The missing link/intelligent design

[Received]

Lol. It wasn't until I joined this site that I saw evasion being used as a counter-argument.

And it was far before I joined this site that I saw people make false assumptions about my intentions.

Davian, can we start over?

 

[Received]

As long as no-one is trying to sneak God or anything else in the back door of that particular axiom, I don't really care for the issue beyond that.

Nobody is doing that here, sure. But why the prejudice (that's what it is, in all nonjudgmental seriousness) against God? I understand reasons against God, but this is a prejudice against him.

 

[Loudmouth]

K, but here you're going from veracity to pragmatism, and without a distinction that you're doing so, which means you're conflating the two.

I am not conflating the two. In fact, I put in the extra effort to differentiate between the two:

"Hypotheses that are testable and have passed testing are not considered true. They are considered to be supported. Two very different things."

The conclusions of science are not axiomic "truths". They are conditional and tentative. We use these conclusions because they work, even if they are not considered absolute truths.

I'm fine with "empiricism works," but not "empricism is the limitation of determining truth." Two entirely different things.

"Empricism is the limitation of determining truth"? That doesn't even make sense. There appears to be a serious language barrier here.

Empiricism and the scientific method are ways of reaching tentative, but testable conclusions. This method has become popular because it works, not for some other arbitrary reason. It works so well that it seems like a very good way of reaching trustworthy conclusions. Your day to day existence depends on these conclusions, from the moment you brush your teeth with manufactured toothpaste to your drive home that relies on scientific theories in mechanical engineering. You use this method all of the time in your daily routines.

So why, when it comes to certain beliefs, should we abandon this method? I think the answer is quite obvious. People want to believe that certain things are true even if there isn't evidence to support it. Other people think it is more prudent to start with evidence and follow it wherever it may lead.

 

[Gadarene]

Nobody is doing that here, sure. But why the prejudice (that's what it is, in all nonjudgmental seriousness) against God? I understand reasons against God, but this is a prejudice against him.

It's not prejudice.

It's long experience of people using shenanigans like this to insert their deity into things. Hardly my fault.

 

[twinc]

It's not prejudice.

It's long experience of people using shenanigans like this to insert their deity into things. Hardly my fault.

and the original question was ? - how did we arrive here ? - any comments - twinc

 

[Gottservant]

He that knows, sees; He that sees, hears; he that hears, knows.

 

[Received]

I am not conflating the two. In fact, I put in the extra effort to differentiate between the two:

"Hypotheses that are testable and have passed testing are not considered true. They are considered to be supported. Two very different things."

The conclusions of science are not axiomic "truths". They are conditional and tentative. We use these conclusions because they work, even if they are not considered absolute truths.

Firstly, I never said that the conclusions science are about axiomatic "truths" (although the starting points of science, OTOH...). I'm saying that evidentialism must be distinguished from empiricism or evidence in general. Hence the problem of the syllogism here:

Only things that can be evidenced (i.e., through the natural sciences) can be considered true (evidentialism).

Evidentialism has no evidence.

Therefore, evidentialism can't be true.​

Please remember, I'm tackling Davian's use of evidentialism, not empiricism. Completely different: one negates itself by making an impossible standard, the other doesn't because it doesn't make an impossible standard.

"Empricism is the limitation of determining truth"? That doesn't even make sense. There appears to be a serious language barrier here.

So you're against evidentialism as a hermetically sealed philosophy? Good.

Empiricism and the scientific method are ways of reaching tentative, but testable conclusions. This method has become popular because it works, not for some other arbitrary reason. It works so well that it seems like a very good way of reaching trustworthy conclusions. Your day to day existence depends on these conclusions, from the moment you brush your teeth with manufactured toothpaste to your drive home that relies on scientific theories in mechanical engineering. You use this method all of the time in your daily routines.

I disagree with nothing here, except your implicitly contemptuous use of "other arbitrary reason," as if any standard other than empiricism is dumb, like reason, or the intuitive capacities that allow us to use the philosophical foundations of empiricism without clenching our teeth in doubt.

So why, when it comes to certain beliefs, should we abandon this method? I think the answer is quite obvious. People want to believe that certain things are true even if there isn't evidence to support it. Other people think it is more prudent to start with evidence and follow it wherever it may lead.

