Captain Metaphysics and the Metaphysicaters

[KCfromNC]

All lightbulbs have electricity, so does that means only lightblubs have electricity in them?

No, we observe electricity in lots of other environments. Why do you ask?

All brains have consciousness (not that we can test that), so does that mean only brains have consciousness?

The first claim is wrong - lots of brains are unconscious. But the latter claim is consistent with all the observations we've ever made of consciousness. So until we have a reason to think otherwise, that seems like a good working conclusion.

Why would that mean a brain would have to be part of the definition?

It comes from the definition of mental states.

Or that their nature is to be some sort of consciousness substance. Why does it sound like that to you?

Because there are lots of configurations of particles which aren't conscious, so there doesn't seem to be an inevitable connection between being a particle and being conscious.

People don't generally talk about biology in terms of basic physics. Most dictionaries wouldn't define a chair in terms of neutrons, protons and elections. That doesn't mean that chairs aren't made of those particles though.

I'll take that as a no, you can't find any cases where the words are used as synonyms.

So do you disagree that life is just particles acting on the same basic principles as non-life? That life is pretty much just different sorts of movement from non-life?

Leading questions ask what?

You know that I 100% agree that consciousness is in the brain right? And I'm not saying that particles have minds. Also, it's not as if we can directly test for consciousness. I have no way of know if anyone else is definitely conscious.

Really? You seriously don't believe and act as if other people have thoughts and feelings? A well developed (overactive?) theory of mind is one of the things which separates primate brains from most others so I'm surprised to hear that you don't at least have some indication that others have conscious thoughts.

It wouldn't be correct to think that electricity can only exist in lightning, if you had only ever seen it in lightning.

Why not? Sure, we have lots of theoretical support for that idea now but that's all based on the observation of electricity in various forms and locations. Exclude all that and you've removed any justification for thinking that lightning exists in places it has never been theorized or observed to be.

I'm not claiming to be the genius who will solve the problem. I'm just saying that we shouldn't discount this explanation.

What does this "explanation" explain, exactly?

I think everyone who works in brain science would disagree that we have it figured out.

Never said it was completely figured out. I just said we have a number of different ways of determining consciousness from unconsciousness.

You can't just assume that if X correlates with Y, then Y is nothing more than X, and will only occur with X.

Yep, which is why we should be open to the angry demon "explanation" of illnesses. Sure, there's that pesky overwhelming correlation between germs and disease. But just because there's a 100% correlation, research and theoretical backing connecting the two doesn't mean we should assume that there's nothing more than disease there and rule out other valid "explanations". After all, it is entirely possible that there's more to it that then thing we always observe as a cause so we need to be open to demons being involved.

 

[Paradoxum]

No, we observe electricity in lots of other environments. Why do you ask?

Which shows that your previous argument is wrong. It's wrong to assume that if X has Y, then only X has Y.

The first claim is wrong - lots of brains are unconscious. But the latter claim is consistent with all the observations we've ever made of consciousness. So until we have a reason to think otherwise, that seems like a good working conclusion.

We have never made any observations of other people's consciousness.

Assuming that only what you have seen exists is okay for everyday life, but not a good thing to assume when you are at the edge of modern science. You have to consider all options.

It comes from the definition of mental states.

I wouldn't say that the definition of mental states would have to include a brain.

Because there are lots of configurations of particles which aren't conscious, so there doesn't seem to be an inevitable connection between being a particle and being conscious.

How do you know that lots of configurations of particles aren't conscious in some sense. And by concious I don't mean that they are beings with minds.

I'll take that as a no, you can't find any cases where the words are used as synonyms.

I haven't looked. It's irrelevant whether the words are used as synonymous, as long as the point I'm making is correct.

As I said, a dictionary probably wont say that a chair is a structure of protons, neutrons, and elections, but if you know science then you know that's what chairs are.

Leading questions ask what?

It's not a leading question. I was just asking if you disagreed, because you seemed to disagree before.

Really? You seriously don't believe and act as if other people have thoughts and feelings? A well developed (overactive?) theory of mind is one of the things which separates primate brains from most others so I'm surprised to hear that you don't at least have some indication that others have conscious thoughts.

I do act as if other people have conscious minds. I said we don't definitely know that to be true though.

Why not? Sure, we have lots of theoretical support for that idea now but that's all based on the observation of electricity in various forms and locations. Exclude all that and you've removed any justification for thinking that lightning exists in places it has never been theorized or observed to be.

