starts to look very different. I'm assuming you read my remarks on Thucydides, above--if you haven't, here's the first part:

And, exactly how would you do that?? NOw, when it comes to cognative ability, that is entirely physical... you can actually, with MRI's brain abnormalities. The statement 'Looking closely at the evidence the brain is not necessary a condition for cognition' is not supported.

 

[ashurbanipal]

And, exactly how would you do that?? NOw, when it comes to cognative ability, that is entirely physical... you can actually, with MRI's brain abnormalities.

I don't understand your response. The bolded term and phrase are ambiguous. Exactly how would you do what? You can actually, with MRI's brain abnormalities, do what?

Also, brain abnormalities possessed by an MRI?

The statement 'Looking closely at the evidence the brain is not necessary a condition for cognition' is not supported.

I just supported it. If you think not, maybe you could say why?

 

[RAMOSS]

I don't understand your response. The bolded term and phrase are ambiguous. Exactly how would you do what? You can actually, with MRI's brain abnormalities, do what?

Also, brain abnormalities possessed by an MRI?



I just supported it. If you think not, maybe you could say why?

It means that there are brain anomolies that physically can be detected by an MRI.. in other words.. it's entirely physical, and entirely based inside the brain.

 

[devildavid]

My point would be: no more than you are.



How do you know? Show me that you're doing more than guessing.



Ditto.



Ditto.



Need I say it?

To avoid seeming too coy: you're asserting a position as if proven that is, in fact, unprovable in principle, and far from something anyone can reasonably say is probably true. That hasn't stopped people from saying it, but the wake-up from materialist slumbering is underway, gradual as it is. Another way to say the same thing is that you're assuming what you set out to prove. Anyone can do that and produce a valid argument, but it does not follow that the argument is sound--the truth of the premise (which is also the conclusion) is still in question. As far as I can tell, from reviewing the evidence from neuroscience and other fields usually marshalled into lining up for ontological materialism, the best claim that can be made is that materialism is not astronomically improbable. Expanding our evidential base to include everything available, however, shows fairly conclusively that materialism is almost certainly false.

How are thoughts created, if not by the brain? What constitutes evidence of a "substance" called a "thought" that is completely independent of a physical brain? How is it detected, and how is it measured and how do you know it is there? And no cheating, answer this without using your physical brain.

 

[Visbek]

Here ya go. Look at your own risk.

Spoiler

:mrgreen:

Anyway....

I for one find the idea of an actual entity that somehow exists in defiance or opposition to the Christian deity to be a bit... How do I put this politely... unintelligible.

The Christian deity should be able to destroy Satan with the blink of an eye. If that deity is omnipotent, there's no reason why It can't just eradicate Satan. Even if it's not omnipotent, and simply the most powerful entity in existence, it should still be a snap to take down Satan.

It also doesn't make sense from an ethical or theological sense. If humans are going to be judged based on their choices, why should they be judged based on a powerful supernatural entity deliberately manipulating the individual? How is it free will, if you're being manipulated?

Obviously, this is in the realm of theodicy, which is a very serious issue for Christianity. IMO the very concept of Satan sounds backwards. It's taking a normal innate human predilection to personify ideas, elevate them to mythos, and then take them seriously. Weird.

 

[ashurbanipal]

It means that there are brain anomolies that physically can be detected by an MRI.. in other words.. it's entirely physical, and entirely based inside the brain.

I'm familiar with what can be detected by fMRI. But I have no idea what sort of thing you're talking about, or why it would be relevant to what I wrote.

 

[ashurbanipal]

How are thoughts created, if not by the brain?

How about, by the mind...that's no more or less mysterious than creation by the brain.

What constitutes evidence of a "substance" called a "thought" that is completely independent of a physical brain?

Hmmmm...let's think about this for a moment. If you understand what I wrote, it would just be any instance of thinking.

How is it detected, and how is it measured and how do you know it is there?

I know when I'm thinking. Don't you know when you're thinking?

And no cheating, answer this without using your physical brain.

You do not understand my point if you think that's some kind of reply...

 

[Port & Starboard]

I would break out a bottle of "Old No.7" and ask him how ****ed am I.

 

[RAMOSS]

I'm familiar with what can be detected by fMRI. But I have no idea what sort of thing you're talking about, or why it would be relevant to what I wrote.

I think that's the whole point, you can't see the relevance, because you don't want to see how it relates.

 

[ashurbanipal]

I think that's the whole point, you can't see the relevance, because you don't want to see how it relates.

No--I sincerely don't have any idea what you're talking about. I know what fMRI's do; I've been present for a few, and have become plenty familiar in my examination of neuroscience data. You haven't specified what sort of thing you're talking about, so I don't even know how to address it.