Consciousness

[Franko]

That you find a topic confusing is no reason to believe that it's incoherent or irrelevant.

Yeah, she's seriously drain bamaged.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
This argument has always been about "whether the mind is the process of the brain or the mind arises from the process of the brain."What? That is the evidence that materialism is false - it enshrines this specific logical contradiction,What on Earth are you talking about?So you are now setting your absurd contradiction in stone?There is no contradiction, and the absurdity is all yours, Mister Elephant.A) Qualia are Brain Processes

and

B) Qualia arise from Brain processes

are BOTH true?????Indeed they are, depending on what levels of the brain process you are looking at. if you are looking at a specific level, clearly only one of them can be true. But given a multi-layered process, YOU HAVE TO SPECIFY WHICH LAYER YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.QED, Pixy. You are claiming

A = B

and

A != B

and now you are claiming that this "isn't a contradiction".I am not claiming that (A=B & A!=B), and I am not contradicting myself in any way.Materialism rests on a contradiction.And what exactly might this contradiction be?

Pixy,


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
This argument has always been about "whether the mind is the process of the brain or the mind arises from the process of the brain."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What?


Good answer.... :D

Yes, Pixy, this argument, from the start, has been about materialisms contradictory claim that "A physical process IS a qualia". Ian told you that when you arrived. I have told you it about twenty times, and when you finally admit that it is enshrined in your argument your response is....

"What?"


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is the evidence that materialism is false - it enshrines this specific logical contradiction,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What on Earth are you talking about?


Materialism either has to claim that "Qualia do not exist", or it has to claim that "Qualia are brain processes" at the same time it is claiming that "Qualia arise from brain processes". The first is absurd because it claims our mental life is non-existent, the second is absurd because it claimes that "A=B" and "A!=B" at the same time.

*** GAME OVER ***

*** Insert coin ***



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you are now setting your absurd contradiction in stone?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no contradiction, and the absurdity is all yours, Mister Elephant.


Er, yep. ;)


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A) Qualia are Brain Processes

and

B) Qualia arise from Brain processes

are BOTH true?????
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indeed they are, depending on what levels of the brain process you are looking at. if you are looking at a specific level, clearly only one of them can be true. But given a multi-layered process, YOU HAVE TO SPECIFY WHICH LAYER YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.


This is now so garbled it is completely unintelligable.

What you have just said is :

"On one level of the physiological brain process a phenomenological experience IS the physiological brain process, but on another level of the physiological brain process the phenomenological experience ISN'T the physiological brain process"

So "physiological brain processes exist on two 'levels', one of which is just a brain process, and another of which is both a brain processes and a phenomenological experience"

i.e.

instead of

A=B

and

A!=B

you are now saying

A is actually two different things at the same time (A1) and (A2)

on level A1

A=B

on level A2

A=B **AND** A!=B

Pixy - how do you think this helps you?

You are still trying to claim that one thing is another thing at the same time that the one things isn't the other thing.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QED, Pixy. You are claiming

A = B

and

A != B

and now you are claiming that this "isn't a contradiction".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not claiming that (A=B & A!=B), and I am not contradicting myself in any way.


First you were claiming that a physiological brain process both IS and ISN'T a quale.

Now you are claiming that physiological brain processes is two things, one of them ISN'T a quale, and the other one both IS and ISN'T a quale.

And also that you have nothing to learn from an encylopediea of philosophy's entry on your own philosophy!


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Materialism rests on a contradiction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And what exactly might this contradiction be?


(Pinky == Perky) AND (Pinky != Perky)

Oink!

:)


edited....

Actually it is even worse than that, because you have already accepted that qualia are defined as "the property as distinct from the source of the property" i.e. you have accepted a definition of qualia that specifically means it is NOT a brain processes, and you have then tried to claim that a brain process both is and isn't a qualia. In doing so you have both directly contradicted your agreed definition, and produced a self-refuting argument.

You agreed that the definition of

"A"

was

"NOT B"

then you claimed that

"A == B" and "A != B"

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Good answer....Thanks. It sums things up pretty well, I think.Yes, Pixy, this argument, from the start, has been about materialisms contradictory claim that "A physical process IS a qualia". Ian told you that when you arrived. I have told you it about twenty times, and when you finally admit that it is enshrined in your argument your response is....

"What?"And you were wrong then. And you are wrong now. Dredging up this ancient error after so much time surprised me, I must admit.Materialism either has to claim that "Qualia do not exist", or it has to claim that "Qualia are brain processes" at the same time it is claiming that "Qualia arise from brain processes". The first is absurd because it claims our mental life is non-existentYes. Unless someone is using some other definition for Qualia than the one you have provided. the second is absurd because it claimes that "A=B" and "A!=B" at the same time.Nope. It says that A is B and A arises from B at different times, when you are speaking of different aspects of B. Your first B is not the same as your second B. At least try to keep up with the discussion, Mister Elephant.*** GAME OVER ***You lose.*** Insert coin ***And now you reset, just like Franko?Er, yep.Well, alright then. Don't let me catch you doing that again!This is now so garbled it is completely unintelligable.Garbled how? That was an extremely succinct explanation of your error.What you have just said is :

"On one level of the physiological brain process a phenomenological experience IS the physiological brain process, but on another level of the physiological brain process the phenomenological experience ISN'T the physiological brain process"No.So "physiological brain processes exist on two 'levels', one of which is just a brain process, and another of which is both a brain processes and a phenomenological experience"No.i.e.

instead of

A=B

and

A!=B

you are now saying

A is actually two different things at the same time (A1) and (A2)

on level A1

A=B

on level A2

A=B **AND** A!=B

Pixy - how do you think this helps you?It doesn't. Which doesn't matter, since once again you are dancing on the remains of a StrawPixy.You are still trying to claim that one thing is another thing at the same time that the one things isn't the other thing.I am not now, nor have I ever been. Your confusion deepens and widens.First you were claiming that a physiological brain process both IS and ISN'T a quale.No.Now you are claiming that physiological brain processes is two things, one of them ISN'T a quale, and the other one both IS and ISN'T a quale.No.And also that you have nothing to learn from an encylopediea of philosophy's entry on your own philosophy!No. Merely nothing useful to learn. That philosophers will desperately defend their turf against the encroachment of science I already knew.(Pinky == Perky) AND (Pinky != Perky)

Oink!Singing pigs is it?

Let's try it one more time, for the Elephants:

The brain process at its lowest level consists of electrical and chemical interactions. But guess what? Those interactions are doing something! They're processing information!

And so you have a second level, that of information being processed. And this level is not simple, since it's full of feedback loops and self-programming.

But that information processing produces results. One way or another, we get the mind, consciousness, qualia, and me trying to get a simple concept into your addled Elephant brain.

You can't collapse it all into one level and expect to make a meaningful study of consciousness. You can't even do that - practically - with something trivial like a VIC-20. Try explaining the actions of a Basic program in terms of transistor switching. It can be done, but I'm not going to wait around for you to do it.

Still coming back for more? :D


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the second is absurd because it claimes that "A=B" and "A!=B" at the same time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nope. It says that A is B and A arises from B at different times,


A = Qualia
B = Physiological Brain Process

The definition of qualia specifically states "A IS NOT B"

Now you are stating :

C) Sometimes A arises from B (which does not contradict the definition of A)

and

D) Sometimes A IS B (which contradicts both the definition of A and your own statement C.

You can dress this up with all the verbose complexity you like, it remains a blatant contradiction.

Which is wrong?

The definition of (A), Statement (C) or Statement (D)?

Or are they all correct even though they blatantly contradict each other?

:D

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Still coming back for more?As long as you're wrong, I'll be here to correct you.A = Qualia
B = Physiological Brain ProcessOK.The definition of qualia specifically states "A IS NOT B"Fine. With this definition of B, A merely arises from B.Now you are stating :

C) Sometimes A arises from B (which does not contradict the definition of A)

and

D) Sometimes A IS B (which contradicts both the definition of A and your own statement C.

You can dress this up with all the verbose complexity you like, it remains a blatant contradiction.Well, yes, but it's still not what I said.Which is wrong?

The definition of (A), Statement (C) or Statement (D)?Your statements C and D are wrong in that they have nothing to do with what I am saying.Or are they all correct even though they blatantly contradict each other?Statement E: Elephants can't read.

If you are talking about purely physiological brain processes, the lowest level of the brain process as a whole, then it is simply true that qualia arise from the physiological brain processes.

