Materealism and morality

[HansMustermann]

No, there is a case of a burden of proof. Is the BOP on me to prove that the mind is a logically separate entity, or on you to prove that it is not a logically separate entity.

Depends on how separate. As I was hinting all along, if you merely want to say that it's a very different logical _concept_, then I'd think no proof is needed. We can all agree on that very quickly.

But if you want to argue that there's literally more to it than the brain at work, I'd think you're essentially arguing that all the evidence we have for the other position is false. I'd certainly expect some burden of proof there.

And I have a question -> There were scientific tests in which a person lay on a bed. Above the bed there was a shelf. On the shelf there was a random card. The person tried to enter an out of body experience, and to see the card. If he would know it rightly, that would be evidence of a disembodied consciousness that "sees" the card. (I think such tests were done by Susan Blackmore).

Do you agree that if these tests would succeed, that would be evidence of a disembodied consciousness that somehow "sees" the card?

That's one big "if" there. If that were to succeed, I'd think that would qualify for Randi's million, for a start.

But I don't think you can base much on an "if" before you know the condition to be true. Equally you can say that _if_ I had telekinetic powers, I could give you a telekinetic wedgie. But I think you'd first want to establish if such powers exist, before investing in telekinesis-proof underwear

As L noted, all evidence can be interpreted to mean that the brain causes the mind, or also that the mind is a property of the brain.

Actually, personally I'd vote for "function of the brain" as more correct than either.

Seing Joe's OOP explanation, makes me suspect that that's a meaning he can agree upon too. But, again, I can't speak for him.

Sort of like timekeeping is a function of a clock or watch. You could call it a "property" or "result" too, but that could mislead people who don't have that exact meaning of either word in mind.

And yes, it is highly unlikely, but my point is that it is conceivable that there is a disembodied consciousness, and thus the mind is not a property. If (a scientific expirement that would prove a disembodied consciousness) is possible, then this concept is conceivable.

And as I was saying, being able to conceive something only makes it a concept (hint: same word root), not an actual existing entity.

Basically after reading your messages, I'm not left with the impression that your arguing that such a thing actually exists. Just that it's possible to think of a mind without thinking of a brain. Is that what you're really trying to say?

Which doesn't need much proof, since we have historical examples. E.g., the ancient egyptians thought the brain isn't even needed for the afterlife (i.e., to live on as a ghostly consciousness) and it was the only part of the body they just removed instead of embalming. E.g., Aristotle thought that the brain is basically just a heatsink to cool the blood. (Sorta like a water-cooling system for the body.) The Japanese thought the soul is in the abdomen, which is one reason why seppuku (harakiri) was what it was, etc.

That's why I've been trying to peg the terminology all along.

But to repeat the question: Are you saying that:

A) a mind without a body is actually possible as a standalone entity,

or merely that

B) you can basically imagine/think of a mind without needing to think of the brain too?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

1) Well, what phenomenon would that be?

The results of the test. A person accurately being able to report the content of something that they can't detect with normal senses.

2) Are you ready to make the strong claim that there it is impossible to think of a test that would establish a disembodied-consciousness that is able to see something?

In the stronger of your two definitions of conceivable, disembodied consciousness is not conceivable. So, in that sense, it is impossible to make a test that would establish it.

What do you think such a test would be?

Remember, I've been telling you all along that the subjective nature of the experience of mind or consciousness is not resolved by dualism. This is exactly where it becomes problem.

Assume for a moment that disembodied minds are possible. What test could you devise that could prove it? You can't ever have the experience of someone else's subjective experience, so whatever test you come up with would not be conclusive of disembodied mind.

 

[HansMustermann]

I just felt like clarifying one more thing:

And I have a question -> There were scientific tests in which a person lay on a bed. Above the bed there was a shelf. On the shelf there was a random card. The person tried to enter an out of body experience, and to see the card. If he would know it rightly, that would be evidence of a disembodied consciousness that "sees" the card. (I think such tests were done by Susan Blackmore).

