If the brain is necessary to have a vision

[Stopped_lurking]

But if monism is the idea that there is a single reality be it physical or mental.

Yes, a single reality be it physical or mental. Not two distinct substances.

Of course it fills a function. Just think of all the stuff that happens as a result of your mind. Or what you believe is your mind. Your free will and agency for one.

You cannot possible account for this with a physical ontology. The two are different categories let alone able to explain each other. In fact theres way more Mind ideas and realities in the world than physical reality to contend with that physical determinist reality cannot explain.

You can't explain this by saying the physical is the physical. Or describing the physical explains the mental. It doesn't work that way. There are no mind concepts in physical processes. Nor can physical things produce mind. Its impossible to do and you can't just assume this. Thats a belief.

Of course, I can. Mind is what the brain does, when the brain perceives itself. In what way is a model that includes a duality better? I know I have a body and brain, what is gained by positing a duality of mind and body?

This is just a philosophical position I find parsimonius.

 

[Ophiolite]

Using a flawed example does not negate the possibility. It just means a flawed example was used.

Come on! Really? If someone is so incompetent as to use a flawed example of their proposed phenomenon why should we have any regard for anything they may subsequently write about it that phenomenon?

I made this point in the last couple of hours - promoting an idea in a poorly evidenced way, while working on the basis that the the idea likely has validity is a foolish way to attempt to persuade. Rather it generates what we see in this thread: multiple attacks on your logic, your arguments, your lack of sound evidence, your pre-judgment and your haphazard writing.

Little of that, if any, is personal; rather, it reflects frustration at your persistence with this unproductive way of arguing your case.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You do realise that under the heading of Dualism there is an aweful lot of research and studies. If your counting anything that supports mind or consciousness beyond the physical brain or body.

I want a rigorous *quanitification* of that support. We've gone round and round where you post this random study or mention that dead physicist and it just doesn't satisfy the claim that support is widespread or growing. I've grown weary of claims to that effect with no backing. If we want to know if professional (academic) philosophers believe in free will or not we look to a survey of professional philosophers. All I want is something of that sort that backs any of your popularity claims.

 

[dlamberth]

You do realise that under the heading of Dualism there is an aweful lot of research and studies. If your counting anything that supports mind or consciousness beyond the physical brain or body.

As a person who is totally (and I mean as my total absolute reality) into the Mystical conscious awareness of the Dualism/Unity wisdom perspective, I can speak with full knowledge and experience that this IS NOT the stuff of science. There are numerous ways of approaching and studying this subject from the inner experiential perspective, but from what I can tell, science is not one of those ways. So any claims of scientific research, because of the nature of this subject, I take as clearly pseudoscience.

 

[stevevw]

As a person who is totally (and I mean as my total absolute reality) into the Mystical conscious awareness of the Dualism/Unity wisdom perspective, I can speak with full knowledge and experience that this IS NOT the stuff of science.

I know and that has been my point all along. So when people use methological naturalism (science method) to defeat the transcedent realities we all experience as unreal. They are expressing a belief and not science.

There are numerous ways of approaching and studying this subject from the inner experiential perspective, but from what I can tell, science is not one of those ways. So any claims of scientific research, because of the nature of this subject, I take as clearly pseudoscience.

Yes if its attempting to explain these experiences as the result of the physical then impose them on others its stepping over the line.

Science can play a role to some extent by ruling out certain things. For example that these experiences are the result of imaginings as a result of perhaps an overdose of anesthetics that can cause hallucinations, which are primarily attributed to the drugs interfering with the brain's normal communication pathways and neural oscillation patterns.

But when that is ruled out then its a different story. The same with all beliefs and experiences. Then we have to take a closer look at what is going on. Rather than claiming that no matter what this is all the result of some anomely that went wrong with the brain.

 

[Fervent]

This is just a philosophical position I find parsimonius.

Parsimony in a question like this is more about aesthetics than likelihood, so it's a rather arbitrary standard to use. Parsimony facilitates research, but it is far from a law of the universe and has no simple relationship with whether or not something is true.

 

[stevevw]

I want a rigorous *quanitification* of that support. We've gone round and round where you post this random study or mention that dead physicist and it just doesn't satisfy the claim that support is widespread or growing. I've grown weary of claims to that effect with no backing. If we want to know if professional (academic) philosophers believe in free will or not we look to a survey of professional philosophers. All I want is something of that sort that backs any of your popularity claims.

Ok so I just tried to post something and it would not let me. So I will start with a bit of the info.

Putting the U in quantum
A century after the birth of quantum mechanics, its puzzles are pushing physicists to redefine reality—with themselves at the center

https://www.science.org/content/article/100-years-quantum-mechanics-redefining-reality-us-center

 

[Fervent]

As a person who is totally (and I mean as my total absolute reality) into the Mystical conscious awareness of the Dualism/Unity wisdom perspective, I can speak with full knowledge and experience that this IS NOT the stuff of science. There are numerous ways of approaching and studying this subject from the inner experiential perspective, but from what I can tell, science is not one of those ways. So any claims of scientific research, because of the nature of this subject, I take as clearly pseudoscience.

Depends on what we mean by "science" and who is defining it. The demarcation problem is a pretty serious open question in the field of philosophy of science. If we mean "reducible to physics", then yeah it's outside of the bounds. If we mean it more in the general knowledge meaning than it isn't at all clear that it is outside the bounds of science, especially life science.

 

[stevevw]

Here some more I will post seperately

New Physics Experiment Indicates There’s No Objective Reality

New Physics Experiment Indicates There's No Objective Reality

Turns out, reality is at odds with itself.

interestingengineering.com

Why Is Science Growing Comfortable with Panpsychism (“Everything Is Conscious”)?