There. All cleared up for you.

Oh, and nice selective quoting by the way. Doing your best to put your words in my mouth, but your best is pretty bad.

[Franko]

If you are talking about purely physiological brain processes, the lowest level of the brain process as a whole, then it is simply true that qualia arise from the physiological brain processes.

Is that where/when Atoms magically acquire their "free will"?

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Franko
Is that where/when Atoms magically acquire their "free will"?
Let's see. How many things are wrong with this?

Atoms do not have free will. Atoms are not things that could have a consciousness, and therefore have no way of expressing free will.

There is no magic. None. Ever.

The physiological brain process can not in any way affect the fundamental properties of atoms. Atoms cannot acquire anything more sophisticated in this process than an electron (as part of a chemical bond).

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The definition of qualia specifically states "A IS NOT B"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fine. With this definition of B, A merely arises from B.


Pixy That IS the definition of qualia. If you use a definition which states that "Well, qualia actually are brain processes" then you completely undermine the whole point in defining the word in the first place. The word "Qualia" is very specifically defined to refer to the phenomenological experience itself as distinct to the thing which gives rise to it.

So you are correct, A merely arises from B, and any other definition renders the word MEANINGLESS!

:)


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now you are stating :

C) Sometimes A arises from B (which does not contradict the definition of A)

and

D) Sometimes A IS B (which contradicts both the definition of A and your own statement C.

You can dress this up with all the verbose complexity you like, it remains a blatant contradiction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, yes, but it's still not what I said.


That is PRECISELY what you said. You said that sometimes qualia are brain processes and sometimes they aren't.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which is wrong?

The definition of (A), Statement (C) or Statement (D)?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your statements C and D are wrong in that they have nothing to do with what I am saying.


The what the **** are you saying, Pixy? :p



If you are talking about purely physiological brain processes, the lowest level of the brain process as a whole, then it is simply true that qualia arise from the physiological brain processes.


So qualia are ***NOT*** PBPs.

Repeat it five times so you don't forget....

Qualia are ***NOT*** physiological brain processes
Qualia are ***NOT*** physiological brain processes
Qualia are ***NOT*** physiological brain processes
Qualia are ***NOT*** physiological brain processes
Qualia are ***NOT*** physiological brain processes


There. All cleared up for you.


Well, not really, since you just recently stated that :


[materialism] says that A is B and A arises from B at different times, when you are speaking of different aspects of B.


But we just reminded ourselves five times that

A is ***NOT*** B.

And if A is ***NOT*** B, then how can materialism say that A ***IS*** B, even if it is only "at some times"?

If A is ***NOT*** B then A is ***ALWAYS*** ***NOT*** B.


Oh, and nice selective quoting by the way.


Selecting the bits that contain the contradiction and avoiding getting drawn into a load of irrelevant wallpaper you are attempting to use to cover over the large canyon in the wall that is materialism.

[Win]

Misa:

If you are talking about purely physiological brain processes, the lowest level of the brain process as a whole, then it is simply true that qualia arise from the physiological brain processes.

Of course, you mean "that qualia are brain processes." Don't you?

[synaesthesia]

Originally posted by Win
Of course, you mean "that qualia are brain processes." Don't you? [/B]

Qualia don't exist. Brain Processes, human behaviour, consciousness and intelligence manifestly do exist.

[Win]

syn:

Qualia don't exist. Brain Processes, human behaviour, consciousness and intelligence manifestly do exist.

Yeah, yeah. Go tell it to Dan Dennett.

At least it's a coherent position, but I require a little more than your bare assertion that qualia don't exist.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Pixy That IS the definition of qualia.Nope. B is the physiological brain processes. You just said so yourself.If you use a definition which states that "Well, qualia actually are brain processes" then you completely undermine the whole point in defining the word in the first place. The word "Qualia" is very specifically defined to refer to the phenomenological experience itself as distinct to the thing which gives rise to it.Well, I wish you'd define things rather than blithering. If your're talking about physiological brain processes, be specific. Qualia are a brain process, just not at the physiological level, rather at an informational level. However, since the informational level arises from the physiological, they can still be described fully in terms of physiological processes. Are they physiological processes then? Some would say yes. I say no, simply because there is a more useful level at which to study them. Neither is wrong.So you are correct, A merely arises from B, and any other definition renders the word MEANINGLESS!Yay. So what?That is PRECISELY what you said. You said that sometimes qualia are brain processes and sometimes they aren't.Nope. Never said that. I said repeatedly that if you take a specific level of the whole brain process, say the physiological level, qualia arise from that. If you take a higher level, the results of the information processing, qualia are part of that. All the nonsense you made up yourself.The what the **** are you saying, Pixy?Exactly what I said.So qualia are ***NOT*** PBPs.

Repeat it five times so you don't forget....

Qualia are ***NOT*** physiological brain processesDepends on how you look at things. Just as you can explain the action of a Basic program in terms of transistor switching if you really wanted to, you can explain qualia in terms of chemical and electrical interactions in the brain. That's the difference between a definition and an explanation.Well, not really, since you just recently stated that :

But we just reminded ourselves five times that

A is ***NOT*** B

And if A is ***NOT*** B, then how can materialism say that A ***IS*** B, even if it is only "at some times"?Because there is more than one part to the brain process, even though you choose to look at only one.If A is ***NOT*** B then A is ***ALWAYS*** ***NOT*** B.You have chosen to look at a single specific aspect of the brain process, such that A arises from it.Selecting the bits that contain the contradiction and avoiding getting drawn into a load of irrelevant wallpaper you are attempting to use to cover over the large canyon in the wall that is materialism. Ah, no. You selected the parts that would allow you to maintain your false position in the face of my explanation of your error.

[Franko]

Let's see. How many things are wrong with this?

Atoms do not have free will. Atoms are not things that could have a consciousness, and therefore have no way of expressing free will.

There is no magic. None. Ever.

The physiological brain process can not in any way affect the fundamental properties of atoms. Atoms cannot acquire anything more sophisticated in this process than an electron (as part of a chemical bond).

I am in complete agreement with you here Darling, it's just that you keep asserting that you have these magic "free will" powers, and I am baffled, because not only do I perceive you obeying Fate, but I don't perceive a single piece of evidence or reason why you believe you have this "free will"???

Where does "free will" come from? What is the mechanism?

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Win
Of course, you mean "that qualia are brain processes." Don't you? Well, that's the peanut Mister Elephant choked on.

If you are examining the electrical and chemical reactions of the brain, you can't say "That interaction there is a quale." You can say that quale Q is the result of a (large) set of physiological interactions. Or you can look at a higher level of the brain process, at the informational level, or at the results of the information processing, and say: "Here is the encoding for a quale." or indeed "Here is a quale."

Originally posted by synaesthesia
Qualia don't exist. Brain Processes, human behaviour, consciousness and intelligence manifestly do exist.Our friendly Elephant has defined Qualia simply as mental concepts. How can mental concepts not exist if conciousness and intelligence do? (My guess is that there is more than this to the usual definition of Qualia.)

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Franko
I am in complete agreement with you here Darling, it's just that you keep asserting that you have these magic "free will" powers, and I am baffled, because not only do I perceive you obeying Fate, but I don't perceive a single piece of evidence or reason why you believe you have this "free will"???

Where does "free will" come from? What is the mechanism? Free will arises from consciousness, which is a function of the mind, which is a process of the brain.

The evidence: free will is the ability to choose between possible courses of action. I do this. Therefore I have free will. I can observe others acting the same way. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that they have free will, and indeed if asked they do claim to have it.

All terribly simple and obvious, really.

[Win]

Misa:

If you are examining the electrical and chemical reactions of the brain, you can't say "That interaction there is a quale."

Why not?

You can say that quale Q is the result of a (large) set of physiological interactions.

So why is that, when examining the electrical and chemical reactions of the brain, I can't point at a set of those and say, that set of interactions is a quale? Or can I?

Or you can look at a higher level of the brain process, at the informational level, or at the results of the information processing, and say: "Here is the encoding for a quale." or indeed "Here is a quale."

That "higher level" presumably reducing to some set of lower level electrical and chemical reactions. So why is it I have to look at the "higher level" to say, this is a quale?

Mere convenience, or do you think it's irreducible?

Syn :


Qualia don't exist...


Woooooo Hoooooo!

A materialist who understands materialism!