Without evidence of electricity outside of lightning, it would still be wrong to assume that lightning is the only electricity. It's narrow-minded and is likely to keep you away from the truth.

Yep, which is why we should be open to the angry demon "explanation" of illnesses. Sure, there's that pesky overwhelming correlation between germs and disease. But just because there's a 100% correlation, research and theoretical backing connecting the two doesn't mean we should assume that there's nothing more than disease there and rule out other valid "explanations". After all, it is entirely possible that there's more to it that then thing we always observe as a cause so we need to be open to demons being involved.

Germ theory isn't just correlation, we also know how germs can affect the body. We have the how. We don't have the how for how the brain creates consciousness. So for that reason I wouldn't say it's a good analogy.

And you know I agree that the brain is involved in consciousness? So what is your analogy related to? I'm not disagreeing that the 100% correlation is significant, and the consciousness is in the brain.

 

[KCfromNC]

Which shows that your previous argument is wrong. It's wrong to assume that if X has Y, then only X has Y.

I have no idea what connection you're trying to make. Are you saying that we have no observational evidence of electricity in things other than light bulbs? Or that evidence of things is not a good way to distinguish between them being real or not? I can't make head or tails of what you think you're demonstrating here. You'll have to be specific in what X and Y stand for and how that relates to anything I've said.

We have never made any observations of other people's consciousness.

Sure we have. Doctors do it all the time. Granted you can't stick your head in someone else's brain and see it, but we can't see x-rays either and we observe them all the time.

Assuming that only what you have seen exists is okay for everyday life, but not a good thing to assume when you are at the edge of modern science. You have to consider all options.

Have you considered that Leprechauns' pots of gold are the source of rainbows? You have to consider all options and all that, you know. Just because all of the rainbows we know of are created by light refracted by water vapor doesn't mean that's the only way that they are created.

I wouldn't say that the definition of mental states would have to include a brain.

What things without brains have mental states, and how do you plan to demonstrate that fact?

How do you know that lots of configurations of particles aren't conscious in some sense. And by concious I don't mean that they are beings with minds.

The complete lack of evidence of disembodied consciousnesses and the fact that the idea contradicts everything we know about how reality works. The same reason you know there isn't a Santa Claus, for example.

I do act as if other people have conscious minds. I said we don't definitely know that to be true though.

Solipsism, anyone? When did 100% certainty become a standard for knowledge?

Without evidence of electricity outside of lightning, it would still be wrong to assume that lightning is the only electricity.

I never said anything about making assumptions, so I have no idea where this is coming from.

Germ theory isn't just correlation, we also know how germs can affect the body. We have the how.

So? The how is just another 100% consistent correlation. Remember your claim about using those to come to conclusions :

It's narrow-minded and is likely to keep you away from the truth.

So by your claims, you'd better not be ruling out angry spirits as a possible cause of disease regardless of the complete lack of evidence and better competing explanations. Or if you do, you can understand why people like me don't take claims of "maybe there's something more to consciousness that's hiding from us" very seriously.

 

[Paradoxum]

I have no idea what connection you're trying to make. Are you saying that we have no observational evidence of electricity in things other than light bulbs? Or that evidence of things is not a good way to distinguish between them being real or not?

Nope, I'm not saying that. I'm not sure how you'd draw that from my X,Y statement.

I can't make head or tails of what you think you're demonstrating here. You'll have to be specific in what X and Y stand for and how that relates to anything I've said.

X and Y aren't meant to be specific, they are meant to apply to all things.

I was trying to show how something you said was wrong. But it's too much effort to go back and find your exact wording I was disagreeing.

The point I was making isn't that important now.

Sure we have. Doctors do it all the time. Granted you can't stick your head in someone else's brain and see it, but we can't see x-rays either and we observe them all the time.

Instruments can directly detect x-rays... they can't directly detect consciousness.

Have you considered that Leprechauns' pots of gold are the source of rainbows?

Well we know how rainbows are made, and we don't know if Leprechauns do (probably not). You would have a better analogy if you picked something we didn't understand.

You have to consider all options and all that, you know. Just because all of the rainbows we know of are created by light refracted by water vapor doesn't mean that's the only way that they are created.

Well maybe rainbows can be created in other ways (not necessarily the Leprechaun way ).

And again, when talking about consciousness we are talking about the edge of science... things that might require us to change our thinking. We understand rainbows.

By the way, before quantum physics was proven by experiments or a full mathematical theory, would you have compared quantum physics to Leprechauns? Quantum physics is even more counter to common sense than what I'me saying.

