If the brain is necessary to have a vision

[Hans Blaster]

Is that Post Death Experiences. That would have to be included in the analysis yes. As there would need to be a destinction made between the differences of cognition and experiences from the traumatic affects to the experiences that were not.

Each would have a different affect on the brain and post death cognition and behaviour. As related to the visions or real experiences the person went through and how it was expresssed.

Partial Differential Equations. It's how science is done.

 

[stevevw]

Partial Differential Equations. It's how science is done.

Ok but this is still dealing with space and time according to the standard model. Its still about particles, forces and fields within the causal closure of the physical. This tells us nothing about the nature of what is being described.

Its like the neural correlates of consciousness (NCC) which can map out the brain activity of experiences. We can know all about the firing of electrical signals, the chemical reactions, the forces and fields within which these physical activities operate and effect.

But none of that tells us anything about its fundemental nature. It all may be an illusion of some sort that you think is real. Or it may be just one aspect of reality, like a surface reflection of something deeper.

So to take the descriptions of the physical processes and activity that science measures and then claim this ontology represents reality is more than science. Its a belief.

 

[Larniavc]

Its a belief.

No it isn’t. It’s practical. The opposite of belief.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm so confused by what's going on here now.

Are we honestly getting people arguing that the brain is not need to live? That the brain is not need for the body to function?

 

[stevevw]

No it isn’t. It’s practical. The opposite of belief.

Your missing the point. Yes methological naturalism and empiricle science is practical in capturing certain aspects of what is happening. Such as the physical processes that occur with an experience or NDE.

But thats it. That ain't everything. Thats just the numbers, the cold hard facts. It tells us nothing about the nature of that experience or behaviour. You have to ask the experiencer that and its the only way to find out.

So material science is only practicial for measuring one aspect of reality. Its no good at measuring the qualitative aspects of reality like conscious experiences which includes phenomenal beliefs. Which are every bit as real as the solid objects around us. Just a different dimension of stuff.

To assume that material science is the only way to measure such phenomena is itself a belief. Its when you take material science and make it the only way to understand the world that it becomes a belief.

You can say empiricle science tells us so much about these phenomena (only the physical description) but not everything. It does not mean that reality is only physical. It just means methological naturalism can only measure one part of it and knows nothing about the rest of what makes up reality. Or fundemental reality.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

To assume that material science is the only way to measure such phenomena is itself a belief. Its when you take material science and make it the only way to understand the world that it becomes a belief.

So present a way to measure the metaphysical then. Present a way to measure the non-material. Do the leg work instead of just saying "Oh, it's just a belief!".

Because it's not a belief. It's a methodology that works and is usable. The claim that we should look at things beyond the natural and the physical is a belief from you.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT


This thread had a small clean up. Please remember that the Statement of Purpose for this forum includes:

Do not flame other views. Christianity cannot be called a myth, and science cannot be called a religion or made up.​

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ok but this is still dealing with space and time according to the standard model. Its still about particles, forces and fields within the causal closure of the physical. This tells us nothing about the nature of what is being described.

Its like the neural correlates of consciousness (NCC) which can map out the brain activity of experiences. We can know all about the firing of electrical signals, the chemical reactions, the forces and fields within which these physical activities operate and effect.

But none of that tells us anything about its fundemental nature. It all may be an illusion of some sort that you think is real. Or it may be just one aspect of reality, like a surface reflection of something deeper.

So to take the descriptions of the physical processes and activity that science measures and then claim this ontology represents reality is more than science. Its a belief.

None of which is about partial differential equations.

 

[partinobodycular]

So to take the descriptions of the physical processes and activity that science measures and then claim this ontology represents reality is more than science. Its a belief.

That's because it DOES represent reality.

As a solipsist I've long accepted that the only things that I can be absolutely certain of are the things that I can directly measure, or are the discernible consequences or causes of the things that I can measure.

There may in fact be lots of things that exist outside of that paradigm, and for which I don't have, and may never have, any direct interaction.

But by necessity, my reality consists of those things which directly follow from what I can measure.

NOTHING that fails to conform to that paradigm can be deemed to be reality. That doesn't mean that it can't be accepted on faith, nor that it doesn't exist. It just means that it's not part of reality as it's relative to me.