Do you agree that if these tests would succeed, that would be evidence of a disembodied consciousness that somehow "sees" the card?

Even _if_ such an experiment were a success (and so far I didn't hear about such an OOB guy winning Randi's million, if you get my drift) we'd still need a bit more before we can rule it conclusively as a mind actually leaving the body.

For all we know, some other kind of magic could be at work. The mind could jolly well stay in the guy's brain, while he uses some other magical power to read the card. It could be clairvoyance, telepathy (if someone even in another room knows which card is there), etc.

ETA: I'm not saying I actually believe in any kind of paranormal. But _if_ such an experiment were a success, it would only tell us that _something_ paranormal happened. It would still remain to be determined which kind.

Now if the guy's EEG also went flat during that time, now that would be a lot stronger a claim that the mind actually worked without a brain.

 

[JetLeg]

But to repeat the question: Are you saying that:

A) a mind without a body is actually possible as a standalone entity,

or merely that

B) you can basically imagine/think of a mind without needing to think of the brain too?

I am arguing B.

But you miss the point why it is so important to me.

I argue that the mind is not a property, nor a function of the brain, but something that is caused by the brain. It is a different "thing", though caused by it. A far from perfect analogy -> the sounds I make when I talk, are not my "property", nor my "function", they are a different thing, even though they are caused by me.

What is the difference between a cause and a property/function? It is impossible to think of a property existing without the thing that it is a property of. It is a logical contradiction. But it is possible to think of an effect existing without its cause.

One can never devise a scientific expirements that would try to establish "the existance of the roundness of a ball, without the ball". That is because no proper scientific expirement can try to find what is illogical by its nature, like a square circle.

Because B is true, and a disembodied consciousness is conceivable without logical contradictions, and a scientific test that checks for the existance of it CAN be designed, therefore the mind is not a property of the brain, like running is a property/function of legs. "Running" cannot exist if the "legs" do not exist, because of logic. So, the relationship between the mind and the brain is not the same as between "running" and "legs".

More clear?

 

[JetLeg]

The results of the test. A person accurately being able to report the content of something that they can't detect with normal senses.

Well, please give it an alternative explanation to that of a disembodied consciousness. What you said was not an explanation.

By the way, even if you have an alternative explanation, every explanation must admit that there was here the phenomenon of receiving sensory information about the world, without using one's physical senses. One of the reasons you claimed a disembodied consciousness is inconceivable, was because receiving sensory information about the world, without using one's physical senses is logically contradictory.


Since there is a possible scientific expirement that if true, would establish it (and such expirements were even conducted) - if honest - you have to agree that this specific reason why a disembodied consciousness is inconceivable was wrong.

 

[JetLeg]

For all we know, some other kind of magic could be at work.

A slight derail: but if it would be true, it wouldn't be a "magical" power. If telepathy exists, then it is not magical. Nothing magical can exist in the world. Even if a disembodied consciousness and telepathy can exist, we would find certain rules according to which they function. For example, we would find that the ability of a person to read another person's mind would be dependant on his diet. Or, perhaps, there would be "mental laws" - a person can do telepathy only if he has thought before three times the thought "Randi james, randi james, randi james".

...The mind could jolly well stay in the guy's brain, while he uses some other magical power to read the card. It could be clairvoyance, telepathy (if someone even in another room knows which card is there), etc.

ETA: I'm not saying I actually believe in any kind of paranormal. But _if_ such an experiment were a success, it would only tell us that _something_ paranormal happened. It would still remain to be determined which kind.

Now if the guy's EEG also went flat during that time, now that would be a lot stronger a claim that the mind actually worked without a brain.

Ok, good point.

I found two definitions of "clairvoyance" : (1) apparent power to perceive things that are not present to the senses (2) foreseeing the future.

The second has nothing to do with it. I agree that it could be a case of the first, combined with a delusion that one is outside of his body...

I hope that we are not debating, (when I have the obligation to defend my position, and you are attacking it) but discussing, trying to find the truth together. Can you help me think of a nice expirement that _would_ establish a disembodied consciousness and would rule out other paranormal phenomena?