Why Is Science Growing Comfortable with Panpsychism (“Everything Is Conscious”)?

A recent article at New Scientist treats panpsychism as a serious idea in science.

mindmatters.ai

That will do for now.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Parsimony in a question like this is more about aesthetics than likelihood, so it's a rather arbitrary standard to use. Parsimony facilitates research, but it is far from a law of the universe and has no simple relationship with whether or not something is true.

Yes, I know, I just find positing a duality unnecessary.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Here some more I will post seperately

New Physics Experiment Indicates There’s No Objective Reality


Why Is Science Growing Comfortable with Panpsychism (“Everything Is Conscious”)?


That will do for now.

Where is the quantification of "popularity? Is this anything but anecdotes about a few scientists with "thoughts"?

 

[Hans Blaster]

From the "mindmatters" article:

"So why the thaw toward panpsychism over the past few years? Possibly, panpsychism offers a way to be a naturalist (nature is all there is) without the absurdities of physicalism (everything in nature must be physical)."

(That isn't scientific. It is a dogmatic choice. Hardly "evidence" for panspyspchism.)

But wait Mind Matters is published by the Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence a component of the psuedoscience organization "Discovery Institute".

 

[Shemjaza]

From the "mindmatters" article:

"So why the thaw toward panpsychism over the past few years? Possibly, panpsychism offers a way to be a naturalist (nature is all there is) without the absurdities of physicalism (everything in nature must be physical)."

(That isn't scientific. It is a dogmatic choice. Hardly "evidence" for panspyspchism.)

But wait Mind Matters is published by the Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence a component of the psuedoscience organization "Discovery Institute".

Personally I think calling DI a psuedoscience orginisation is giving them too much credit.

Their psuedoscience is in service to political and religious propaganda rather than an honest desire to investigate dualism or intelligent design from a neutral or secular perspective.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Personally I think calling DI a psuedoscience orginisation is giving them too much credit.

Their psuedoscience is in service to political and religious propaganda rather than an honest desire to investigate dualism or intelligent design from a neutral or secular perspective.

Maybe we have to relabel them an "ex-pseudoscience org" as they mostly given up pretending to do science and are a full time Christian culture wars organization, but in the open now.

 

[stevevw]

Where is the quantification of "popularity? Is this anything but anecdotes about a few scientists with "thoughts"?

No its much more than that.

Afterall what is it that we are talking about. Fundemental reality. Know one knows and so all the arguements and reasons for why Mind is a better fit for the observations are just as valif as any thought that matter is fundemental.

Otherwise show me the objective science that shows matter is the only reality.

Its popular because it provides a good fit and basis. Thats why its become popular. Did you ever consider that.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Here some more I will post seperately

New Physics Experiment Indicates There’s No Objective Reality

New Physics Experiment Indicates There's No Objective Reality

Turns out, reality is at odds with itself.

interestingengineering.com

Why Is Science Growing Comfortable with Panpsychism (“Everything Is Conscious”)?

Why Is Science Growing Comfortable with Panpsychism (“Everything Is Conscious”)?

A recent article at New Scientist treats panpsychism as a serious idea in science.

mindmatters.ai

That will do for now.

And none of this can oppose the fact that if a person does not have a brain, then they cannot have vision or any sense because they're dead!

 

[stevevw]

From the "mindmatters" article:

"So why the thaw toward panpsychism over the past few years? Possibly, panpsychism offers a way to be a naturalist (nature is all there is) without the absurdities of physicalism (everything in nature must be physical)."

(That isn't scientific. It is a dogmatic choice. Hardly "evidence" for panspyspchism.)

But wait Mind Matters is published by the Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence a component of the psuedoscience organization "Discovery Institute".

Damn it. I had three articles on that and decided to choose one to keep it simple as they all more or less said the same thing. Trust me to pick the wrong one.

Not that its wrong. But that it happened to be connected to a favorite punching bag of the skeptics lol. If I would have linked the other ones there would have been no such charges. See how fickle this is.

Anyway as to the thaw on panpsychism. Thats because it provides a better fit to observations. Ideas like panpsychism or Mind and Information being fundemental is that they are non deterministic. Like consciousness they transcend the physical boundaries.

They mimick what happens in the quantum world and thats why there is a growth in such ideas. But this was recognised from the start but dismissed. Pioneers of QM recognised the connection between conscious observers and the influence of the world. How even at the very bottom the electron displayed Mind like behaviour.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Otherwise show me the objective science that shows matter is the only reality.

Show the objective science that there's more than matter.

 

[stevevw]

And none of this can oppose the fact that if a person does not have a brain, then they cannot have vision or any sense because they're dead!

You mean just like if someone does not have a radio box they cannot tune in to the radio signals out there in the universe. Not in the radio box.

Why cannot it be that the physical brain is some kind of reciever that allows consciousness. But that consciousness prevades the universe. So its not necessarily confined in peoples heads. The brain is the reciever and just like a radio reciever if it iis damages the signal gets distorted. If its completely gone the signal is lost.

But it seems from the direct experiences of many who have these visions beyond normal everyday visions or consciousness beyond the physical brain. That like radio signals consciousness prevades the universe outside the physical brain as well. For people to be able to experience such out of normal body senses.

It then becomes a case of whether one believes such things. The experiencer swears black and blue it was real and not a dream or imagination. Just as much as they would swear that there in a physical sun in the sky.

Material science and skeptics will say its imagination and delusion. So what then. What sort of test can we use to find the truth either way.

 

[stevevw]

Show the objective science that there's more than matter.

After you show the objective science that there is only matter lol.