:D

[Franko]

Pixychix:
#1) Free will arises from consciousness, which is a function of the mind, which is a process of the brain.

Pixychix:
#2) The physiological brain process can not in any way affect the fundamental properties of atoms. Atoms cannot acquire anything more sophisticated in this process than an electron (as part of a chemical bond).

You second statement (#2) directly contradicts your first statement (#1).

Pixychix:
The evidence: free will is the ability to choose between possible courses of action. I do this. Therefore I have free will. I can observe others acting the same way. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that they have free will, and indeed if asked they do claim to have it.

All terribly simple and obvious, really.

I also observe the Moon doing the SAME EXACT THING (“choosing” between possible courses of action). So are you also claiming that the Moon has “free will”?

Pixy, it is pretty obvious to me that all you are doing is substituting the term “free will” for “living creature”. Tell me, do all living creatures have “free will”? Because if “free will” and “alive” are the same thing, then why do you have two different terms?

Do all things which are “alive” also have “free will”?

Do sperms have “free will”? How about fetuses?

Pixydust: (A-Theist Religious Fanatic)
Free will arises from consciousness, which is a function of the mind, which is a process of the brain

Atoms do not have free will. Atoms are not things that could have a consciousness, and therefore have no way of expressing free will.

There is no magic. None. Ever.

The physiological brain process can not in any way affect the fundamental properties of atoms. Atoms cannot acquire anything more sophisticated in this process than an electron (as part of a chemical bond).

Free will arises from consciousness, which is a function of the mind, which is a process of the brain

If physiological brain process cannot (in any way) affect the fundamental properties of Atoms, then how come you are claiming that “free will” is a function of the physiological brain? Like you said … Atoms do not have “free will”!

You second statement (#2) directly contradicts your first statement (#1).


Really?

But Frank....If materialism is true.....then logical contradictions are allowed. ;)

[Franko]

Really?

But Frank....If materialism is true.....then logical contradictions are allowed.

Are you accusing Stimpson and Pixy of being Mystics, Elephant?!?! :cool:

… And the A-Theists say that My syllogisms are flawed … ???

The Pixypunk (A-Theist) Sillygism “proving” the existence of “free willy” …

1) Atoms do not have free will.
2) The physiological brain process cannot affect the fundamental properties of atoms.
3) Free will arises from consciousness, a function of the mind, a process of the [physiological] brain.


Atoms do not have free will. Atoms are not things that could have a consciousness, and therefore have no way of expressing free will.

The physiological brain process can not in any way affect the fundamental properties of atoms. Atoms cannot acquire anything more sophisticated in this process than an electron

Free will arises from consciousness, which is a function of the mind, which is a process of the brain

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Win
Why not?No profound reason, just that an interaction at that level isn't a quale itself.So why is that, when examining the electrical and chemical reactions of the brain, I can't point at a set of those and say, that set of interactions is a quale? Or can I?Well, it depends on how flexible your use of "is" is. You can fully describe a quale at this level, so yes, you can say that it is a quale; I'd prefer other terminology; that a given set of interactions gives rise to a quale.That "higher level" presumably reducing to some set of lower level electrical and chemical reactions. So why is it I have to look at the "higher level" to say, this is a quale?

Mere convenience, or do you think it's irreducible? I certainly think that the higher levels are reducible to the lower levels. I just prefer more precise terminology that takes note of this reduction, rather than saying "is".

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Franko
You second statement (#2) directly contradicts your first statement (#1). Really? How?I also observe the Moon doing the SAME EXACT THING (“choosing” between possible courses of action).Well, then, you are either confused or lying.So are you also claiming that the Moon has “free will”?No.Pixy, it is pretty obvious to me that all you are doing is substituting the term “free will” for “living creature”. Tell me, do all living creatures have “free will”? Because if “free will” and “alive” are the same thing, then why do you have two different terms?Well, that's actually very astute for you, Franko. Still wrong, though. A creature can technically be alive but not possess free will. Scoop out its brain and put it on life support. Free will is gone but it ain't dead.Do all things which are “alive” also have “free will”?Mostly, but not necessarily.Do sperms have “free will”?Good question. You're at a level where "free will" has little or no meaning. Free will isn't an absolute; like consciousness, it's a continuum. Sperm are barely conscious in any meaning of the word, so they barely have free will in any meaning of that term.How about fetuses?At what stage of development? Free will increases with development of the fetus.If physiological brain process cannot (in any way) affect the fundamental properties of Atoms, then how come you are claiming that “free will” is a function of the physiological brain? Like you said … Atoms do not have “free will”!Um, yes. So? How is this question even relevant? A quale is not present in a single neural interaction, nor is free will - in human terms - present in a single neuron, or - in any terms - in a single atom. Both are the result of the brain process.

[Franko]

Franko:
If physiological brain process cannot (in any way) affect the fundamental properties of Atoms, then how come you are claiming that “free will” is a function of the physiological brain? Like you said … Atoms do not have “free will”!

Pixypants:
A quale is not present in a single neural interaction, nor is free will - in human terms - present in a single neuron, or - in any terms - in a single atom. Both are the result of the brain process.

If they are the result of “brain processes” (magic) then how come you said:

The physiological brain process can not in any way affect the fundamental properties of atoms. Atoms cannot acquire anything more sophisticated in this process than an electron.

So if there’s no “free will” going in, then how do you account for “free will” coming out?

You haven’t accounted for it. Like I said, you have no evidence for your beliefs, Religious Fanatic.

Besides, It almost sounds like you are trying to posit the existence of a “Soul”? :rolleyes:

Franko:
Do sperm have “free will”?

Pixypants:
Good question. You're at a level where "free will" has little or no meaning. Free will isn't an absolute; like consciousness, it's a continuum. Sperm are barely conscious in any meaning of the word, so they barely have free will in any meaning of that term.

So it’s a Continuum now – is it? Do you mean like …

TLOP (God) is more conscious (has more “free will”) then YOU is more conscious (has more “free will”) then CAR?

Well, that's actually very astute for you, Franko. Still wrong, though. A creature can technically be alive but not possess free will. Scoop out its brain and put it on life support. Free will is gone but it ain't dead.

I don’t see whereas being on life support changes the amount of “free will” one iota? You don’t get to “choose” being on life support any more than you got to “choose” who your parents were. Or where you went to school, or how tall you were, or what country you were born in. You didn’t really get to “choose’ any of the things that made You – YOU. So where is this “free will” you keep talking about?

It seems as invisible as the dragon living in my garage?

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Franko
If they are the result of “brain processes” (magic) then how come you said:

So if there’s no “free will” going in, then how do you account for “free will” coming out?That's exactly what it means when I say that free will is a brain process.You haven’t accounted for it. Like I said, you have no evidence for your beliefs, Religious Fanatic. Still discounting the six billion examples, Franko dear?Besides, It almost sounds like you are trying to posit the existence of a “Soul”?Hardly.So it’s a Continuum now – is it? Do you mean like …

TLOP (God) is more conscious (has more “free will”) then YOU is more conscious (has more “free will”) then CAR?No. I mean something that actually makes sense.I don’t see whereas being on life support changes the amount of “free will” one iota?Nope. It's scooping out the brain that does that. The life support is just there to stop you being dead.You don’t get to “choose” being on life support any more than you got to “choose” who your parents were.Well, no. So?Or where you went to schoolI chose.or how tall you werePartly genetic, partly nutrition.or what country you were born in. You didn’t really get to “choose’ any of the things that made You – YOU.Well, I've already noted that I did indeed choose where I went to school. And I chose a vast number of other things that make me me.So where is this “free will” you keep talking about?Right where it always was. Here in my head, ready and working.It seems as invisible as the dragon living in my garage?You don't have a garage.

[Franko]

Franko:
If they are the result of “brain processes” (magic) then how come you said:

Pixychix:
So if there’s no “free will” going in, then how do you account for “free will” coming out?

That's exactly what it means when I say that free will is a brain process.

Apparently no one ever explained the difference to you between making a claim and proving a claim. I see a lot of the former, but none of the latter.

[Franko]

Here you go Pixy ...

here's your syllogism in your own words. Can you explain it too us without looking even more foolish in the process? (I'm guessing ... NO)

1) Atoms do not have free will.
2) The physiological brain process cannot affect the fundamental properties of atoms.
3) Free will arises from consciousness, a function of the mind, a process of the [physiological] brain.