What things without brains have mental states, and how do you plan to demonstrate that fact?

I'm saying particles might. I don't plan to demonstrate it because I'm just putting forward a possible very basic hypothesis. I'm not saying the hypothesis is proven.

The complete lack of evidence of disembodied consciousnesses and the fact that the idea contradicts everything we know about how reality works. The same reason you know there isn't a Santa Claus, for example.

Everything was consistent with classical physics for a long time, and quantum physics did contradict everything we knew about reality.

I agree we have no evidence of consciousness outside of brains, but IF it were there, we probably wouldn't know yet anyway. We likely don't have instruments which can detect such things.

Solipsism, anyone? When did 100% certainty become a standard for knowledge?

People disagree what the standard of knowledge is. My point is just that I don't think consciousness is such a clearly understood thing, like you seem to imply.

Consider this. Imagine there were silicon based (rather than carbon based) aliens who had 'brains' that work totally different from ours. Would they be able to know if humans were conscious?

If they examined the brain, could they not conclude that we might just be carbon robots, without internal thoughts and feelings?

So? The how is just another 100% consistent correlation. Remember your claim about using those to come to conclusions :

I'm not sure what your saying here. I think you might have missed out a word.

So by your claims, you'd better not be ruling out angry spirits as a possible cause of disease regardless of the complete lack of evidence and better competing explanations. Or if you do, you can understand why people like me don't take claims of "maybe there's something more to consciousness that's hiding from us" very seriously.

I don't see why you equate angry demons with what I'm saying. We have no evidence of any demons. We do know that consciousness exists, and I'm saying more consciousness might be the answer. I'm just using what we already know exists.

I don't see how what I'm saying is any weirder than quantum physics.

 

[TillICollapse]

And again, when talking about consciousness we are talking about things that might require us to change our thinking.

Nice play on words

 

[TillICollapse]

Nope, I'm not saying that. I'm not sure how you'd draw that from my X,Y statement.



X and Y aren't meant to be specific, they are meant to apply to all things.

I was trying to show how something you said was wrong. But it's too much effort to go back and find your exact wording I was disagreeing.

The point I was making isn't that important now.



Instruments can directly detect x-rays... they can't directly detect consciousness.



Well we know how rainbows are made, and we don't know if Leprechauns do (probably not). You would have a better analogy if you picked something we didn't understand.



Well maybe rainbows can be created in other ways (not necessarily the Leprechaun way ).

And again, when talking about consciousness we are talking about the edge of science... things that might require us to change our thinking. We understand rainbows.

By the way, before quantum physics was proven by experiments or a full mathematical theory, would you have compared quantum physics to Leprechauns? Quantum physics is even more counter to common sense than what I'me saying.



I'm saying particles might. I don't plan to demonstrate it because I'm just putting forward a possible very basic hypothesis. I'm not saying the hypothesis is proven.



Everything was consistent with classical physics for a long time, and quantum physics did contradict everything we knew about reality.

I agree we have no evidence of consciousness outside of brains, but IF it were there, we probably wouldn't know yet anyway. We likely don't have instruments which can detect such things.



People disagree what the standard of knowledge is. My point is just that I don't think consciousness is such a clearly understood thing, like you seem to imply.

Consider this. Imagine there were silicon based (rather than carbon based) aliens who had 'brains' that work totally different from ours. Would they be able to know if humans were conscious?

If they examined the brain, could they not conclude that we might just be carbon robots, without internal thoughts and feelings?



I'm not sure what your saying here. I think you might have missed out a word.



I don't see why you equate angry demons with what I'm saying. We have no evidence of any demons. We do know that consciousness exists, and I'm saying more consciousness might be the answer. I'm just using what we already know exists.

I don't see how what I'm saying is any weirder than quantum physics.

Concerning whether or not consciousness exists in things without brains (basically) ...

I'm reminded of the Omega Point concept, as well as Class IV and V civilizations (on the Kardashev scale). Basically, an entity may be so complex and efficient that we wouldn't be able to distinguish it from nature itself, or some other system we assumed had no will or intent inherent to it. In such a case, it's not that something would be so advanced that it would appear as magic ... it would be so advanced, or complex, to the degree that we would mistake it for "everyday things", so to speak. We could be dealing with it all the time and not be aware.

