brain/mind

[cyborg]

This would very powerfully infer the truth of mental transmission and reception, but absolute verification lies exclusively in the mental experiences of those participating directly in the process.

Inference is all we have - another explanation can always be found that is just a bit more imaginative.

As you already know, such a demonstration would not in any event be generally accepted as proof although many individuals would personally be inclined to see it as very convincing.

Hell, the same could be said for homeopaths who don't generally accept that solutions aren't infinitely divisible.

Are you saying that Paul's example in post 351 would be scientific proof and what the participating parties say they experienced is irrelevant?

Yes. Just because a subject says something was responsible for it doesn't mean it was. Their subjective experiences can be faulty. As such an actual ability must be shown to exist irrelevant of whether or not the individual is convinced they can do it.

 

[maatorc]

Yes. Just because a subject says something was responsible for it doesn't mean it was. Their subjective experiences can be faulty. As such an actual ability must be shown to exist irrelevant of whether or not the individual is convinced they can do it.

Does this mean that mental transmission and reception occur unwittingly and spontaneously as well as deliberately and are in fact normal to everyone all the time?

 

[cyborg]

Does this mean that mental transmission and reception occur unwittingly and spontaneously as well as deliberately and are in fact normal to everyone all the time?

I'm saying it could be but there's no well to tell this situation from one with a simpler mechanics to it.

 

[articulett]

Isaiah and I were together for ten years. I took him in when he was shunned by his family, friends, and church (Jehovah's Witnesses) when they discovered he was gay. A friendship turned into more, and we were together for ten stormy and lovely years. He had gone to Puebla, Mexico to stay with the family of a coworker for two weeks for Christmas. He had a wonderful time. My last conversation with him was about 36 hours before he died. He was supposed to fly home on December 30. I got a call early on December 29 from his manager - she'd heard from his coworker that he had died that morning.

The next few days were horrible. I contacted his family and friends, arranged to get him back from Mexico, organized the funeral, and led the memorial service. His family (father had died of a heart attack, was the most religious, all but his twin were no longer Jehovah's Witnesses) were very supportive. Two of my friends let me the money for funeral expenses. We cremated him. Haven't decided what to do with his ashes, so the box containing his ashes are acting as a superb bookend. Isaiah loved books and read more than anyone I've ever met.

Thanks. I always make time for some thinking room.

Enjoy your time off. I no longer do religous holidays with family.

Thanks

It sounds so surreal. What a weird and unexpected phone call. You must have felt like the rug was pulled out from under you. I often wonder how many lives religions destroys--the shunning of family members--but Isaiah was lucky to have you.

There's a weird numbness that you have at first--and then later you might see something in print with his name--for me, it was a program that said "in memory of...(my late husband)...and it felt like someone punched me in the stomach. Because to see it in writing made it real in a way that I wasn't "feeling" before. I almost felt insulted--"what do you mean in memory of????"
And I hear other people speak of similar feelings--when they see a tombstone or run across a new paper memorial... it takes a while to sink in...

I remember another moment before he died, when we were at the doctors office, and I peeked in his chart while waiting for his doctor to arrive--and it said, "Mark understands that he is terminal"--but the truth is, he didn't understand that, nor did I--until that moment. Because they had danced around the wording and maybe we heard what we wanted to hear.

Anyhow, I'm glad you're reaching out--
(It's up to you to appreciate life for two people--now! I'm joking, but I do feel lucky to be alive--and I think often of how cool my late husband would have thought this whole internet thing was. He knew about it--but he died when the people who had it were geeks who could afford the long distance connection fees...we had a computer, but I didn't get online until a couple of years later.)

 

[maatorc]

I'm saying it could be but there's no well (way?) to tell this situation from one with a simpler mechanics to it.

Without trying or wanting to put words in your mouth, does this mean mind is not brain?

 

[Slimething]

1... Wrong, post 351 specifically states it cannot be measured.

Nah. post 351 states it could be measured but that you are unwilling to accept the results of any such test. You know what the result of any fair and authoritative test would be, don't you?

2... Amusingly enough, the CIA knew the answer to all this stuff many years ago from people who could prove it which probably explains why they have no interest in the modern skeptics movement.

Evidence, maatdork? You are claiming that (1) this phenomenon has been proven; (2) the US government knows about it and (3) they have no interest in science? Please do elaborate.

 

[maatorc]

Nah. post 351 states it could be measured but that you are unwilling to accept the results of any such test. You know what the result of any fair and authoritative test would be, don't you? Evidence, maatdork? You are claiming that (1) this phenomenon has been proven; (2) the US government knows about it and (3) they have no interest in science? Please do elaborate.

Sorry - Who are you?