Yeah, except physiological brain process cannot affect the fundamental properties of atoms. And since Atoms don't have "free will", and you are nothing more than Atoms ... You don't have any "free will".

[Win]

As a general comment, all I can say is that anyone with "No, look, I'm sorry, you're wrong. -- Me, on numerous occasions," as her sig has bought, and paid for, all this grief.

Better never be wrong, Misa.

Oh no, too late. :p

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Franko
Here you go Pixy ...

here's your syllogism in your own words. Can you explain it too us without looking even more foolish in the process? (I'm guessing ... NO)

1) Atoms do not have free will.
2) The physiological brain process cannot affect the fundamental properties of atoms.
3) Free will arises from consciousness, a function of the mind, a process of the [physiological] brain.Those are my words, but it's not a syllogism. Of course, neither are your other examples.Yeah, except physiological brain process cannot affect the fundamental properties of atoms. And since Atoms don't have "free will", and you are nothing more than Atoms ... You don't have any "free will".How does that follow?

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Win
As a general comment, all I can say is that anyone with "No, look, I'm sorry, you're wrong. -- Me, on numerous occasions," as her sig has bought, and paid for, all this grief.What grief might that be, Win?Better never be wrong, Misa.And in this thread, I have not been.

[Win]

Misa:

What grief might that be, Win?

I should think that was obvious.

And in this thread, I have not been.

For those just tuning in, that would be have not been rong. ;)

Whatever.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Franko
Apparently no one ever explained the difference to you between making a claim and proving a claim. I see a lot of the former, but none of the latter. An interesting comment coming from you, Franko.

I have shown that what looks like, acts like, is in all ways indistinguishable from free wil exists and is possessed by all humans. Similar but lesser degrees of free will appear to be possessed by other animals with similar but lesser degrees of consciousness.

Your MPB has been shown to be free will too. Perhaps you'd care to try another argument?

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Win
I should think that was obvious.Ah, you mean the pain of trying to enlighten the unenlightenable?For those just tuning in, that would be have not been rong. ;)

Whatever. Being magnanimous, I will not even point out that you spelled wrong wrong.

Oops.

[Win]

Misa:

Ah, you mean the pain of trying to enlighten the unenlightenable?

No.

Being magnanimous, I will not even point out that you spelled wrong wrong.

Really? One day we'll have a talk about irony. Seems that you're understanding of that is on a par with your understanding of the issues surrounding consciousness.

Oops.

Indeed. But I bet it will take you a minute or two to figure out exactly how.

And in this thread, I have not been.


:D

[Underemployed]

Dear All,

PixyMisa is not wrong.

But then again, nor is Undercover Elephant.

Tye, Michael; "Qualia", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2003 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/):

Feelings and experiences vary widely. For example, I run my fingers over sandpaper, smell a skunk, feel a sharp pain in my finger, seem to see bright purple, become extremely angry. In each of these cases, I am the subject of a mental state with a very distinctive subjective character. There is something it is like for me to undergo each state, some phenomenology that it has. Philosophers often use the term ‘qualia’ (singular ‘quale’) to refer to the introspectively accessible, phenomenal aspects of our mental lives. In this standard, broad sense of the term, it is difficult to deny that there are qualia. Disagreement typically centers on which mental states have qualia, whether qualia are intrinsic qualities of their bearers, and how qualia relate to the physical world both inside and outside the head. The status of qualia is hotly debated in philosophy largely because it is central to a proper understanding of the nature of consciousness. Qualia are at the very heart of the mind-body problem.

Even emminent Professors lock antlers over this topic, so it's no surprise we amateurs flounder about with wild, staring eyes. I've read that darn quote many times and I still don't really have any idea what he thinks Qualia are! And he's calling it a 'standard, broad sense'!

Is it a memory of an event? An idea of something real or imagined? Is it an opinion, or an actual thing in itself?

Pixy, UCE, please use your powers for good.

Underemployed :

There are two sides to every story. All I would like is that both sides are given due respect and consideration.

:)

[Giz]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Underemployed :

There are two sides to every story. All I would like is that both sides are given due respect and consideration.

:)

Even when one side represents the most succesful method of acquiring knowledge in history, is more parsimonious, has corroberative experimental evidence.

While the other has acheived nothing, in 6000 years contributed zero to the advance of human knowledge.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Underemployed :

There are two sides to every story. All I would like is that both sides are given due respect and consideration.

:)
Giz makes a good point. After both sides have been given due respect and consideration, is it then okay to point out that one side is much better supported than the other?

Originally posted by Tricky

Giz makes a good point. After both sides have been given due respect and consideration, is it then okay to point out that one side is much better supported than the other?

Tricky,

What you have said isn't quite accurate though. Science has indeed proved exceptionally useful as a means of investigating the physical world. However, the same cannot be said of the subjective world, and the whole problem that has been extensively discussed in this thread is the ability of science to be as effective in this alien territory at it is on its home ground. To say that the 'scientific side' is much better supported regarding consciousness is to misunderstand the nature of the problem. If science cannot solve the Hard Problem in principle - if it is a conceptual problem, then it is not okay to continue pointing at sciences previous success within the physical realm and to continue claiming this means it can solve this particular problem.
Underemployed said it best - even eminent Professors lock horns over this issue - although you wouldn't believe it to hear some of the materialists around hear claiming that anyone who isn't a scientistic materialist must be "willfully ignorant"/"believing in fairies". There are many levels to this debate - and it goes beyond ontology into human rights and the history of civilisation. But so long as one side is trying to make out the other side is completely wrong we get nowhere. That goes for both sides.

Geoff.

:)

[Q-Source]

Geoff,

Everything seems to be a mess if we confuse what Science can and cannot do. Most of the objective reality can be described by Science, can't it?

You already have recognised that THERE IS a physical and objective reality. Everything that we perceive or represent in our minds is a result of what there is.

Mathematics, as you also accepted, is an independant construct that allows humans to represent this reality in objective terms.

Science has nothing to do with what you call Subjective Reality. It is not trying to convert the map into the territory.

Q-Source


Everything seems to be a mess if we confuse what Science can and cannot do. Most of the objective reality can be described by Science, can't it?


I am happy to say that (theoretically) science could describe the whole of objective reality.


You already have recognised that THERE IS a physical and objective reality. Everything that we perceive or represent in our minds is a result of what there is.

Mathematics, as you also accepted, is an independant construct that allows humans to represent this reality in objective terms.

Science has nothing to do with what you call Subjective Reality. It is not trying to convert the map into the territory.


It is if it claims that subjective reality is part of objective reality, and that is precisely what this thread has been about. I have lost count of the number of times that Stimpson has said "Subjective experiences are actually objective", not because subjective experiences are even remotely objective in any sort of way but because admitting that subjective experiences are not objective logically results in materialism being proven false. Similarly PixyMisa repeatedly tried to claim that Qualia "are actually brain processes on one level and no on another" even though they are defined specifically to be NOT brain processes. Again, she did this specifically to avoid admitting that materialism had been proven false - as soon as you accept that qualia are not brain processes (something which is on the face of it completely obvious) then materialism is in trouble. WHich is why synasthesia arrived in the thread and made the statement "qualia do not exist". This is the true state of materialism - it amounts to a denial that subjective experience exists, which is a complete reversal of the true situation and is a total replacement of the map for the territory. Materialism is a claim that the matter (which we never actually experience) is real and that our experiences (which we know are real) do not exist.

Geoff

:)

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
I am happy to say that (theoretically) science could describe the whole of objective reality.

UCE,

Your assertion that the subjective is other than an emergent process of the underlying objective reality is still unproven. Moreover, your assertion that philosophy and not science will get to the truth about consciousness is completely unsupported.

Philosophy can do a fine job with ethics, with our personal and cultural values. It can tell us how to live. How to act with respect to others. Science is the only branch of philosophy that has ever been able to tell us how the universe works. What we are made of. What the rules are at the various levels of reality.

The question is: is mind an emergent property of the brain?
If you wish to prove philosophy will crack the problem of this problem, you need first to demonstrate what similar problems philosophy has ever cracked. Would you be so kind as to enumerate them? Well, actually, just list one. One problem that philosophy, not science, has resolved about the nature of reality.