Similarly, I'm reminded of an article I read a couple of years ago in one of the Science mags, about the Default Mode Network of the brain, and how more and more scientists were finding evidence that, what they had previously thought was unused potential just sitting there in parts of our brain like background noise, was actually a complicated intelligence system responsible for much of our thinking in ways we were not even aware of. I can't remember the specifics (and the view may have changed since then of course) ... but the idea was basically that our self awareness, focused thought, and recognition of our own consciousness wasn't actually the epitome of our brain function. It was actually a concert of other functions going on, which were more intelligent essentially. IOW, the stuff we recognized as "auto pilot" was actually more intelligent, efficient, and responsible for our choices and actions than we were aware of. Kind of like, our own self awareness was in it's own room in a huge house and it simply wasn't aware of the other occupants influencing everything around it. I think running with that idea gives way to some interesting ramifications of how we understand intelligence in complex living systems, and thus, attributes like self-awareness and how important they really even are to such a system. Are they an upgrade or a detriment, IOW.

 

[KCfromNC]

Instruments can directly detect x-rays... they can't directly detect consciousness.

A search for "fMRI consciousness" turns up an awful lot of peer-reviewed papers.

By the way, before quantum physics was proven by experiments

No theory is proven by experiments in the way you were using the word previously. They're simply consistent with the overwhelming amount of evidence and not contradicted by anything we can observe. Kind of like the idea that mind is simply something the physical processes of the brain does.

I'm saying particles might. I don't plan to demonstrate it because I'm just putting forward a possible very basic hypothesis. I'm not saying the hypothesis is proven.

Unless you can tell me what your idea predicts or explains, I'm not even sure it is a hypothesis.

Everything was consistent with classical physics for a long time, and quantum physics did contradict everything we knew about reality.

Not at all - QM explained lots of observations. What observations are causing you to propose whatever it is your idea is proposing?

I agree we have no evidence of consciousness outside of brains, but IF it were there, we probably wouldn't know yet anyway. We likely don't have instruments which can detect such things.

So basically you're saying that we should consider it a possibility because there's no evidence for it and we have no idea what it might be? That seems a bit backwards to me.

People disagree what the standard of knowledge is. My point is just that I don't think consciousness is such a clearly understood thing, like you seem to imply.

A lack of complete understanding isn't license to start making up magic about a subject.

Consider this. Imagine there were silicon based (rather than carbon based) aliens who had 'brains' that work totally different from ours. Would they be able to know if humans were conscious?

If they examined the brain, could they not conclude that we might just be carbon robots, without internal thoughts and feelings?

I have absolutely no idea, and more importantly, neither could anyone else. What's the point of asking, other than to observe people's unintentional bias about the subject?

I'm not sure what your saying here. I think you might have missed out a word.

Not at all. You said we've showed "how" something works, but that "how" is simply a summary of a set of 100% consistent correlations. The problem is you seem to be conflicted over whether we can draw conclusions based on these 100% consistent correlations. It seems the basic idea is that we can and should - except for the case of consciousness.

I don't see why you equate angry demons with what I'm saying. We have no evidence of any demons.

That's exactly why I'm equating the two. This is exactly the same amount of evidence for disembodied consciousnesses or for particles being proto-conscious or whatever.

 

[Paradoxum]

That's exactly why I'm equating the two. This is exactly the same amount of evidence for disembodied consciousnesses or for particles being proto-conscious or whatever.

Shall we just agree to disagree? I think you're being narrow-minded, and you think I'm talking about magic.

 

[Paradoxum]

Nice play on words

I didn't do it on purpose.

Concerning whether or not consciousness exists in things without brains (basically) ...

I'm reminded of the Omega Point concept, as well as Class IV and V civilizations (on the Kardashev scale). Basically, an entity may be so complex and efficient that we wouldn't be able to distinguish it from nature itself, or some other system we assumed had no will or intent inherent to it. In such a case, it's not that something would be so advanced that it would appear as magic ... it would be so advanced, or complex, to the degree that we would mistake it for "everyday things", so to speak. We could be dealing with it all the time and not be aware.

Similarly, I'm reminded of an article I read a couple of years ago in one of the Science mags, about the Default Mode Network of the brain, and how more and more scientists were finding evidence that, what they had previously thought was unused potential just sitting there in parts of our brain like background noise, was actually a complicated intelligence system responsible for much of our thinking in ways we were not even aware of. I can't remember the specifics (and the view may have changed since then of course) ... but the idea was basically that our self awareness, focused thought, and recognition of our own consciousness wasn't actually the epitome of our brain function. It was actually a concert of other functions going on, which were more intelligent essentially. IOW, the stuff we recognized as "auto pilot" was actually more intelligent, efficient, and responsible for our choices and actions than we were aware of. Kind of like, our own self awareness was in it's own room in a huge house and it simply wasn't aware of the other occupants influencing everything around it. I think running with that idea gives way to some interesting ramifications of how we understand intelligence in complex living systems, and thus, attributes like self-awareness and how important they really even are to such a system. Are they an upgrade or a detriment, IOW.