 

[stevevw]

That's because it DOES represent reality.

It represents a part of reality and not complete reality. Do you understand the difference. First off what is reality lol. Are you saying fundemental reality is physical. That everything is physical and has a physical cause.

As a solipsist I've long accepted that the only things that I can be absolutely certain of are the things that I can directly measure, or are the discernible consequences or causes of the things that I can measure.

So you can measure the physical act of love. Is love the result of the physical processes in the body. Does that completely explain experiences like love and happiness and music.

Is the experience of music the result of the physical wave vibrations of a string. How do you measure it. Do you measure the vibrations of the string or the brain activity. Does that tell us about the experience of that music. Tell me what is the physical aspect we can measure.

There may in fact be lots of things that exist outside of that paradigm, and for which I don't have, and may never have, any direct interaction.

First there are lots and perhaps even more things that occur outside the paradigm of the causal closure of the physical. Second you literally said above that the (physical) is the only reality. Is the fundemental ontology for all reality. Meaning all phenomena, thats everything including experiences and all the transcedent phenemena is caused by the physical.

Now your admitting that there are phenemena, some you may have interacted with and other that may possibly be real exist in another paradigm as far as the ultimately nature of reality is concerned. Like I said what is fundemental reality. Many say it is Mind which is certainly not physical.

But by necessity, my reality consists of those things which directly follow from what I can measure.

Like I said you can measure stuff that is not physical. You know when someone is in love. In fact the entire Mind sciences are premised off humans having a non physical psyche that can control the physical. So mind over matter.

There are many other aspects. In some ways the Mind itself or consciousness is a reality beyond the physical. You can't find the experiences of say a glowing burnt orange sunset somewhere in the snapes and neurons of the brain. Its not a physical thing. Yet its real, it moves people, inspires them and changes the world in many ways as a result of those experiences.

Hate and greed have destroyed the physical world in many ways. Is that not reality. Or are you sying some how brain neurons turned nasty and began to destroy things lol.

NOTHING that fails to conform to that paradigm can be deemed to be reality. That doesn't mean that it can't be accepted on faith, nor that it doesn't exist. It just means that it's not part of reality as it's relative to me.

How do you know though. Have you stepped outside your own mind to check. Is not this all in your head. The concepts and paradigms you make, are they not in your head. How do you know we are not a brain in a vat or in some simulation.

That what we see is just a surface reflection and not actually physical. Just vibrating bits of energy sparkling in the light. Afterall its all just empty space when we get down to the fundemental reality.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It represents a part of reality and not complete reality. Do you understand the difference. First off what is reality lol. Are you saying fundemental reality is physical. That everything is physical and has a physical cause.

If you don't know what reality is, I'm not sure how anyone can have conversation with you.

So you can measure the physical act of love. Is love the result of the physical processes in the body. Does that completely explain experiences like love and happiness and music.

There was an American scientist that got rather famous for measuring it. I think his name was Kinsey. Go read his works to find out what he found.

Is the experience of music the result of the physical wave vibrations of a string. How do you measure it. Do you measure the vibrations of the string or the brain activity. Does that tell us about the experience of that music. Tell me what is the physical aspect we can measure.

These are category errors. The "experience of music" occurs in the brain. The brain does not consist of vibrating strings. If you want to know about the perception of sound and music go find a popular text on the subject and come back to us.

 

[stevevw]

If you don't know what reality is, I'm not sure how anyone can have conversation with you.

I know what it is. I am asking whether the other poster knew what reality was. What do you say.

There was an American scientist that got rather famous for measuring it. I think his name was Kinsey. Go read his works to find out what he found.



These are category errors. The "experience of music" occurs in the brain. The brain does not consist of vibrating strings. If you want to know about the perception of sound and music go find a popular text on the subject and come back to us.

Sorry this was an attempt to reply and I did a test to see if it worked. Now it won't let me edit this.

Test

Lets try pasting the first section.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I know what it is. I am asking whether

Sorry this was an attempt to reply and I did a test to see if it worked. Now it won't let me edit this.

Test

The board is a mess. I'm not even trying the 'fancy' replies any more.

 

[stevevw]

The board is a mess. I'm not even trying the 'fancy' replies any more.

Yes I just tried to reply to the second section and it would not let me. Then I could not even edit and had to reload the page.