If an EEG goes flat, it would prove that the mind worked without the brain. But I am trying to think of a neater expirement, one that could be actually conducted...

 

[Neverfly]

Well, please give it an alternative explanation to that of a disembodied consciousness. What you said was not an explanation.

By the way, even if you have an alternative explanation, every explanation must admit that there was here the phenomenon of receiving sensory information about the world, without using one's physical senses. One of the reasons you claimed a disembodied consciousness is inconceivable, was because receiving sensory information about the world, without using one's physical senses is logically contradictory.


Since there is a possible scientific expirement that if true, would establish it (and such expirements were even conducted) - if honest - you have to agree that this specific reason why a disembodied consciousness is inconceivable was wrong.

Wrong.

You're mistakenly thinking that because you can imagine something, that makes it possible that the imaginings may be real.

Nonsense.

I can imagine a great many things that are not real. Many people can. That's why we have fantasy authors.

Jetleg- Demonstrate that extra sensory perception has been successfully tested.
That's it.
End of story.
If you cannot demonstrate that ESP has EVER been successful tested- then your imagination is useless.

 

[JetLeg]

Wrong.

You're mistakenly thinking that because you can imagine something, that makes it possible that the imaginings may be real.

Nonsense.

I can imagine a great many things that are not real. Many people can. That's why we have fantasy authors.

Jetleg- Demonstrate that extra sensory perception has been successfully tested.
That's it.
End of story.
If you cannot demonstrate that ESP has EVER been successful tested- then your imagination is useless.

For the Nth time, you miss my point, reread post #384.

L The Detective and JoeTheJuggler do understand my argument. You don't.

 

[Neverfly]

For the Nth time, you miss my point, reread post #384.

L The Detective and JoeTheJuggler do understand my argument. You don't.

I understand your point.

Your point is that you think that just because you can dream something up- that makes it conceivable as possible in reality.

This is NOT the case.

You're just going to have to learn that and if that means that you have the (UGH!)chore of having to present evidence, then so be it.

Present Evidence that ESP has ever been successfully tested.

If you are unable to present the evidence, you have no case. Period. Pipe dreams are worthless.

 

[HansMustermann]

I am arguing B.

Well, then it seems to me like there isn't that much to debate then.

But you miss the point why it is so important to me.

I argue that the mind is not a property, nor a function of the brain, but something that is caused by the brain. It is a different "thing", though caused by it. A far from perfect analogy -> the sounds I make when I talk, are not my "property", nor my "function", they are a different thing, even though they are caused by me.

Well, maybe "sound" is a slightly misleading analogy in a few aspects. Replace it with "voice", though, and you have IMHO a more exact analogy of the mind situation.

Can you imagine a voice alone? Yes.

What is the difference between a cause and a property/function? It is impossible to think of a property existing without the thing that it is a property of. It is a logical contradiction. But it is possible to think of an effect existing without its cause.

A property, maybe. But many functions or processes can be imagined as abstract concepts, and have been imagined as abstract concepts before.

E.g., many metaphors and analogies treat stuff like despair or sadness as some kind of a substance hanging around in the air or staining stuff.

To quote the song " Life Is A Lemon and I Want My Money Back" by Meatloaf:
"Theres desperation
Theres desperation in the air
It leaves a stain on all your clothes
And no detergent gets it out"

Obviously then, to apply your reasoning, desperation must be logically different from the mind, because the mind doesn't stain stuff. Plus, he obviously has no trouble imagining a desperation outside of a mind

One can never devise a scientific expirements that would try to establish "the existance of the roundness of a ball, without the ball". That is because no proper scientific expirement can try to find what is illogical by its nature, like a square circle.

Because B is true, and a disembodied consciousness is conceivable without logical contradictions, and a scientific test that checks for the existance of it CAN be designed, therefore the mind is not a property of the brain, like running is a property/function of legs. "Running" cannot exist if the "legs" do not exist, because of logic. So, the relationship between the mind and the brain is not the same as between "running" and "legs".

More clear?