Interesting stuff.

 

[lesliedellow]

Captain Metaphysics and the Ghost in the Machine - Existential Comics

Which, of any, of the philosophers do you think is closest to your views? Do you agree with any of the conclusions drawn at the end of the comic? How do you solve the mind-body problem? Will this become a Saturday morning cartoon?


eudaimonia,

Mark

I don't solve the mind body problem, and I do not believe that anybody else has a clue how to solve it either.

 

[Percivale]

There is actually some evidence of consciousness without brains, in the many testimonies of near death experiencers. Check out near-death.com and the book 'Proof of Heaven' if you want to evaluate it. You may say there is insufficient evidence, but to say there is no evidence ignores too much testimony.

That consciousness is produced by the brain seems pretty consistent with what we've learned about it. This understanding, with property dualism, seems to me to have no significant philosophical (or theological) problems. Incidentally, it could be consistent with an afterlife if there is some other physicalish structure that maintains consciousness after death. I don't see any problem with consciousness being produced by a physical machine, indeed, I can't well visualize it existing any other way. To me, consciousness is basically an advanced processing of information (information that includes facts, values, desires, and everything else in our personalities). We know machines can process information, and that information is not dependent on remaining in one specific type of machine or medium of transfer, but always has some physical medium or other. These observations lead plainly to the corresponding conclusions about the soul.

I disagree with all the comic's premises it seems. I don't believe there is a mind-body problem, but if there is a 'ghost in the machine', I'm sure that separating them would result in their actions ceasing to correspond.

 

[TillICollapse]

There is actually some evidence of consciousness without brains, in the many testimonies of near death experiencers. Check out near-death.com and the book 'Proof of Heaven' if you want to evaluate it. You may say there is insufficient evidence, but to say there is no evidence ignores too much testimony.

That consciousness is produced by the brain seems pretty consistent with what we've learned about it. This understanding, with property dualism, seems to me to have no significant philosophical (or theological) problems. Incidentally, it could be consistent with an afterlife if there is some other physicalish structure that maintains consciousness after death. I don't see any problem with consciousness being produced by a physical machine, indeed, I can't well visualize it existing any other way. To me, consciousness is basically an advanced processing of information (information that includes facts, values, desires, and everything else in our personalities). We know machines can process information, and that information is not dependent on remaining in one specific type of machine or medium of transfer, but always has some physical medium or other. These observations lead plainly to the corresponding conclusions about the soul.

I disagree with all the comic's premises it seems. I don't believe there is a mind-body problem, but if there is a 'ghost in the machine', I'm sure that separating them would result in their actions ceasing to correspond.

Going off of your own recognition of machines processing information being comparable to consciousness and brains ...

Concerning NDE's ... I'm not trying to condescend, but I'm assuming you are referencing those who were alive with a brain, were pronounced dead at some point in some fashion, and then recovered after the fact enough to be able to tell their story while still having a brain, yes ? In other words, they didn't die and remain dead ... they resuscitated and still had a functioning brain (obviously) ?

If I add some files to my computer's hard drive ... then power my computer completely down ... when I eventually power it back on, where are those files now ? Will I still be able to access them ? And ... while the computer was powered down, where did those files "go" ?

 

[Percivale]

Going off of your own recognition of machines processing information being comparable to consciousness and brains ...

Concerning NDE's ... I'm not trying to condescend, but I'm assuming you are referencing those who were alive with a brain, were pronounced dead at some point in some fashion, and then recovered after the fact enough to be able to tell their story while still having a brain, yes ? In other words, they didn't die and remain dead ... they resuscitated and still had a functioning brain (obviously) ?

If I add some files to my computer's hard drive ... then power my computer completely down ... when I eventually power it back on, where are those files now ? Will I still be able to access them ? And ... while the computer was powered down, where did those files "go" ?

Good questions, but maybe you should research NDEs more thoroughly before feeling too certain you know what they are. In Proof of Heaven, the author, who was a doctor, claims that his experiences happened during a time the hospital monitors reported that he was brain-dead. And many experiencers report meeting people who had been dead some time, (people whose brains, obviously, would have rotted away by then.) If you saw your computer get burned up in a house fire, and later you came across a computer with the same files on it you had typed the day before the fire, you would assume that those files had been backed up somewhere besides the hard drive. I think that may be a better analogy of life after death.