Because who the heck says we should start with evidence (understood scientifically) as something more foundational than the things it rests on, like the philosophical foundations of empiricism, which means precisely that philosophy (reasoning) at least goes deeper than evidence as a beginning point? You're putting down an authoritarian standard that we're all expected to follow, and why? Because it works. Yes, it works, and it works very well. But, well, the moment you use pragmatism as your standard, veracity is out the door. I disagree strongly with your apparent disagreement that science can't reveal truth (thereby pushing the standard from veracity to pragmatism); methinks you've slipped away by distinguishing "absolute truth" up above. Yes, science does reveal truth, it only ascertains truth inductively, and because of falsifiability inherent to it, it must constantly open itself up to the possibility of being wrong, which means it technically can never, in a fully certain sense, "prove" something as true. But so what? If we follow this incredibly rigorous standard, then only mathematics would be the realm of truth; even logic in general, precisely because its premises are understood as assumptions, can't arrive at truth in any rigorous sense as you've made it. Any human being who goes from science, which doesn't aim at truth in a technical sense for the reasons mentioned, to pragmatism in general in life (to the dismissal of truth entirely as classically understood) is making a massive assumption. And that's quite fine, so long as you realize this is an assumption.

Moreover, appealing to pragmatism as a determination of what we should or shouldn't use is itself a philosophical assumption that complicates itself. My question: how do we reach this philosophical assumption? You sure can't do it through appealing to what "works" (that would be begging the question), and because it's all about work, reason sure isn't part of this.

 

[Davian]

As long as no-one is trying to sneak God or anything else in the back door of that particular axiom, I don't really care for the issue beyond that.

Nobody is doing that here, sure. But why the prejudice (that's what it is, in all nonjudgmental seriousness) against God? I understand reasons against God, but this is a prejudice against him.

One might get the impression that your objections arise only when when the subjects in your back yard (ie God) fall under the crosshairs. You are making it personal. Having never had a horse in that race (believing in deities), I cannot really relate.

If the discussion started rolling over cold fusion, extraterrestrials visiting Earth, or faires at the bottom of the garden, would you care?

And it was far before I joined this site that I saw people make false assumptions about my intentions.

Then perhaps you should elucidate.

Davian, can we start over?

Sure. Lead the way. I am getting tired of driving through these immaterial marshmallows, especially when on the freeway.

 

[Received]

One might get the impression that your objections arise only when when the subjects in your back yard (ie God) fall under the crosshairs. You are making it personal. Having never had a horse in that race (believing in deities), I cannot really relate.

If the discussion started rolling over cold fusion, extraterrestrials visiting Earth, or faires at the bottom of the garden, would you care?

Then perhaps you should elucidate.

One could get that impression, but that isn't my intention. I promise.

No really. I promise.

Promise.

Really.

Okay you got me!

But ignore that, because I promise, and was just kidding.

(And it's a slow day at work.)

Sure. Lead the way. I am getting tired of driving through these immaterial marshmallows, especially when on the freeway.

So where do we start? With your claim about evidence? Would you put that the same or differently?

 

[Loudmouth]

Firstly, I never said that the conclusions science are about axiomatic "truths" (although the starting points of science, OTOH...). I'm saying that evidentialism must be distinguished from empiricism or evidence in general. Hence the problem of the syllogism here:

Only things that can be evidenced (i.e., through the natural sciences) can be considered true (evidentialism).

Evidentialism has no evidence.

Therefore, evidentialism can't be true.​

​

You claim that they need to be separate, and yet you conflate them in your syllogism.

So you're against evidentialism as a hermetically sealed philosophy? Good.

English?

I disagree with nothing here, except your implicitly contemptuous use of "other arbitrary reason," as if any standard other than empiricism is dumb, like reason, or the intuitive capacities that allow us to use the philosophical foundations of empiricism without clenching our teeth in doubt.

Rationalism has failed quite spectacularly through the ages. That is why the scientific method and empiricism was developed in the first place.

Even worse, people will claim that if you believe something hard enough that it will suddenly become true, no matter what the evidence shows or doesn't show.

Because who the heck says we should start with evidence (understood scientifically) as something more foundational than the things it rests on, like the philosophical foundations of empiricism, which means precisely that philosophy (reasoning) at least goes deeper than evidence as a beginning point?

Because starting with the evidence works very well, and it is a very good way of limiting the impact of personal biases on our conclusions. IOW, it works.