I don't know... it seems to me like one can devise experiments for a lot of nonsensical stuff.

E.g., one can devise an experiment to see if desperation actually can hang around in the air and/or contaminate clothes. For example if some terrorists hoarded some hostages and shot them in a laundry room, you could bring a batch of people there without telling them what's special baout that room, and see if they get desperate too. And a control group in a similar room that's been built just for that test and where there's no reason for any residual desperation.

E.g., I can easily imagine an experiment to try to prove the Dark Sucker hypothesis. They say there that it leaves a black stain on things it passes through, so that doesn't require much imagination to devise an experiment around, right?

 

[JetLeg]

L The Detective, and Joe, can you explain him what my argument is, or at least support me in saying that he doesn't get it?

(Neverfly, it is not a good thing to be sure that you understand the argument of a person, when he tells you repeatedly that you don't... )

 

[HansMustermann]

A slight derail: but if it would be true, it wouldn't be a "magical" power.

Point duly taken and correct, but I trust you understand what I meant there. I mean "things that are currently thought of as the domain of magic."

Ok, good point.

I found two definitions of "clairvoyance" : (1) apparent power to perceive things that are not present to the senses (2) foreseeing the future.

The second has nothing to do with it. I agree that it could be a case of the first, combined with a delusion that one is outside of his body...

I hope that we are not debating, (when I have the obligation to defend my position, and you are attacking it) but discussing, trying to find the truth together. Can you help me think of a nice expirement that _would_ establish a disembodied consciousness and would rule out other paranormal phenomena?

If an EEG goes flat, it would prove that the mind worked without the brain. But I am trying to think of a neater expirement, one that could be actually conducted...

Short of actual cessation of EEG, I'm affraid I can't think of anything that would conclusively prove that the mind existed without a brain.

 

[JetLeg]

__

 

[JetLeg]

E.g., many metaphors and analogies treat stuff like despair or sadness as some kind of a substance hanging around in the air or staining stuff.

To quote the song " Life Is A Lemon and I Want My Money Back" by Meatloaf:
"Theres desperation
Theres desperation in the air
It leaves a stain on all your clothes
And no detergent gets it out"

Obviously then, to apply your reasoning, desperation must be logically different from the mind, because the mind doesn't stain stuff. Plus, he obviously has no trouble imagining a desperation outside of a mind

One can use many nonsensical expressions as metaphors. I can say "He is stubborn like a square circle" . But that's a different type of using a word. Metaphorical vs. literal. Logically, there is a contradiction here.


I use the word "to imagine", but it seems I should use another word. I am seeking for something that says "possible to imagine _without_ a logical contradiction".

E.g., one can devise an experiment to see if desperation actually can hang around in the air and/or contaminate clothes. For example if some terrorists hoarded some hostages and shot them in a laundry room, you could bring a batch of people there without telling them what's special baout that room, and see if they get desperate too. And a control group in a similar room that's been built just for that test and where there's no reason for any residual desperation.

E.g., I can easily imagine an experiment to try to prove the Dark Sucker hypothesis. They say there that it leaves a black stain on things it passes through, so that doesn't require much imagination to devise an experiment around, right?

The point about self-contradictory concept is that no expirement can be designed that would prove them. Can you think of an expirement that tries to prove that there is a married batchelor?

In your first example, had that been true, it wouldn't prove that desparation "floats", since desparation is not something that can exist without a mind. It would prove something else, though I am not sure what. Perhaps it would prove that there is some "negative energy" that exists outside of the mind, and it does influence the surroundings. Desparation leads to a change in the negative energy of the surroundings.

I don't know enough about physics to understand if there is a self-contradiction in the dark sucker idea. My point is that if sound is defined as "a wavelike change that occurs to a medium", and we design a test to check if there is sound in vaccum, this test doesn't really test if there is sound in vaccum, since it cannot be by definition. What it really tests, is perhaps whether the vaccum is ideal, or there is some medium in space. Or it tests, whether sound is indeed "a wavelike change that occurs to a medium". But if we agree that sound is "a wavelike change that occurs to a medium", then we don't need science to check if it can occur without a medium, we use logic.