 

[TillICollapse]

Good questions, but maybe you should research NDEs more thoroughly before feeling too certain you know what they are. In Proof of Heaven, the author, who was a doctor, claims that his experiences happened during a time the hospital monitors reported that he was brain-dead. And many experiencers report meeting people who had been dead some time, (people whose brains, obviously, would have rotted away by then.) If you saw your computer get burned up in a house fire, and later you came across a computer with the same files on it you had typed the day before the fire, you would assume that those files had been backed up somewhere besides the hard drive. I think that may be a better analogy of life after death.

I didn't claim for certainty that I knew what they were. You didn't answer a single question however.

I'll try again. Starting with the Proof of Heaven author: he had a brain before his experience, yes ? While he was brain-dead ... did his brain burn up in a fire ? Was it removed ? When he was resuscitated, did he still have the same brain ? A quick Google actually shows that he was in a coma, and apparently it's arguable that it was medically induced and he was conscious during his coma but hallucinating. Regardless ... during the coma, was his brain removed or completely destroyed ?

Do you know of an example where a person who had a NDE, either had their brain completely destroyed and received a new one ... or was left without a brain upon recovery and told their story with either a completely different brain than they had before, or no brain at all ?

 

[Percivale]

No. Obviously no one could survive that. Are you saying that that would be the only scenario in which a near death experience would have any probability of being anything more than a hallucination?

 

[TillICollapse]

No. Obviously no one could survive that.

Actually IIRC a brain was successfully transplanted into a dog and it survived for several days. I also remember the head of one monkey being transplanted to another monkey's body. It's survival rate wasn't as successful. There are apparently a few barriers that would make putting a brain inside another's head difficult ... such as nerve tissue regeneration, however it's not entirely impossible for a being to not survive such a thing (although I don't believe it's been successful with humans that we're aware of publicaly).

Are you saying that that would be the only scenario in which a near death experience would have any probability of being anything more than a hallucination?

No, if you notice I didn't try to explain how it would or wouldn't be possible. What I'm pointing out is more of a push to an Occam's Razor explanation.

If you turn off a computer, the information stored on the hard drive doesn't disappear. It is still there. When you turn it on, it boots up, and you can access the information again. If the hard drive gets damaged or compromised somehow ... you may still be able to access information. There will obviously be points where accessing information is no longer possible, however. But again, even with damage, it may still be possible to access stored information.

We see this behavior all the time with people who have NOT "died". Damage to their brain from trauma/disease/injury/other may cause any number of "malfunctions". Dementia, change in personality, loss of emotional control, delusions, paralysis, etc. If a person has a stroke, does this mean their consciousness leaves their body ? How about a seizure ? Are you familiar with "sundowners syndrome" ? Take a patient in a hospital who for all intent and purposes appears to be alert and oriented ... and then when the sun goes down they begin to become an entirely different person: possibly combative, delusional, even regressing to the point of perhaps playing with their own feces and waste, throwing it at others. The morning comes, they wake up, and they may not remember a single thing that happened. Such a person need not be medicated, by the way, to experience sundowners. Does this mean their consciousness left their body during that time ?

So now take a person who is pronounced "dead" in some fashion (which btw has multiple meanings). Let's just say their heart goes into a fatal rhythm. Does this mean a part of them has left their body ? If we can defibrillate such a person and this resuscitates them, does that mean the defibrillator had part of their soul in it and we now transferred part of their soul or consciousness from the defibrillator back to them ? I'm assuming you would probably agree that what happened, at least, is that we "jump started" the depolarization and repolarization activity of the heart, allowing the main pacemaker to reset and take control. In some cases, we can "turn it back on". Turn back on what was turned off.

We do things like this all the time with our bodies. Put in spare parts, replace parts, etc. Are you aware of phantom limb syndrome ? It is quite common for an amputee to experience that the removed limb is still there, fully useful, etc. It is apparently quite painful. Does this mean the limb is actually there but they can't see it ? Does this mean part of their consciousness has left their body that was associated with the limb ?

We process information, and sometimes that system fails, gets shut off, gets damaged, etc. But we can also turn some parts back on, augment some parts, replace some, etc.

