Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
They are obviously located in my brain. All my thoughts have occurred at the same location inhabited by my brain. What do you mean?
Ok, what non-mechanistic explanations then?
Oh? How did you determine this? Cause it's certainly not obvious to me that mental events are all spatially located in the brain. So how is it obvious?
Causal efficacy of thoughts.
There have never been a thought in some other place where my brain isn't that I would call mine. Have you, that would be interesting?
How is this better explained by dualism than monism? Is this even an explanation?
I don't generally have the ability to locate thoughts, certainly not to a particular body part. But your response isn't an answer to my question, it's a deflection.
Because dualism allows for direct causation and being non-physical wouldn't be confined by physical conservation laws, while monism requires a mechanistic explanation not only from mental state to mental state but also from brain state to mental state and from brain state to brain state all while avoiding violating conservation laws.
So here is the direct answer. To me my thoughts and brain always co-inhabit the same space, in the sense when I answer the question "where were you when having this or that thought?" the position is that of my brain.
It would still be confined by conservation laws if it interacts with the physical. Otherwise we could use it to generate a net energy just by thinking. That would be cool.
Not all monists are physicalists, and I think they would just say that consciousness is an epiphenomenon. There are russellian (neutral) monists, they would to my understanding say that mind and body is two perspectives of the same thing. Idealistic monists would say that it is the physical that is a epiphenomenon of the mental.
That isn't an answer to my question, which is how you determined your thoughts reside in your brain. You claim its obvious, which leads me to beleve you've never regarded the belief with skepticism
Nope, it wouldn't have to conform to physical laws because it is non-physical. It is only if we presume a physicality to it and try to treat it as ersatz physical that conservation comes into play.
Sure, and saying it is an epiphenomenon is to deny causal efficacy. It's an absurd position that only becomes tenable if we pretend that the external "mind-independent" world is epistemically fundamental. But doing so undermines any reasoning that brought them to that point. Calling it epiphenomenal is saying that it only appears to be causally effective, but is actually causally inert. So it isn't an explanation, it's a denial.
I am saying they aren't quantitative. The "increase" that is implied in some articles, but I've seen no numbers offered.
They always are at the same space. That makes it obvious. When I lose body parts other than my head (I haven't actually tried that one) I don't feel any loss of self, if you were thinking it resided in my feet or hands.
Yep, if it has physical effects it have to confirm to physical laws. Perhaps you don't believe it has physical effects? But then I wonder in what sense your mean casual.
They would say the cause is the brain states, that is no less of an explanation than positing a dualistic world.
What is the the proposed dualistic mind substance that can interact with the physical and not conform to physical laws?
Let's reformulate to that they see the physical as an manifestation of the mental.
I did provide them. Why did you home in on the DI one when there were others.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
I can get some more mainstream scientific articles including peer review that clearly states otherwise.
Lol first you say that the study of alternative ideas for consciousness beyond brain is just a fringe psuedoscience. Then when I clearly show that its becoming more mainstream you retreat into the articles not being about the increase in ideas about consciousness beyond brain.
I have checks and there are none. Even Ai states this. So I have provided the next best thing in several peer reviewed papers which repeat the findings which is good science.
Does it matter. If everyone is acknowledging theres an increase then we can safely say that is the case. Otherwise find stats that show it has not increased. How about that. Otherwise accept the next best thing. You continually demand peer review. Well I gave you ample peer review.
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
I have no reason to trust any "AI". On top of that it just returned pablum. (As the usually do)
Research on Experiences Related to the Possibility of Consciousness Beyond the Brain: A Bibliometric Analysis of Global Scientific Output
Over the decades, there was an evident increase in the number of articles on all the areas of the field, with the exception of studies on mediumship that showed a decline during the late 20th century and subsequent rise in the early 21st century.
Research on Experiences Related to the Possibility of Consciousness Beyond the Brain: A Bibliometric Analysis of Global Scientific Output - PubMed
This study aims to conduct a search of publications investigating experiences commonly associated with the possibility of the existence of a consciousness independent of the brain held on the main scientific databases (Pubmed, Web of Knowledge, PsycINFO, Science Direct, and Scopus). Of the 9065...
I have looked and there is no place where you can get stats showing the increase in the study of ideas associated with consciousness beyond brain.
The next best thing is peer review and I have now listed several that clearly state there has been an increase in openness to alternative ideas for non local consciousness.
So far your collection of actually on-topic papers and articles (from the last several threads on the topic) only suggest it is a very niche area of study with few researchers involved.
Then there are none and the "more and more popular in mainstream science" type claims are not demonstrated.
We cannot. Magazine editors and fanatics are not sufficient.
Not how this works.
Of stats, nope. But keep hope alive.
When that happens we can talk.
I can't help you with longitudinal data about views about consciousness directly. However, the idea that dualism is the majority idea among those who work with it seems to be faulty.
Actually I think this is the survey I was looking for years ago. Its the only one I have found. But this is not about whether there has been an increase in the study of ideas supporting consciousness beyond brain.
No, sadly there is no longitudinal data on that particular question.
It shows that a mind-body divide haven't been established, as you expressed in post #36. Also they asked philosophers generally, not only those who work in theory of mind. You can see their specific results by using filters in the link.
In theory, if we are talking about supernatural visions, then I would say a vision from God is possible under any circumstances. Philosophically, God would only give someone a vision if it was for their own personal use, or if he wanted them to communicate that vision to someone for a specific reason. In the latter, that would have to include a reason God did not want to give the recipient of the message the vision personally.