Cheers,

Bill,

The true role of philosophy is mental hygiene. It is making sure that we are asking the right questions, in the hope that if we ask the right questions, instead of the wrong ones, that we might stand some chance of finding those answers. Kant is a good example of this - he simply drew a distinction between the world as we perceive it and the world as it really is. This doesn't 'crack any problem', but it does help us to think more clearly about what questions we should be asking.

As for your comments about materialism and consciousness....I think it would be wise for me to respond only to very specific points directly related to the content of this thread, which has examined this question in great detail, and not respond to general comments about what has or has not been demonstrated which don't actually refer to the debate which has taken place. Nothing personal, but I find that if people join in at the end of threads like these they tend to have missed the important points that went before, and if I respond to general comments like yours I just end up repeating the entire thread for a second time which is a complete waste of my time.

:)

Geoff.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
[B]

UCE,

Your assertion that the subjective is other than an emergent process of the underlying objective reality is still unproven.
Moreover, your assertion that philosophy and not science will get to the truth about consciousness is completely unsupported.


Science certainly won't as I have already demonstrated in the Dawkins thread. Science in principle cannot get to "the truth" about consciousness.



Philosophy can do a fine job with ethics, with our personal and cultural values. It can tell us how to live. How to act with respect to others. Science is the only branch of philosophy that has ever been able to tell us how the universe works.



Meaning it provides a description via our theories. Science does not make proclamations about metaphysics. It is regrettable that scientists do and people in this forum :(



What we are made of. What the rules are at the various levels of reality.


What our bodies are made of you mean, or at you presuming the correctness of materialism? If the former your statement seems to me to tilt towards the notion of both a material reality and scientific realism.


The question is: is mind an emergent property of the brain?
If you wish to prove philosophy will crack the problem of this problem, you need first to demonstrate what similar problems philosophy has ever cracked. Would you be so kind as to enumerate them? Well, actually, just list one. One problem that philosophy, not science, has resolved about the nature of reality.



The vacuousness of logical positivism? The vacuousness of the notion of "material substance"?

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
As for your comments about materialism and consciousness....I think it would be wise for me to respond only to very specific points directly related to the content of this thread, which has examined this question in great detail, and not respond to general comments about what has or has not been demonstrated which don't actually refer to the debate which has taken place. Nothing personal, but I find that if people join in at the end of threads like these they tend to have missed the important points that went before, and if I respond to general comments like yours I just end up repeating the entire thread for a second time which is a complete waste of my time.

UCE,

From the fact I have been hitherto silent on this thread, you leap to the conclusion that I haven't followed it? Curious logic.

So you haven't presented an example. But you want us to believe that science can't arrive at an answer and that, somehow, philosophy, the Lavoris of the mind will arrive at the answer. Despite the fact you have no examples of it having done such things in the past, outside of its child, science. Curious logic here as well.

Cheers,

[Kullervo]

Mr. Hoyt, I offer this as a mere nitpick and will not defend it but:

Descartes' Analytic Geometry and Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica were both written by individuals who called themselves philosophers.

I'll add Pascal and Leibnitz too.

As soon as those works entered the scientific canon they were no longer considered philosophy.

In effect you've loaded the dice here. Anything that has scientific value will by definition not be philosophy, regardless of its origin.

Originally posted by whitefork
Mr. Hoyt, I offer this as a mere nitpick and will not defend it but:

Descartes' Analytic Geometry and Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica were both written by individuals who called themselves philosophers.

As soon as those works entered the scientific canon they were no longer considered philosophy.

In effect you've loaded the dice here. Anything that has scientific value will by definition not be philosophy, regardless of its origin.

Whitefork,

Actually you're remarking on a nit I've been picking with UCE, on the point of philosophy versus science. Science developed as a school of philosophy. It was originally known as Natural Philosophy. I am trying to get to UCE's assertion that philosophy and not science (here he sets up the divide) will get to the truth about mind and consciousness.

Cheers,

[DialecticMaterialist]

BTW someone I think mentioned that basically the consciousness cannot be matter because the raw material is exchanged every 7 years. However to me that seems kind of silly, the material of our arms do likewise but I'm not going to become an "arm dualist" anytime soon. Most likely the organ retains its consistency over time by changing slowly, piece by piece. Though I don't know how this works exactly. Perhaps that's all a continuous consciousness is really, a sort of slow change in which certain mechanisms enforce a paticular subjectivity to be forever prevelant.

[metacristi]

BTW someone I think mentioned that basically the consciousness cannot be matter because the raw material is exchanged every 7 years.However to me that seems kind of silly, the material of our arms do likewise but I'm not going to become an "arm dualist" anytime soon. Most likely the organ retains its consistency over time by changing slowly, piece by piece.


This mere constatation does not prove indeed that consciousness,seen as an emergent property of matter,is above materialism as we understand it today.But in the same time this does not prove that usual scientific position is enough to explain consciousness despite the actual trends in neurology and AI [consciousness has nothing to do with vitalism,not even with quantum effects].No one can claim that the personality at the beginning of a period of 7 years is the same with that at the end of this period.All we can claim is that a part of the initial personality has not changed,moreover some parts remain the same throughout all life.There is still plenty of room for vitalism or for quantum level effects [which by the way can be seen as an 'extended' materialism since the soul in the majority of vitalist doctrines interfere with our world].
I think there is a possibility to test whether today's scientific position is enough to explain human consciousness.Sure my proposal is hypothetical there is no way to do that now.It is a variant of Chalmers proposal to replace all neurons in a certain brain with special micro switches in order to see whether mind can be modeled using algorithms.If consciousness is exactly the same after the operation then we have the experimental proof that mind can be modeled by algorithms,consciousness only seeming to be stochastic either because it is a chaotic process or due to the huge complications that arise in order to obtain a viable model of it.

My proposal [influenced by Star Trek-teleportation] begins from the constatation that current objective knowledge considers that atoms and molecules are identical.In order to obtain the same personality we simply need to respect the same arrangement of particles down to the atomic level [at least for the brain] even if consciousness would be impossible to be modeled using algorithms.For example after a succesfull teleportation,despite the fact that the original is lost,the replica at the destination should be exactly the same personality.If the consciousness remain the same then we have the proof that consciousness has nothing to do with quantum level or vitalism.Otherwise we should broaden the search at quantum level or even beyond,an 'extended' materialism is needed...at least.

[Q-Source]

Hey,

Did anyone watch last night a BBC programme about Near Death Experience and Consciousness?

Susan Blackmore's commentary was absolutely great.

I was also impressed with the comments about the "Penrose-Hameroff" model, basically they say that consciousness occurs as a quantum computation in microtubules within the brain's neurons.

here is Hameroff's page (http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/hameroff/)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Q-Source
Hey,

Did anyone watch last night a BBC programme about Near Death Experience and Consciousness?

Susan Blackmore's commentary was absolutely great.

I was also impressed with the comments about the "Penrose-Hameroff" model, basically they say that consciousness occurs as a quantum computation in microtubules within the brain's neurons.

here is Hameroff's page (http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/hameroff/)

F*ck I missed it! I hardly ever watch TV and therefore sometimes neglect to look at the TV guide. Susan Blackmore is always on such programmes. Her arguments against the spiritual explanation of the NDE I find rather desperate, although her explanation for the light and not being blinded by it sounds plausible..

But enough of that. Was it overall hostile to the spiritual explanation and sympathetic to mechanistic "explanations", or vice versa?

I wish I'd seen it! :mad:

Edited to add: I don't suppose by any remote chance that it said it would be repeated did it?

[Franko]

Elephant:
The true role of philosophy is mental hygiene. It is making sure that we are asking the right questions, in the hope that if we ask the right questions, instead of the wrong ones, that we might stand some chance of finding those answers.

Just out of curiousity could you give me an example of a "WRONG QUESTION" to ask?

Is a "wrong question" like a "Stupid question"? I notice you A-Theists (Mystics) are real big on the concept of NOT answering what you mystically (subjectively) consider to be "stupid questions".

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


F*ck I missed it! I hardly ever watch TV and therefore sometimes neglect to look at the TV guide.

Why? I've seen very good programmes about Science and paranormal stuff on the BBC channels.


Susan Blackmore is always on such programmes. Her arguments against the spiritual explanation of the NDE I find rather desperate, although her explanation for the light and not being blinded by it sounds plausible..

Desperate??? I would say she is "consistent".

She mentioned that the NDE occurs on the borderline between conscious and unconscious states. It may last only few seconds, but it is enough for individuals to confuse NDE with a real brain function which they are not full aware of.