Or do you think it is much more reliable to make something up from whole cloth, and then try really hard to believe it without ever looking at the evidence? Do you think this is a good way of coming to reliable conclusions?

You're putting down an authoritarian standard that we're all expected to follow, and why?

False. We are saying that for ourselves we need to see evidence before we will be convinced. We are laying out the groundwork that it will take to convince us.

But, well, the moment you use pragmatism as your standard, veracity is out the door.

As soon as fantasies are considered truths you have also thrown veracity out the door.

I disagree strongly with your apparent disagreement that science can't reveal truth (thereby pushing the standard from veracity to pragmatism);

Double negatives for the loss.

I agree that scientific conclusions are not axioms. I agree that scientific theories are not axioms. Is that what you are referring to?

Yes, science does reveal truth,

No, it doesn't. Science tests hypotheses. All of the conclusions in science are tentative. None are considered the "truth", or an axiomic statement about reality.

Moreover, appealing to pragmatism as a determination of what we should or shouldn't use is itself a philosophical assumption that complicates itself.

So we should use methods that don't work? We should use methods that have no ability to make accurate predictions about the world around us? Should we adopt methods that put fantasies and facts on the same footing?

 

[twinc]

He that knows, sees; He that sees, hears; he that hears, knows.

yes but is it the rose that smells or the nose that smells ? - twinc

 

[Received]

[/INDENT]You claim that they need to be separate, and yet you conflate them in your syllogism.

In what way?

I'm saying the evidentialists, being human beings who therefore use reason, logic, and hold truth to be important (rather than just "what works"), negate their own position because, being human beings (and liking truth, etc.), their standard can't support itself. And therefore there must be something more fundamental than this standard (i.e., logic, reason), which means the view that "all things that can be true are true via (scientific) evidence" can't be the only standard.

Now, if you're saying the evidentialists are all about what works and not at all about what's true, the problem then becomes: says who about evidentialism as being the only standard? Again, if they admit the assumption, that's fine; but if we're going with human psychology and "common sense" as most people tend to understand it (i.e., truth is more fundamental, or at least works alongside, what works), then we run into the problem mentioned above of self-negation. And if we just say "assumptions 'r cool, man," it really becomes a sort of fraternity us-versus-them regarding our standards and their capacities to find out what works best.

English?

Hermetically sealed: a philosophy or standard that goes to the point of denying its own presuppositions which by definition go beyond itself as a philosophy or standard. E.g., "everything that can be known is known through reason," or "everything that can be known is known through evidence," etc.

Rationalism has failed quite spectacularly through the ages. That is why the scientific method and empiricism was developed in the first place.

I think it's a bit of a gloss to say that rationalism as a whole has failed "throughout the ages." Mostly because that's a reasonable statement, so, you know, there's got to be some room for reason. But I agree that rationalism as a hermetically sealed philosophy fails; but that's not a fault to rationalism as it is to any system that attempts to be hermetically sealed.

But all the while you seem to be speaking pragmatically when you make this comment, in that rationalism has failed and the scientific method replaced it because one didn't "fail". I'd rather say: which one allowed us to get to the most truth (hence my distinction of veracity and pragmatism)? And both reason and science do this, but science is a smaller sphere than reason.

Even worse, people will claim that if you believe something hard enough that it will suddenly become true, no matter what the evidence shows or doesn't show.

Right, but this isn't inherent to rationalism, nor is it intrinsic to religion, FWIW.

Because starting with the evidence works very well, and it is a very good way of limiting the impact of personal biases on our conclusions. IOW, it works.

Or do you think it is much more reliable to make something up from whole cloth, and then try really hard to believe it without ever looking at the evidence? Do you think this is a good way of coming to reliable conclusions?

Why go with what works over what is true?

False.

Really, so you're appealing to a standard of truth beyond workability. I thought you were all about what works.

We are saying that for ourselves we need to see evidence before we will be convinced. We are laying out the groundwork that it will take to convince us.

Once again (the circle continues): who says we need to see evidence before we will be convinced?

As soon as fantasies are considered truths you have also thrown veracity out the door.

Does this include the fantasy that pragmatism excludes truth as a reliable standard by which we should live our lives, or even that underlies the scientific method?

Double negatives for the loss.