So looking to someone who may have had parts of their brain "shut off" ... then later "turned back on" ... making the leap, concerning NDE's, that consciousness can exist outside of brains isn't necessarily supported when their brain still exists and is being used. You haven't yet thoroughly removed or damaged beyond repair the very thing the consciousness is claimed to exist apart from: the brain. Even if parts of the brain were shut off for awhile, etc. They are now "turned on" and functioning enough that the person can communicate.

Consider OOBE's ... a person doesn't even come close to dying, yet they may claim remote viewing, or being able to describe detailed events going on in a part of the world they are not able to directly perceive with their sensory input. Even if such a thing were verified, could one say consciousness exists apart from the brain ? Afterall, their brain is still sitting there functioning. So even if you could show in an extraordinary manner that such a person were able to verify an OOBE, they still have a functioning brain during the event. See what I mean ?

 

[Percivale]

I understand your points. There is good evidence consciousness is produced by the brain, and damage to the brain damages one's state of consciousness. You'll see in my earlier posts I tend to agree that consciousness requires a physical machine producing it, and the brain is the only one we are currently familiar with, though we may eventually invent other machines with consciousness. If there is life after death I think it most probable that it is due to some other machine of some sort producing it (in another dimension of some kind).

Perhaps it would clarify my position for you if I say it is not the existence of near death experiences, but their content, that makes me believe they are evidence of consciousness existing apart from the brain.

If all experiencers reported were random experiences similar to dreams, I would not consider that evidence of life after death or out of the body. However, if many reports are consistent with one another and describe things consistent with life after death but very different from normal dreams or hallucinations, that would be evidence I believe. Whether you apply Ockham's razor to it and say the evidence is insufficient depends how antecedently improbable you consider life after death to be.
Even better evidence would be people reporting knowledge gained during such an experience that they could not have known by normal means, such as describing a machine that was only in the operating room while they were unconscious, or telling of meeting a sibling they didn't know they had (who had died in infancy and their parents had not told them of, for instance).

Out of body experiences, if verified, do not prove the consciousness leaves the brain, but does indicate it can tap into some other form of sensation than we are familiar with.

 

[TillICollapse]

I understand your points. There is good evidence consciousness is produced by the brain, and damage to the brain damages one's state of consciousness. You'll see in my earlier posts I tend to agree that consciousness requires a physical machine producing it, and the brain is the only one we are currently familiar with, though we may eventually invent other machines with consciousness. If there is life after death I think it most probable that it is due to some other machine of some sort producing it (in another dimension of some kind).

Perhaps it would clarify my position for you if I say it is not the existence of near death experiences, but their content, that makes me believe they are evidence of consciousness existing apart from the brain.

If all experiencers reported were random experiences similar to dreams, I would not consider that evidence of life after death or out of the body. However, if many reports are consistent with one another and describe things consistent with life after death but very different from normal dreams or hallucinations, that would be evidence I believe. Whether you apply Ockham's razor to it and say the evidence is insufficient depends how antecedently improbable you consider life after death to be.
Even better evidence would be people reporting knowledge gained during such an experience that they could not have known by normal means, such as describing a machine that was only in the operating room while they were unconscious, or telling of meeting a sibling they didn't know they had (who had died in infancy and their parents had not told them of, for instance).

Out of body experiences, if verified, do not prove the consciousness leaves the brain, but does indicate it can tap into some other form of sensation than we are familiar with.

I think you are still missing one of the points I was pushing towards.

Are you familiar with James Randi ? He's a well known magician and skeptic who has debunked many people over the years who claimed to have paranormal abilities, etc. One of them was a guy named James Hydrick who claimed he could move things with his mind, some kind of energy he was using, etc. He moves a pencil, then moves pages in a phone book ... all with his mind, appearing to use "force" out of his hands, etc.

Randi figured out that Hydrick was merely using air to move things, but doing it in a manner that it wasn't obvious. He was blowing the pencil and pages, but controlling his mouth so as to hardly be noticeable. He debunked him on live television, by adding a control to Hydrick's demonstration. He added flour all around the phone book, so that if Hydrick used any air whatsoever to open a page, the flour would register the push of air. Of course Hydrick couldn't move a page ... and thus he was exposed. He didn't want to blow and reveal how he was doing it, so he claimed the lights were too bright now, or the flour was getting in the way of the "energy". A panel of scientists weighed in on whether or not those claims were legitimate, and said they didn't see why they would be.