Edited to add: I don't suppose by any remote chance that it said it would be repeated did it?

Ha, ha. No, there isn' t a remote chance. :D
Sorry.
Q-S

[Underemployed]

I don't suppose by any remote chance that it said it would be repeated did it?

There is - but you'll have to rely on remote viewing of course ;)

The arguments for both sides were, as usual, convincing. It certainly seems likely, on the balance of probability, that NDE's are a result of brain chemistry and biology - the 'brain-as-quantum-computer' hypothesis is sadly not very plausible given what we know about QM and biomaterial.

Still, it made a policeman stop shooting people and turned an ******* businessman into a born-again nice guy. Can't be bad! The one thing I was left arguing over with my fellow viewers was the lady who underwent brain surgery and was totally muted to the world, yet still managed to 'describe' the surgical instruments and give a 'verbatim' account of a few words a nurse and doctor said. No real evidence of these accounts except the lady's word and a few suitably amazed physicians, so nothing to go on for real-time debunking.

Not much help on consciousness though...NDE's could be claimed by either side as proof for/against.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Q-Source
F*ck I missed it! I hardly ever watch TV and therefore sometimes neglect to look at the TV guide.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Why? I've seen very good programmes about Science and paranormal stuff on the BBC channels.



God I feel sick, was drinking last night. :( Anyway, to get to the matter at hand. Good stuff on the paranormal on BBC?? Nah. You're kidding aren't you? There is scarcely ever any programmes on the paranormal on BBC. And the only half way decent programmes on science (and I'm really thinking of physics here) is some of the open university programmes. And why can't they ever have any programmes on philosophy? :( So boring. Certainly not worth the licence fee.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Susan Blackmore is always on such programmes. Her arguments against the spiritual explanation of the NDE I find rather desperate, although her explanation for the light and not being blinded by it sounds plausible..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Desperate??? I would say she is "consistent".



{shrugs} Easy enough to be consistent if one doesn't really assert anything.



She mentioned that the NDE occurs on the borderline between conscious and unconscious states.



No, certainly not with NDE's as understood by the general populace. I mean if it were true it wouldn't be called a near-death experience would it? With the deeper experiences the person is clinically dead. Nevertheless they report being more conscious, being more aware than they ever have been in their lives. Certainly not on the border line between conscious and unconscious states!

Of course she may be exploiting the inherent ambiguity in the term. NDE's can refer to a person apparently leaving their body and then travelling down a "tunnel" (not really a tunnel btw!), and entering an "otherworldly" reality. But this is comparatively rare because the deeper the experience the less common they are. Also it seems that the deeper the experience the more close to death the experiencers are, so with "proper" NDE's the person ostensibly appears to be dead.

On the other hand, if NDE's are given a broader meaning, an NDE might simply refer to a momentary out of body experience. Such experiences will of course be much more common than the deeper experiences. Therefore by a suitable definition of NDE it may be possible to assert what she did. But this is deeply misleading, and quite frankly a cheat on her part.


It may last only few seconds, but it is enough for individuals to confuse NDE with a real brain function which they are not full aware of.


Ah! Seems my suspicions are justified. One wonders why skeptics need to mislead if their case is so powerful? :rolleyes:

BTW one could point out that there is a real brain function corrlated with all of our experiences throughout our lives. Does that mean that everything we have ever experienced is hallucinatory? ;) While our essential selves function through the brain then one would expect there to be particular brain states correlated with mental states. We might expect this to be so even with those "shallow" NDE states. However with "proper" NDE's no brain activity can be detected.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited to add: I don't suppose by any remote chance that it said it would be repeated did it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Ha, ha. No, there isn' t a remote chance.
Sorry.
Q-S
Q-S

Damn! And it's unfortunate for you too. I mean think about how much more I could have wrote if I'd seen the programme, and imagine what pleasure you would have had in reading about my thoughts on the programme! ;)

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Damn! And it's unfortunate for you too. I mean think about how much more I could have wrote if I'd seen the programme, and imagine what pleasure you would have had in reading about my thoughts on the programme! ;)

Neither lack of information nor rationality has stopped you in the past. Do drone on, though.

Cheers,

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Neither lack of information nor rationality has stopped you in the past. Do drone on, though.

Cheers,

Ok I will.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

No, certainly not with NDE's as understood by the general populace. I mean if it were true it wouldn't be called a near-death experience would it? With the deeper experiences the person is clinically dead. Nevertheless they report being more conscious, being more aware than they ever have been in their lives. Certainly not on the border line between conscious and unconscious states!


Anecdotal evidence is worthless.

There is an attempt by scientists to measure NDE, but at the moment there is nothing concrete. They need to determine the with precision when this event occurs in order to compare the experience reported by the individual and the real events happening around him.

Q

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Underemployed

The arguments for both sides were, as usual, convincing.



What were the convincing arguments for the sceptics position?




It certainly seems likely, on the balance of probability, that NDE's are a result of brain chemistry and biology



What you mean is that of the 2 hypotheses, namely that NDE's have their origin in brain states, or that they are a glimpse of an existence after the death of our bodies, the former hypothesis more elegantly fits all pertinent relevant data? Can you justify your stance here? Or are your thoughts in this matter driven by a presumption that materialism is most probably correct, therefore however much an NDE might appear to suggest the correctness of the survival hypothesis, since materialism is obviously correct, NDE's must be some sort of strange hallucination?



Still, it made a policeman stop shooting people and turned an ******* businessman into a born-again nice guy. Can't be bad!



Yes, the effects are generally held to be beneficial to the experiencer, even where the experiencer underwent a hell-like experience. But did you know they can also disrupt personal relationships and sometimes may precipitate divorce?



Not much help on consciousness though...NDE's could be claimed by either side as proof for/against.


NDE's could be claimed as proof that we cease to exist when we die??? :eek:

Hmmmmm . . .let me see. Let's say someone believes in life after death. She finds herself floating out of her body. She sees below people weeping over her apparently lifeless body, but she herself feels more alive and conscious than she has ever felt. She then finds herself floating down a kind of "tunnel" with an incredibly bright loving light at the end. She encounters people whom she has known and loved in her life but who had subsequently died. Yet here they are although they have a more youthful appearance than their apperance when she last saw them. She encounters a kind of "border", and it is communicated to her by telepathy that if she crosses the border there is no going back. All of this experience is supposed to make her think "oh how silly I've been! How obvious that we cease to exist when we die! Silly me" Err . . . :confused:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Q-Source
[B]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

No, certainly not with NDE's as understood by the general populace. I mean if it were true it wouldn't be called a near-death experience would it? With the deeper experiences the person is clinically dead. Nevertheless they report being more conscious, being more aware than they ever have been in their lives. Certainly not on the border line between conscious and unconscious states!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Anecdotal evidence is worthless.



Worthless in the context of what? Of science? Sure, but so what? No-one is suggesting that these accounts constitute scientific evidence. This does not imply they are not strongly suggestive of an afterlife.



There is an attempt by scientists to measure NDE, but at the moment there is nothing concrete. They need to determine the with precision when this event occurs in order to compare the experience reported by the individual and the real events happening around him.



These experiences normally seem to happen around the time of death. The idea that they are a fabrication invented by the mind upon resusitation is inconsistent with the phenomenon of death-bed apparitions, ie the perception, by those who actually die, of dead loved ones, religious figures etc shortly before death. It has even been reported that on rare occasions these visions are also perceived by the living who are in attendance to the dying. (Incidentally the term NDE is a recent one coined in 1976. Before this time they were subsumed under deathbed apparitions)

[Underemployed]

Dear Ian,

Thank you for keeping me honest. There I was spouting a load of personal testimony, half-remembered experiences and a load of other evidence I expected you to take for granted. What was I thinking?

What were the convincing arguments for the sceptics position?

I suppose my main influences stem from research like this. (http://ai.fri.uni-lj.si/xaigor/slo/znanclanki/neardeat.htm) Of particular interest is footnote 25 (relating to the experiences of fighter pilots as they are rendered unconscious by high acceleration). I recall another BBC programme on this same subject a few years back which interviewed an American pilot. He had just such a vision of the afterlife, including a sense of complete wellbeing and sightings of his beloved family members, as he was walking down the corridor away from the centrifuge.