Uh, technically a double negative contains two forms of negation, like "I don't need no pragmatism up in here." I haven't made two forms of negation, but only one:

I disagree strongly with your apparent disagreement that science can't reveal truth (thereby pushing the standard from veracity to pragmatism);


"Disagree" and "disagreement" are both positives.

But you're most definitely right that I could speak more clearly.

I agree that scientific conclusions are not axioms. I agree that scientific theories are not axioms. Is that what you are referring to?

I'm disagreeing with your claim that science can't reveal truth. I see that as false.

No, it doesn't. Science tests hypotheses. All of the conclusions in science are tentative. None are considered the "truth", or an axiomic statement about reality.

Yes, technically the scientific method doesn't work with truth; but that's an infinitely different statement than saying that truth and the scientific method can't be bedfellows according to a larger paradigm which utilizes science and reason at least, rather than one to the (self-negating) exclusion of the other. IOW, we know evolution is 99.999999% certain to be the case; but we're not being prudes if we think it's true (and that much is supported by lots of smart scientists who lauded Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True without calling attention to his use of "true" juxtaposed with science). I mean, I'm pretty certain you've appealed to truth and falsity at least implicitly in our discussion. You were the guy who appealed to my "tortured logic," after all.

So we should use methods that don't work?

Begging the question: "we shouldn't use methods that don't work because they don't work."

We should use methods that have no ability to make accurate predictions about the world around us?

Begging the question.

Should we adopt methods that put fantasies and facts on the same footing?

Now you're just being mean.

 

[Davian]

One could get that impression, but that isn't my intention. I promise.

No really. I promise.

Promise.

Really.

Okay you got me!

But ignore that, because I promise, and was just kidding.

(And it's a slow day at work.)


So where do we start? With your claim about evidence? Would you put that the same or differently?

What about my claim about evidence? I am not NIMBY about it; as I said, feel free to portray the concept of falsification as a rabbit hole. So it has rabbits in it - what is the problem?

Did this not start with your statement that "asking for evidence is too far"? Why? Because it might fill in that gap you perceive between grey matter and the current scientific understanding of "consciousness"? A gap that might allow for the OP's 'immaterial mind' and all that it entails?

To rephrase my question... what gap?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

How I feel in this thread:

Interesting to read, though, keep it up!

 

[Christian7PraiseJesus]

How does the material brain communicate with the immaterial mind - exactly what bridges the gap - how does what is material know,suffer,feel,hear and see - twinc

What do you mean you don't know what consciousness is?

I'd say much of it has to do with mirror neurons, the ability to see pain and emphasize with it. Professor V.S. Ramachandran gives a good presentation of a short overview of what was discovered from his research on mirror neurons with, e.g., people experiencing a "phantom limb" sensation (that the other person's limb is their own) after amputations, and when that person is touched, it feels like their missing limb is touched.
#109 How Mirror Neurons Help Us To Learn New Skills And Create Empathy For Others - YouTube

Here is a better (and funny) interview of UCSD Professor V.S. Ramachandran by Charlie Rose, where he goes into FULL, and FAST detail about what he has discovered about mirror neurons, SELF AWARENESS, plasticity, phantom limb study among others:

VS Ramachandran interviewed by Charlie Rose - YouTube



He starts lecturing at 8:17 in this video about mirror neurons, empathy, ect.
V.S. Ramachandran -The Tell-Tale Brain: A Neuroscientist's Quest for What Makes Us Human - YouTube

And of course, then there is the soul, which I feel is what brings self awareness to people, this is the central portion of the issue. This is why people can be resuscitated from asystole, complete cardiac arrest, and live. This is the connection between neurons, self awareness, and individuality, a substance to life. There are both neurons and souls.

 

[Loudmouth]

In what way?

In the very first premise:

"Only things that can be evidenced (i.e., through the natural sciences) can be considered true (evidentialism)."

You compare evidence as defined by the natural sciences (i.e. empiricism) with evidentialism. You are doing the very thing that you tell others not to do.

I'm saying the evidentialists, being human beings who therefore use reason, logic, and hold truth to be important (rather than just "what works"), negate their own position because, being human beings (and liking truth, etc.), their standard can't support itself.

No, that is something completely new that you are saying. This differs completely from the syllogism we are talking about.

If you want to claim that we want to know the absolute truth but are incapable of having the absolute truth, then I agree. However, that is not what science is trying to do.

And therefore there must be something more fundamental than this standard (i.e., logic, reason), which means the view that "all things that can be true are true via (scientific) evidence" can't be the only standard.