The point of the story is to show there was an element that made the movement of the paper work: the air Hydrick was purposefully focussing and breathing in such a way as to make it appear as though he were doing something amazing. Remove that element, and he was no longer capable of showing that it worked.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlfMsZwr8rc

The element that is common to every thing you are mentioning above is the existence of the functioning BRAIN lol. Show me an instance where a brain was completely not part of the consciousness being observed, and then we are talking "consciousness apart from the brain". But in every instance you mention, a functioning brain is involved, if at no other point than to tell the story after the fact.

What I'm saying is ... it doesn't matter even if a person is able to die for 5 days, and then come back to life somehow, now levitating off the ground, and are able to manifest and produce all manner of things from a place they claim they visited while dead ... so long as they still have a functioning brain they are using to communicate such things, it doesn't necessarily show that consciousness exists apart from the brain lol. Because you still haven't removed that element from the equation. Even if there is something spiritual or supernatural going on, it doesn't necessarily mean it is one and the same as "consciousness" that is part of what is going on.

Ghosts would be closer to "consciousness apart from brains", for example, if such a ghost could be proven to exist AND match up to a known dead person to where it could be verified their brain is long gone and it is actually that person. If the ghost could past a Turing Test for example (which doesn't necessarily address consciousness specifically, but hopefully you get my drift), then perhaps it could be shown to be "conscious". But so long as a human being is standing there with a functioning brain, to say that consciousness can exist apart from it isn't necessarily the case.

Concerning OOBE and NDE ... I don't see how you wouldn't equate the two ? Why would one seem to involve consciousness and the other not ? I don't get that. Are you bias ? Do you believe OOBE to be "evil" or some such ?

If all experiencers reported were random experiences similar to dreams, I would not consider that evidence of life after death or out of the body. However, if many reports are consistent with one another and describe things consistent with life after death but very different from normal dreams or hallucinations, that would be evidence I believe. Whether you apply Ockham's razor to it and say the evidence is insufficient depends how antecedently improbable you consider life after death to be.

There is a joke you can pull on people, to where you ask them, "What color is this white sheet of paper ?" and they say "White." Then you ask them what the color of several other things are which are white, and they all respond with "white". You then ask them, "What do cows drink ?" and you wait for their response.

So ... what do cows drink ?

I large percentage of people will say "Milk."

But this is the incorrect answer ... cows drink water. I can point to any number of simple mental tricks like that. My point, is that it's possible to manipulate multiple people to produce an effect that is consistently misleading. You may not even need direct visual, auditory, or other tactile stimulation to do it: see the God Helmet for instance.

 

[Percivale]

It sounds to me like you're saying, "many paranormal phenomena have proven to be tricks, so if a phenomena is paranormal, its probably a trick." I don't think that's a good argument, it is a reason for caution, but not a rebuttal of any claim by itself.

Every area of knowledge that we only have access to through other human's testimony has the same common denominator: other people's brains. I think NDEs are in the same boat with any historical claim that is out of the ordinary, or with the more obscure sciences like quantum physics. Do you accept those involved's testimony or not? One has to examine the quantity, quality, and biases of the witnesses, etc.

Many NDEs start with an OOBE. If I understand the terms correctly, a big difference is the content. I simply find NDEs more interesting; they contain a lot more things relevant to religious and philosophical questions.

 

[TillICollapse]

It sounds to me like you're saying, "many paranormal phenomena have proven to be tricks, so if a phenomena is paranormal, its probably a trick." I don't think that's a good argument, it is a reason for caution, but not a rebuttal of any claim by itself.

I never once said anything close to this. Straw men suck.

Every area of knowledge that we only have access to through other human's testimony has the same common denominator: other people's brains.

But we're talking about consciousness apart from brains. If you're going towards solipsism it will suck too lol.

I think NDEs are in the same boat with any historical claim that is out of the ordinary, or with the more obscure sciences like quantum physics. Do you accept those involved's testimony or not? One has to examine the quantity, quality, and biases of the witnesses, etc.

For many years tomatoes were thought to be poisonous. Do you accept their testimony ? How would you test their testimony ?

Similarly, how would you test to see if consciousness exists apart from brains ? How would you provide evidence ? Again, wouldn't you need to show that a brain isn't involved to show that consciousness exists apart from it ? I still don't think you're getting my point.

Many NDEs start with an OOBE. If I understand the terms correctly, a big difference is the content. I simply find NDEs more interesting; they contain a lot more things relevant to religious and philosophical questions.

So are you concerned with the content, or whether or not they are evidence for consciousness having unique properties ? Will you discount some "evidence" due to content even if they point to similar things ?

For example ... do you accept Muhammad's account of his visit to heaven ?