Adding anecdotal evidence like this to the strong evidence of what we know about the visual parts of the brain and what the brain does during traumatic events, (ie causes a 'white-out' in the centre of our field of vision and releases morphine) makes the case for NDE-as-brain-chemistry convinving to me. The only thing thus far inexplicable is the 'out of body' experience where seemingly brain-dead patients recall events that happened while they were comatose, plus visual descriptions of things they could not have seen unless they really were out of their body.

On closer inspection these claims are fairly hit and miss. In the above link an old man describes seeing his false teeth being taken out and put away. In the programme on TV a lady described the instrument used to operate her as 'looking like an electric toothbrush'. She also gave a verbatim account of a conversation between attendants at her operation, though no evidence for this was forthcoming nor details of how or when this account was delivered. Forgive me for not beating down a path to my local church asking for forgiveness.

NDE's could be claimed as proof that we cease to exist when we die???

I'm sorry that I was so misunderstood. I shall try and type slower. This being a thread on consciousness, I was addressing the differing arguments we have seen thus far, ie consciousness is a material thing/consciousness is not a material thing. Neither of these arguments proves or disproves an afterlife.

If I was a materialist I would argue that NDE's show that it's all brain chemistry. If I was not I would argue they show we have a non-physical part of ourselves that survives our corporeal form. I might even add that if you believe in evolution, how do you account for a so-called 'natural' response to brain death, when it is only in the last few decades that we have learned how to resucitate people who are this far gone? It wouldn't have done Cro-Magnon Man any good to have an NDE if his companions had to wait 30,000 years for defibrilators to be invented, would it?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Underemployed
Dear Ian,

Thank you for keeping me honest. There I was spouting a load of personal testimony, half-remembered experiences and a load of other evidence I expected you to take for granted. What was I thinking?



I suppose my main influences stem from research like this. (http://ai.fri.uni-lj.si/xaigor/slo/znanclanki/neardeat.htm)



Hey! Thanks for the link. Read it through :)



Of particular interest is footnote 25 (relating to the experiences of fighter pilots as they are rendered unconscious by high acceleration). I recall another BBC programme on this same subject a few years back which interviewed an American pilot. He had just such a vision of the afterlife, including a sense of complete wellbeing and sightings of his beloved family members, as he was walking down the corridor away from the centrifuge.



Yes, although I think that iis rather unusual to have such effects through a centifuge. A much more effective way to induce an NDE without actually approaching death would be to take ketamine.
Take a look here (http://leda.lycaeum.org/Documents/Using_Ketamine_to_Induce_the_Near-Death_Experience.9260.shtml)

I must stress though that I most emphatically disagree with the article that NDE's do not consitute any evidence for the survival hypothesis (life after death). I just do not think that artificially inducing NDE's has any consequence for the spiritualist interpretation of this experience. Mind you, it would do if with the NDE induced by ketamine, one was offered a choice of crossing the boundary or not (the boundary is one where if you cross there is no going back and you will be dead). I mean if by taking ketamine, you weren't in particular danger of dying, then this couldn't be a genuine choice could it? Therefore doubt could be cast on the genineness of the experience as a whole. BTW, unlike the article suggests, I don't think in all aspects a k induced NDE is like a normal NDE. Apart from the fact that people who undergo a k induced NDE never approaching a boundary (as far as I am aware), there is also a lack of love in the experience which is so implicit and an integral part of the experience of a normal NDE. Not clear what relevance this has but it doesn't mean to say it doesn't have any!

Incidentally, the guy who wrote the article Dr Karl Jensen, who I believe is the world's leading authority on the effects of ketamine, appears to have had a change in heart in anycase. There are extracts from his book "Ketamine: Dreams and Realities" here (http://serendipity.magnet.ch/dmt/k_ch4.htm)

Jensen says:


The near-death experience (NDE) is an altered state of being that can be reached in various ways, including through ketamine. In the past, I have published several articles about ketamine and the NDR that concentrated on events in the brain itself. In this book I will also consider far more speculative suggestions that the brain acts as a transceiver, converting energy fields "beyond the brain" into features of the mind, in a manner similar to the way a television converts waves in the air into sound and vision.
To some scientists and others, advances in quantum physics suggest that certain drugs, and the conditions that produce near-death experiences, may "retune" the brain to provide access to fields and "broadcasts" that are usually inaccessible. They propose that this retuning may open doors to realms that are always there, rather than actually producing those realms, just as the broadcast of one TV channel continues when we change channels. Some users believe that this idea is true, while others see it as a dangerous delusion leading the unwary into "the repeated use trap."




Adding anecdotal evidence like this to the strong evidence of what we know about the visual parts of the brain and what the brain does during traumatic events, (ie causes a 'white-out' in the centre of our field of vision and releases morphine) makes the case for NDE-as-brain-chemistry convinving to me.



But I'm afraid not convincing to me at all. The fact that brain chemistry can influence the initial states of an NDE, has no more implication that the NDE must therefore originate from these processes within the brain, than does manipulating the innards of a TV set, and thus altering the precise characteristics of the picture, implies that the picture must originate from these innards. Just as it is ludicrous to suppose that the story line of some film must actually be created and originate from the internal components of a TV set, so it is equally ludicrous (if not more so) that NDE's and all other conscious states are created and originate from the lump of meat we label our brains.


The only thing thus far inexplicable is the 'out of body' experience where seemingly brain-dead patients recall events that happened while they were comatose, plus visual descriptions of things they could not have seen unless they really were out of their body.

On closer inspection these claims are fairly hit and miss. In the above link an old man describes seeing his false teeth being taken out and put away. In the programme on TV a lady described the instrument used to operate her as 'looking like an electric toothbrush'. She also gave a verbatim account of a conversation between attendants at her operation, though no evidence for this was forthcoming nor details of how or when this account was delivered. Forgive me for not beating down a path to my local church asking for forgiveness.


Sounds like the Pam Reynolds case that Sabom investigated.



If I was a materialist I would argue that NDE's show that it's all brain chemistry. If I was not I would argue they show we have a non-physical part of ourselves that survives our corporeal form. I might even add that if you believe in evolution, how do you account for a so-called 'natural' response to brain death, when it is only in the last few decades that we have learned how to resucitate people who are this far gone? It wouldn't have done Cro-Magnon Man any good to have an NDE if his companions had to wait 30,000 years for defibrilators to be invented, would it?

You'll have to forgive me but I'm not clear as to your point here. Are you claiming that from the point of evolution NDE's have a point now but didn't use to? :confused:

Sorry but I'm really confused! LOL :)

[Underemployed]

Thank you for your detailed post, I appreciate your reply. I was aware of the idea of brain-as-antenna and, to be frank, I really like it. I would dearly love it to be proven true, as much as Houdini wanted to find evidence for real spirit mediums.

This will not be done by studying metaphysics. It will be done, if it can be done, by a systematic study of brain activity and a much deeper understanding of how the brain processes information than we have now. If brains are receivers of consciousness rather than orginators, it must follow that one day we will be able to detect that signal. I secretly wish such a thing could be found in our lifetimes. But don't tell anyone!

I apologise for being unclear and patronising. My last paragraph was meant to show that evolution could not be given credit for 'inventing' the NDE as a brain-chemistry response to trauma since it would have no use for our ancestors, who would not have had NDE's. They would just have had DE's. Since it is reasonable to assume people have always had such experiences, it can have had no evolutionary benefit to anyone prior to our recent developments in healthcare. And even now it's hard to see what positive aspect on selection it could have. So I guess I'm saying they never had any 'use' in this respect. If anyone can suggest an evolutionary benefit for NDE's, please let me know.

What I am against is the persistent ideology that our experiences must either be mystical or brute computation. By pinning down experiences such as Near-Death and explaining them, we come closer to an understanding of what it is to be conscious. We must no longer hide behind the excuse of such things being unknowable.

We are TV sets tuned into a universal consciousness? Great! Let's trace the transmitter! We have souls? Let us see one! Metaphysics has had thousands of years to provide answers. Let science have its turn. I have faith in it.

[Loki]

Ian,

The fact that brain chemistry can influence the initial states of an NDE, has no more implication that the NDE must therefore originate from these processes within the brain, than does manipulating the innards of a TV set, and thus altering the precise characteristics of the picture, implies that the picture must originate from these innards.
Just a small point, but you can't use your analogy (the TV set) to create a contraditcion in the opposing point of view.