It isn' the only standard, but it is the one that works the best.

You can set your standard as "whatever I dream up at this very minute is true", but don't expect anyone to adopt your standards, or accept your fantasies as anything other than fantasies.

What you need to explain is why evidence should not be followed. Explain to us why it is better to accept claims without evidence than to accept claims based on the weight of evidence. Explain to us why something made up at the drop of the hat should be given equal weight as something with massive amonts of real evidence behind it.

Hermetically sealed: a philosophy or standard that goes to the point of denying its own presuppositions which by definition go beyond itself as a philosophy or standard. E.g., "everything that can be known is known through reason," or "everything that can be known is known through evidence," etc.

No one is denying any presuppositions.

I think it's a bit of a gloss to say that rationalism as a whole has failed "throughout the ages." Mostly because that's a reasonable statement, so, you know, there's got to be some room for reason. But I agree that rationalism as a hermetically sealed philosophy fails; but that's not a fault to rationalism as it is to any system that attempts to be hermetically sealed.

The problem is that rationalism takes on human biases while ignoring the real world. It is like constructing a map and expecting the territory to conform to our map. It just doesn't work that way. The map is not the territory.

But all the while you seem to be speaking pragmatically when you make this comment, in that rationalism has failed and the scientific method replaced it because one didn't "fail". I'd rather say: which one allowed us to get to the most truth (hence my distinction of veracity and pragmatism)? And both reason and science do this, but science is a smaller sphere than reason.

Science succeeds because it dares to question what people call the truth.

Why go with what works over what is true?

Because what is true, in an absolute sense, is unattainable except by just assuming that something is true. Once you claim an axiom, you have stopped searching for the truth.

Once again (the circle continues): who says we need to see evidence before we will be convinced?

I do. In order to convince ME of a claim you need to supply evidence.

I'm disagreeing with your claim that science can't reveal truth. I see that as false.

Then you don't understand how science works. Theories and conclusions are always tentative. Always. Theories never become axioms.

 

[Received]

In the very first premise:

"Only things that can be evidenced (i.e., through the natural sciences) can be considered true (evidentialism)."

You compare evidence as defined by the natural sciences (i.e. empiricism) with evidentialism. You are doing the very thing that you tell others not to do.

Whoa, wait, I'm only comparing the two (evidence qua empiricism and evidentialism) to make a point against conflating the two, like evidentialists do. I'm not saying they're the same, and in putting them in my first premise I'm simply stating what evidentialism holds. What I'm telling others not to do is conflate evidence understood empirically (which I understand to be different than evidentialism, in that the latter makes claims like the first premise) with evidentialism (i.e., scientific evidence is the limitation of truth).

Please let me know if this tete-a-tete is confusing to you, because it took me five minutes to understand what we're saying on this point. Could it be that (because or the convoluted nature of this discussion, I take credit) that you've misperceived my point?

If you want to claim that we want to know the absolute truth but are incapable of having the absolute truth, then I agree. However, that is not what science is trying to do.

I'm just saying I don't know what "absolute" (contra "relative") truth means.

It isn' the only standard, but it is the one that works the best.

That's fine, but 1) so long as the other standard is truth, which can be ascertained by reason, we're fine, and 2) what works "best" doesn't at all mean that because it works best, that this should be the defined limitation of our epistemology. In fact, if you say so, you're begging the question:

We should keep to empiricism.

Why?

Because it works the best.

Why should something be kept as the limitation of our knowledge because it works the best?

Because it works the best.

(I'm not saying you're saying this, btw.)

You can set your standard as "whatever I dream up at this very minute is true", but don't expect anyone to adopt your standards, or accept your fantasies as anything other than fantasies.

I'm not saying I'm setting up another standard in contrast to yours. I'm saying you're arbitrarily and authoritatively setting up a standard that what works best should be used to the disposal of reason, intuition, and other standards; and I'm saying that my appeal to reason and intuition are not even set up or handed down by me, but are intrinsic to our very psychology. Empricism may work best, but it's a small sphere compared to reason (another sphere), compared to intuition (on which our presuppositions for empiricism, and the very sense that reason "works" is based).