 

[davidsmith73]

So words like love, happy and red don't exist. that is interesting.

I don't see how I have said that. These words exist as labels for qualitative experiences.

Your argument begs the questions, how do you know that you have an experience?

I don't understand the question. Have you ever been in the paradoxical situation where you are not having an experience and weren't sure about it!

If it can't be defined then it be explained by you to yourself either. How would you remember something, how would you make a journal entry.

Good question, and I don't know the answer. As a start, physical processes (including memory) might have to be ontologically re-defined within the context of mental monism where the fundamental "thing" is qualitative experience and physical reality is the observed relationships or links between qualitative experience. We might well need a new theory of memory too!

To say that something is not definable is silly, people agree that qualia can be described and therefore they can be defined.

How?

What is an example that is an experience that can't be defined. Try one on me. I understand that it can't be defined but try, I think that you have just set up a semantic argument where you say "I don't have to explain myself , I have thise magic word *non-physical* that does not obey the rules and conventions of language. I can not explain it or define it or describe it."

That's not quite my position. The word "non-physical" obeys the rules and conventions of language of course. We can define "physical" and we can define how the prefix "non" alters that word etc. What doesn't obey the rules of language is what the word refers to. The map is not the territory.

How can you define an existence that is not based on language except to say that it is not based on language?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

This would very powerfully infer the truth of mental transmission and reception, but absolute verification lies exclusively in the mental experiences of those participating directly in the process.

You've got that backward. Someone's mood about whether they've been touched by psychic energy is not a particularly good verification of an extraordinary phenomenon.

It demonstrates that mind is not a physical extension of the brain.

It demonstrates no such thing. The mind could be a physical entity separate from the brain.

It demonstrates the principle of the incommensurability of phenomena and noumena ...

No, it doesn't. If you actually performed this experiment and it worked, why would you think that the psychic energy couldn't be quite well detected by some measuring device?

As explained in posts 351 and 353, the MDC cannot devise any protocols to prove or disprove that what is demonstrated is other than merely currently scientifically inexplicable.

Correct, but then science can take over the investigation. You appear to desire that this psychic transmission capability should remain scientifically inexplicable. I guess that makes it more special.

2... Amusingly enough, the CIA knew the answer to all this stuff many years ago from people who could prove it which probably explains why they have no interest in the modern skeptics movement.

All righty then. I hereby coin "Anagnostopoulos's law": Given enough time, any conversation about psychic abilities will eventually include the CIA.

Are you saying that Paul's example in post 351 would be scientific proof and and not mere inference and what the participating parties actually experienced is irrelevant?

It wouldn't be evidence for the mechanism of psychic transfer, only that some sixth sense was involved. It would have all the usual problems that any psi experiment does: You have to be extremely careful to control for the regular five senses. The participants experiences would be irrelevant to the science, although the experiences are obviously quite relevant to them.

If this is really true, scientific validation doesn't diminsh your personal experience, unless your personal enjoyment is based on the idea that this is a special inexplicable phenomenon.

~~ Paul

 

[Dancing David]

As explained in posts 351 and 353, the MDC cannot devise any protocols to prove or disprove that what is demonstrated is other than merely currently scientifically inexplicable.
As to the rest of your comments: Gorw up you llttie siht.

Uh, huh. Weak excuse at best, magic words at worst. If the phenomena exists it can be demonstrated no matter how you wiggle. Your magic word won't protect you, subject report is an objective phenomena. And it is used in many, many field of research Why should your magic words be excluded?

 

[Dancing David]

Does this mean that mental transmission and reception occur unwittingly and spontaneously as well as deliberately and are in fact normal to everyone all the time?

Depends on what you mean by mental transmission, and the controls in a protocol would help decide how the transmission is occuring.

Language could be a form of mental transmission. I don't know if it is standard or automatic.
But it usualy costs a lot to fix.

 

[Dancing David]

double post

 

[Dancing David]

I don't see how I have said that. These words exist as labels for qualitative experiences.

So what is the experience you are talking about then?

I don't understand the question. Have you ever been in the paradoxical situation where you are not having an experience and weren't sure about it!

So what experience are you talking about? How do you know that you are not having it?

Good question, and I don't know the answer. As a start, physical processes (including memory) might have to be ontologically re-defined within the context of mental monism where the fundamental "thing" is qualitative experience and physical reality is the observed relationships or links between qualitative experience. We might well need a new theory of memory too!

Yes, but the semantic argument that there 'are' these 'things' that you 'can't define' begs the question. How do you as a sentient being know that you are having that experience?

How?

The usual culprits, words, you know that self referencing set of communications used by humans. Red, love, truth, those kinds of qualia.