 

[Mashuna]

Because B is true, and a disembodied consciousness is conceivable without logical contradictions, and a scientific test that checks for the existance of it CAN be designed, therefore the mind is not a property of the brain, like running is a property/function of legs. "Running" cannot exist if the "legs" do not exist, because of logic. So, the relationship between the mind and the brain is not the same as between "running" and "legs".

More clear?

Take someone who has lost their legs in an accident. Place him at the start of a 100m race (without a wheelchair). When the starting pistol is fired, wait 14 seconds and see if he makes it past the finish line.

This is my test to see if running exists without legs. I have conceived it, therefore 'running' is of the same type of substance as 'mind'.

 

[JetLeg]

Short of actual cessation of EEG, I'm affraid I can't think of anything that would conclusively prove that the mind existed without a brain.

Anyone else?

 

[JetLeg]

Take someone who has lost their legs in an accident. Place him at the start of a 100m race (without a wheelchair). When the starting pistol is fired, wait 14 seconds and see if he makes it past the finish line.

This is my test to see if running exists without legs. I have conceived it, therefore 'running' is of the same type of substance as 'mind'.

1) When I say that "running without legs" is a logical contradiction, I mean running in the strict sense.

It was Joe that said that mind is to brain what running is to legs.

And in this context, I mean that running is a contradiction. You can understand "running" as "moving towards a goal", and then of course, you can design an expirement that checks it. But running in the sense that is relevant to Joe, by definition cannot occur without legs.

2) When I say an expirement that tests it, I mean an expirement that really tests it. Can there be a married batchelor? No. Can you design an expirement that tests it? In my use of the term, no, one cannot design an expirement that tests for a self-contradiction. You could claim that one can conduct a survey, ask 1,000 people if they are married, and if they are batchelors. But that wouldn't really be testing this concept..

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

How about this analogy, Jetleg. You see the brain like a projector. It projects the mind onto a non physical 'screen' of some kind.

If this is what you are saying, the problem with this view of the mind is it arbitrarily disconnects the mind from the brain in a way that has absolutely no meaning. What difference would it make if the mind were projected by the brain or played the film within the brain? It's all still in the brain where the action occurs.

 

[Neverfly]

I use the word "to imagine", but it seems I should use another word. I am seeking for something that says "possible to imagine _without_ a logical contradiction".

How is it that you imagine the mind without the brain without a logical contradiction?

It is as logically contradictory as running programs on my computer- without the computer.

The logical contradiction is this: In order for the mind to exist outside of the brain would require
-Contradictory physics
-Supernatural existence
-separation of consciousness from its physical construct
-Would also render our brains uselss. Yet, scanning the brain demonstrates that not only is it used, all of the brain gets used. 100%. It is also demonstrated that damage to the brain results in direct damage to the mind. Illness of the brain results in illness to the mind. Lacking a brain results in either death or posting on internet forums.

What you're trying to imagine is extremely contradictory on many levels.
How can you claim you're imagining it without logical contradiction?

 

[Mashuna]

1) When I say that "running without legs" is a logical contradiction, I mean running in the strict sense.

It was Joe that said that mind is to brain what running is to legs.

And in this context, I mean that running is a contradiction. You can understand "running" as "moving towards a goal", and then of course, you can design an expirement that checks it. But running in the sense that is relevant to Joe, by definition cannot occur without legs.

2) When I say an expirement that tests it, I mean an expirement that really tests it. Can there be a married batchelor? No. Can you design an expirement that tests it? In my use of the term, no, one cannot design an expirement that tests for a self-contradiction. You could claim that one can conduct a survey, ask 1,000 people if they are married, and if they are batchelors. But that wouldn't really be testing this concept..

But that's only because you've got preset notions about what running is. Just because you don't have legs, doesn't necessarily mean that you can't run. I've got my test for it and everything.

If you disqualify my test for running by definition (you can't have running without legs), then I can disqualify your test for mind by definition (you can't have a mind without a brain).