Again (and this might be seen as the summary of my entire position with this debate): empiricism has philosophical presuppositions which are based in premises that are in turn the conclusions of reasoning from other premises. And these premises (based on previous conclusions) are also based on intuitive, "just feels right" beliefs, like the existence of the external world, uniformity in nature, and the reality of inductive reasoning (on which the scientific method rests). We call these intuitive deals axioimatic truths; Bertrand Russell called them "instinctive beliefs". So given that empiricism has philosophical presuppositions, these very reason- and intuition-based presuppositions mean that reason and intuition are "deeper" than empiricism, precisely because they are the content of these presuppositions.

What you need to explain is why evidence should not be followed. Explain to us why it is better to accept claims without evidence than to accept claims based on the weight of evidence. Explain to us why something made up at the drop of the hat should be given equal weight as something with massive amonts of real evidence behind it.

Nobody says, not this dude certainly, that evidence shouldn't be followed.

The problem is that rationalism takes on human biases while ignoring the real world. It is like constructing a map and expecting the territory to conform to our map. It just doesn't work that way. The map is not the territory.

Well, again, I'm not advocating rationalism so much as reason within limits. Remember, I said very openly that the problem with rationalism as with evidentialism is that it's a hermetically sealed philosophy, the problem being that it doesn't allow itself to have a (presupposition) basis outside itself, and instead works according to the logic of the syllogism, particularly the first premise.

Science succeeds because it dares to question what people call the truth.

If "what dares to question what people call the truth" is sufficient for being the best, then putting down science is too complicated. You can start and stop with reason, or mere curiosity. Science only organizes its quest to question truth. And, btw, the Socratic appeal to question everything precedes Francis Bacon (the first philosopher of modern science) by at least 900 years.

Because what is true, in an absolute sense, is unattainable except by just assuming that something is true. Once you claim an axiom, you have stopped searching for the truth.

Disagree to infinity. We don't "claim" axioms; evolutionary psychologists say that these axioms, which underlie our philosophies (including empiricism) and reason itself, are instinctual. IOW (and this is a science-revealed statement, BTW), unless we had instinctual axioms that underlay our philosophies, we would never get off the ground. We need axioms to even make our philosophies intelligible and agreed upon, or else it's all about an authority that gives down whichever standard. And if it's not authority, it's pure caprice, where we choose our standards for truth like we do our fashion of clothes. You want to talk about relativism, well...

I do. In order to convince ME of a claim you need to supply evidence.

Begging the question: "we need to trust evidence because you need to supply evidence." And notice the "I do" here and its implications. Okay, you can demand evidentialism as a standard, which is fine, so long as you realize it's an assumed standard.

But if we follow this logic, without appealing to a basis of your standard (which by definition is outside itself), it's all caprice or authority.

Then you don't understand how science works. Theories and conclusions are always tentative. Always. Theories never become axioms.

No, I understand pretty well how science works. I just meant to say:

I disagree with your standing that we should only follow science without implementing into our worldview the idea that science can point to truth, even if this truth is tentative because of falsifiability. To limit yourself just to science as a means of ascertaining truth (without implementing it with, say, reason, or other truth-attaining means) would mean you technically can't know anything at all, given that falsifiability destroys the possibility of something ever with certainty being known as true.

And that's, to me at least, a problem.

 

[Received]

How I feel in this thread:

Interesting to read, though, keep it up!

 

[Davian]

...

No, I understand pretty well how science works. I just meant to say:

I disagree with your standing that we should only follow science without implementing into our worldview the idea that science can point to truth, even if this truth is tentative because of falsifiability. To limit yourself just to science as a means of ascertaining truth (without implementing it with, say, reason, or other truth-attaining means) would mean you technically can't know anything at all, given that falsifiability destroys the possibility of something ever with certainty being known as true.

Perhaps you should restate that to say that falsifiability destroys the possibility of something ever, with *absolute* certainty, being known as true.

Take the scientific theory of evolution; How much uncertainty do you think there is that one day there might be found fossilized rabbits in the precambrian?

And that's, to me at least, a problem.

Why is this a problem? What do you need to be shown as an absolute certainty?

 

[paul becke]

The immaterial mind is an emergent phenomenon of the brain's complex neurology. As such, there is no 'gap' to bridge, as the brain's mechanics are the mind.

But if you're assuming mind/body duality, then you need to prove that some mystical 'mind' exists separate and distinct from the physical body.

Read the second article by Pym van Lommel, on this blog:

The Bridge: A Science and Spirituality Resource: Mysticism