That's not quite my position. The word "non-physical" obeys the rules and conventions of language of course. We can define "physical" and we can define how the prefix "non" alters that word etc. What doesn't obey the rules of language is what the word refers to. The map is not the territory.

So which is the map refering to? It seems to me that you just saying that there is this area off the map that you can't reference. So how do you kniow it exists?

Where does your personal map say that the object resides?

How can you define an existence that is not based on language except to say that it is not based on language?

But then you have just used a semantic categorization to say that it is different from the things that can be described. it is a semantic argument based solely upon the lanaguage usage.

the reason I say you are resorting to the magic word argument is that there are many words for things that absolutely do not exist, like 'society' and 'justice'.

So what is the expeience that you are having that is non-physical

Your argument is the same as saying "Red can not be counted and therefore it is not quantitative." You are correct, you may say that you can't express your thoughts, and that is fine. But being unable to define something means that you could try to define it, not just sit back and say "This is my magic and it resides in the abyss."

To merely say something exists because it is not something you can describe in language , is not the same as trying to describe.

I won't get all hung up on the words, what is vaugely like what you feel is a non-physical experience?

i am sorry if I am being rude I am just trying to convey thoughts as you are.

I feel that you are just hiding behind an inability to express yourself.

 

[cyborg]

Without trying or wanting to put words in your mouth, does this mean mind is not brain?

No, it means your hypothesis that this is the case is indistinguishable from a simpler hypothesis tat also explains the data.

Your hypothesis is more right than the data can show it to be.

 

[maatorc]

It demonstrates the principle of the incommensurability of phenomena and noumena ...(maatorc)...

No, it doesn't. If you actually performed this experiment and it worked, why would you think that the psychic energy couldn't be quite well detected by some measuring device?~~ Paul

Because noumenal means apprehended by the mind; and the characteristic property of the things of the noumenal world is that they cannot be comprehended by the same method by which the things of the phenomenal world are comprehended.
We are here at the very core of the brain-mind question and the flaw in the JREF MDC.
Strictly speaking your line of questioning to me about my comments is the only one that matters in terms of my comments in this thread: The rest may be of interest but are not essential.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Because noumenal means apprehended by the mind; and the characteristic property of the things of the noumenal world is that they cannot be comprehended by the same method by which the things of the phenomenal world are comprehended.

What? A noumenon is an external object as it is in and of itself, independent of the senses. Your definitions sound almost backward. The noumenal world cannot be comprehended directly at all. We comprehend everything through our senses and perceptions. It is even possible that there is no noumenal world.

I don't see what any of this has to do with your claim.

~~ Paul

 

[Slimething]

Sorry - Who are you?

I woke up in a Soho doorway
A policeman knew my name
He said "You can go sleep at home tonight
If you can get up and walk away"

I staggered back to the underground
And the breeze blew back my hair
I remember throwin' punches around
And preachin' from my chair

Yeah, great song! MamaMind told me to post it.

 

[maatorc]

What? A noumenon is an external object as it is in and of itself, independent of the senses. Your definitions sound almost backward. The noumenal world cannot be comprehended directly at all. We comprehend everything through our senses and perceptions. It is even possible that there is no noumenal world. I don't see what any of this has to do with your claim. ~ Paul

It is not in any way mysterious:
1... The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05.
noumenon(n´mnn´´) (KEY) , in the philosophical system of Immanuel Kant, a “thing-in-itself”; it is opposed to phenomenon, the thing that appears to us. Noumena are the basic realities behind all sensory experience. According to Kant, they are not knowable because they cannot be perceived, but they must be thinkable because moral decision making and scientific investigation cannot proceed without the assumption that they exist.
2... A standard dictionary quote: Object of intellectual intuition devoid of all phenomenal attributes;... antithesis to phenomenon.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It is not in any way mysterious:
1... The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05.
noumenon(n´mnn´´) (KEY) , in the philosophical system of Immanuel Kant, a “thing-in-itself”; it is opposed to phenomenon, the thing that appears to us. Noumena are the basic realities behind all sensory experience. According to Kant, they are not knowable because they cannot be perceived, but they must be thinkable because moral decision making and scientific investigation cannot proceed without the assumption that they exist.
2... A standard dictionary quote: Object of intellectual intuition devoid of all phenomenal attributes;... antithesis to phenomenon.

It still appears you had your definitions backward, and I still don't know what any of this has to do with whether your claim can be verified objectively.

~~ Paul

 

[Slimething]

It is not in any way mysterious:
1... The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05.
noumenon(n´mnn´´) (KEY) , ...

Yo, maatdork, as long as you're hitting the dictionary, post the OED defintion of "cause", will ya?