 

[partinobodycular]

It represents a part of reality and not complete reality.

Speaking as a solipsist. Without evidence to support it, that claim has no merit. Until you can grasp that concept, and the reasoning behind it, followup questions will simply be ignored, because answering them would be unproductive. If you would legitimately like to continue this discussion than please demonstrate that you understand the concept behind epistemological solipsism.

 

[stevevw]

Speaking as a solipsist. Without evidence to support it, that claim has no merit. Until you can grasp that concept, and the reasoning behind it, followup questions will simply be ignored, because answering them would be unproductive. If you would legitimately like to continue this discussion than please demonstrate that you understand the concept behind epistemological solipsism.

Ok so what sort of evidence would you require. By what measure should we use to determine non physical realities. Or are you saying there is only one way which is the causual closure of the physical.

I thought the Mind/Body divide was well established. Even Galileo made a fundamental distinction between the primary qualities of objects (such as shape, size, motion, and number), which he considered objective and measurable, and the qualititative aspects of Mind such as smells, taste, color, and sound ect, which he viewed as subjective sensations of the observer's consciousness or Mind.

Two destinct aspects of reality. In fact there is a growing trend towards consciousness and Mind beyond the physical brain as the ultimate fundemental reality. That is is mind that creates the so called physical world.

Are you saying the non physical stuff like conscious experiences of the world are somehow not real or can have any influence on the world and even physical reality.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Ok so what sort of evidence would you require. By what measure should we use to determine non physical realities. Or are you saying there is only one way which is the causual closure of the physical.

I thought the Mind/Body divide was well established. Even Galileo made a fundamental distinction between the primary qualities of objects (such as shape, size, motion, and number), which he considered objective and measurable, and the qualititative aspects of Mind such as smells, taste, color, and sound ect, which he viewed as subjective sensations of the observer's consciousness or Mind.

Two destinct aspects of reality. In fact there is a growing trend towards consciousness and Mind beyond the physical brain as the ultimate fundemental reality. That is is mind that creates the so called physical world.

Are you saying the non physical stuff like conscious experiences of the world are somehow not real or can have any influence on the world and even physical reality.

The mind-body division (or dualism) is not established at all (it is a philosophical concept, what would it even mean for it to be established? Free from internal contradiction?). Monism have been around for a long time.

Sensations being in the mind doesn't contradict monism, if mind is seen as part of the whole.

Why are we discussing this in this sub-forum? This is not physical science or life science.

 

[Larniavc]

I'm so confused by what's going on here now.

Are we honestly getting people arguing that the brain is not need to live? That the brain is not need for the body to function?

Yes. This is what some people actually think. It’s the same ignorance of ‘how the world works’ that leads to flat Earthers.

 

[stevevw]

The mind-body division (or dualism) is not established at all (it is a philosophical concept, what would it even mean for it to be established? Free from internal contradiction?). Monism have been around for a long time.

Its established because its been acknowledged as existing. We just don't know what it is or how to measure it. But to say it has not been established is like saying consciousness or Mind or the self or agency has not been established. Its as real as we live it and experience it as real.

Sensations being in the mind doesn't contradict monism, if mind is seen as part of the whole.

Yes only if you take that worldview belief. But thats an assumption based on a metaphysical belief and not science itself. Can you get outside your mind to check if all there is is the physical brain and no mind beyond that brain.

By the same token this does not contradict that the monism you believe that is all physical fundementally. May be the exact opposite where Mind is fundemental and creates what we think is the physical. It works both ways. I am open to both ways. Are you.

In fact of both possibilities is is more reasonable to say that Mind is fundemental because it is mind that is what is creating all the ideas and so called realities. The only think we can truely say is real is our own minds which directly tell us whats happening. All else is an assumption.

Why are we discussing this in this sub-forum? This is not physical science or life science.

I guess because the OP opens the door for such ideas. How can anyone have vision without the physical brain. The OP asks whether the physical brain is necessary to have vision. I guess that comes under science.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I guess because the OP opens the door for such ideas. How can anyone have vision without the physical brain. The OP asks whether the physical brain is necessary to have vision. I guess that comes under science.

And the question the OP asks fails because no child without a brain lives into adulthood and his example is heavily cherry picked.