The "consciousness from matter" theory doesn't accept the TV set analogy. Try using the "computer program" analogy - assume the brain is a computer, and consciousness is a program. Your above statement then becomes :

"manipulating the innards of the program, and thus altering the precise characteristics of the program output, implies that the output must originate from those innards."

Do you doubt that changing the 'innards' of a program will change it's output? Do you doubt that performing such an experiment has any "implications" for the source of the output?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Loki
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that brain chemistry can influence the initial states of an NDE, has no more implication that the NDE must therefore originate from these processes within the brain, than does manipulating the innards of a TV set, and thus altering the precise characteristics of the picture, implies that the picture must originate from these innards.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Just a small point, but you can't use your analogy (the TV set) to create a contraditcion in the opposing point of view.

The "consciousness from matter" theory doesn't accept the TV set analogy. Try using the "computer program" analogy - assume the brain is a computer, and consciusness is a program. You above statement then becomes :

"manipulating the innards of the program, and thus altering the precise characteristics of the program output, implies that the output must originate from those innards."

Do you doubt that changing the 'innards' of a program will change it's output? Do you doubt that performing such an experiment has any "implications" for the source of the output?



I am not trying to create a contradiction in the opposing point of view, and I can use the "analogy" because I am denying that altering brain chemistry to induce NDE's proves that the spiritual interpretation of the NDE is incorrect. Indeed the brain chemistry argument presupposes the correctness of some materialist based metaphysic! :eek: This is the problem. People sympathetic to materialism inevitably construct arguments based on the premises of materialism. This of course proves absolutely nothing and I was just being polite about that by mentioning the example of a TV set.

It is in my opinion as ludicrous to suppose consciousness is created ex nihilo from the lump of meat we call the brain, as it is to suppose the story content of a film is created ex nihilo from the internal components of a TV set. But that is peripheral to the main point I was making.

[Loki]

Ian,

I understand your point, but you seem to be missing mine (and I agree that this is a side issue - that's why I called it a small point!). Let me try again...

It is in my opinion as ludicrous to suppose consciousness is created ex nihilo from the lump of meat we call the brain, as it is to suppose the story content of a film is created ex nihilo from the internal components of a TV set.
You are comparing the "ludicrous" rating of two situations. The first is a proposal about the brain. The second is about TV sets. I'd agree with the ludicrousness of the second. However, since I don't even agree that the brain is analogous to the TV set, the ludicrousness of your second has no bearing!

Your quote above is trying to say :

1. The brain works like a TV
2. It's ridiculous for a TV to create it's own content
3. Therefore, it's ridiculous for the brain to create it's own content.

But since I disagree with your initial premise, for me this becomes :

1. The brain does not work like a TV
2. It's ridiculous for a TV to create it's own content
3. Therefore, the behaviour of a TV tells us nothing about the ability of the brain to create it's own content.

So, the one simple point I'm making is that your TV set statement establishes nothing, and clarifies nothing. Since I don't think it's an appropriate analogy to start with, I can conclude nothing from examining it.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Loki
I understand your point, but you seem to be missing mine (and I agree that this is a side issue - that's why I called it a small point!). Let me try again...



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is in my opinion as ludicrous to suppose consciousness is created ex nihilo from the lump of meat we call the brain, as it is to suppose the story content of a film is created ex nihilo from the internal components of a TV set.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You are comparing the "ludicrous" rating of two situations. The first is a proposal about the brain. The second is about TV sets. I'd agree with the ludicrousness of the second. However, since I don't even agree that the brain is analogous to the TV set, the ludicrousness of your second has no bearing!



It has no bearing on what? I am simply stating I find it ludicrous the hypothesis that our entire mental lives originate and is created by a lump of meat. It's really got nowt to do with TV sets. The fact I mentioned TV sets helps my point to be understood. That is all.



Your quote above is trying to say :

1. The brain works like a TV
2. It's ridiculous for a TV to create it's own content
3. Therefore, it's ridiculous for the brain to create it's own content.



No, the whole purpose of me introducing TV sets was to illustrate that the fact that altering brain chemistry to initiate NDE's doesn't prove that NDE's originate from chemical states! Dear me!



But since I disagree with your initial premise, for me this becomes :

1. The brain does not work like a TV
2. It's ridiculous for a TV to create it's own content
3. Therefore, the behaviour of a TV tells us nothing about the ability of the brain to create it's own content.

So, the one simple point I'm making is that your TV set statement establishes nothing, and clarifies nothing. Since I don't think it's an appropriate analogy to start with, I can conclude nothing from examining it.



Quite clearly you have no understanding of my point. I give up.


__________________

[Loki]

Ian,

Moving on to more substantial issues...

I just do not think that artificially inducing NDE's has any consequence for the spiritualist interpretation of this experience. Mind you, it would do if with the NDE induced by ketamine, one was offered a choice of crossing the boundary or not (the boundary is one where if you cross there is no going back and you will be dead). I mean if by taking ketamine, you weren't in particular danger of dying, then this couldn't be a genuine choice could it?
This is simply assuming your conclusion. If NDE's are not "genuine" at all, then the boundary is imagined, and can't be crossed even if it's perceived. If they are genuine, then the only people who report back are those who refuse to cross. So not crossing the boundary tells you nothing about whether the boundary is genuine.

Therefore doubt could be cast on the genineness of the experience as a whole. BTW, unlike the article suggests, I don't think in all aspects a k induced NDE is like a normal NDE. Apart from the fact that people who undergo a k induced NDE never approaching a boundary (as far as I am aware), there is also a lack of love in the experience which is so implicit and an integral part of the experience of a normal NDE.
If I read this correctly, you are saying that the article suggest the k-NDEs *are* like normal NDEs in all aspects, but you disagree? What do you base your disagreement on?

From here: (http://leda.lycaeum.org/Documents/Using_Ketamine_to_Induce_the_Near-Death_Experience.9260.shtml)
Ketamine administered by intravenous injection is capable of reproducing all of the features of the NDE which have been commonly described
...
The present author has experienced several NDE's and has also been administered ketamine as an anesthetic and within experimental paradigms. The NDE's and ketamine experiences were clearly the same type of altered state of consciousness. Ketamine repeatedly produced effects which were like the NDE's described by Moody (1975), Noyes and Kletti (1976a), Greyson and Stevenson (1980), Ring (1980), Sabom (1982) and Morse et al., (1985).
Do you have any counter sources of research that show the difrferneces between k-NDEs and normal NDEs?

[Lord Kenneth]

Does he care about research, when he probably thinks it can be true, if he just thinks it is?

[DanishDynamite]

(bump)

[Tricky]

What is this, DD? Some sort of bizarre evidence for life-after-death (for old threads, anyway)?

[Upchurch]

My guess is he's trying to save these threads from being pruned. Wouldn't want to keep the forum more stable or anything.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Upchurch
My guess is he's trying to save these threads from being pruned. Wouldn't want to keep the forum more stable or anything. Sorry, I should have mentioned my reason for bumping. I did so in the first one I bumped.

Anyway, yes, I would like to preserve some of these Oldies where Win, Stimpy and UCE were full throttle.

The R&P forum is dead nowadays compared to those Golden Days. See the "Moderation and Administrative Discussion Area" for details.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Sorry, I should have mentioned my reason for bumping. I did so in the first one I bumped.

Anyway, yes, I would like to preserve some of these Oldies where Win, Stimpy and UCE were full throttle.

The R&P forum is dead nowadays compared to those Golden Days. See the "Moderation and Administrative Discussion Area" for details.
LOL. You're like my Dad, thumbing through his old Guy Lombardo albums, grousing "You kids today don't know anything about good music!".

Who the heck is going to read through all these old threads? Probably just the few remaining Forum Oldtimers, reliving their glory days. It's kind of sad really, seeing them cling to the past like the last leaf (http://www.eldritchpress.org/owh/llpix.html) on the tree.

[Upchurch]

I agree with Tricky. They're only the "good ol' days" because we remember the wins and forget the losses.

Occasionally, I referrence old threads, but if they aren't there anymore, I just recreate the argument.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I agree with Tricky. They're only the "good ol' days" because we remember the wins and forget the losses.

Occasionally, I referrence old threads, but if they aren't there anymore, I just recreate the argument.

Let's all sing!:v:


Those were the days, my friend (http://www.letssingit.com/song/v7x2lgm.html[/url)
We thought they'd never end
We'd sing and dance forever and a day
We'd live the life we choose
We'd fight and never lose
For we were young and sure to have our way