Why dualism?

[annnnoid]

I write replies for the sake of various other people here. But I'm not interested in what you've got to say about it.

You write replies for the sake of others?!?!?!? I think the appropriate wording should be…’you DON’T write replies for the sake of others’. You have barely answered a single question I’ve asked or countered a single objection I’ve presented…so I’m sure the skeptic rabble will be mightily impressed with your ability to ‘demolish the opposition.’

…and now you find this truly original means of ignoring the whole argument. An argument, by the way, that you initiated with your insistence that Carroll is the high priest of physics.

It's stick-your-head-in-the-dirt time folks. The good ship “Denial” sails again!

A truly impressive tactic. Can’t stand the heat… so get out of the fire.

Have a jelly bean!

 

[annnnoid]

Whether or not I have a masters degree in theoretical physics doesn't affect whether or not something of which "we can barely observe its indirect physical effects on visible matter other than in highly controlled experimental setups" is "at the energy, mass, and length scales relevant to everyday life" (it's not).

…and you know this how?

Nor would it affect whether or not somethings for which "the only way we know how to 'detect' them at the moment is by observing their gravitational effects at galactic and inter-galactic scales" are "at the energy, mass, and length scales relevant to everyday life" (they're also not).

…and you know this how?

That you have retreated back to throwing empty insults, rather than actually being able to offer a counter-argument is telling, though. Especially as the only counter-argument you could make would be to assert that both of those things are "at the energy, mass, and length scales relevant to everyday life", and I think even you realise that one is a non-starter, as it explicitly contradicts your alleged physicist friend.

Actually it doesn’t. And ‘just because I say so’ does not actually qualify as an argument!

Perhaps you would do better to correspond with your alleged theoretical physicist and ask him/her whether they have any arguments which do address what you have explicitly agreed it was that Carroll actually said.

The paragraph is there. All you have to do is understand it.

 

[IanS]

Just as an observation - I have no idea which "paragraph" annnnoid is said to be quoting from some physics mate, but -

- in that video (Alexander & Moody vs. Carroll and Novella), Alexander and Moody were claiming that when the brain was clinically dead, a force called "conciousness" left the body, such that in an OBE for example, that conciseness could look down upon the body from somewhere in space (somewhere in the medical room, or wherever else).

But what Novella explained, and what iirc is quite extensively described & referenced in that Wiki page as the majority expert opinion, is that research in neuroscience has been able to use techniques such as f-MRI to quite clearly observe and pinpoint specific areas of the brain that are activated when patients report precisely those same sort of NDE and OBE experiences. Novella actually said (and iirc, I think this was also said in the Wiki page) ; the same NDE effects have been replicated "exactly" by probing with the brain using techniques with drugs, electrical stimulation, blood-oxygen starvation etc.

But if that sort of brain activity and the associated imagery of NDE-OBE is supposedly being created by an exterior conciousness, then it seems the effect is so huge as to be causing not merely some sort of minute subatomic field disturbances in "Dark Energy or a Vacuum State", but actually directly manipulating molecular-level chemistry in the brain! That would be a huge interaction which ought to be very easily detectable by anyone.

Of course anyone could object that we do not normally try to record f-MRI data when a real hospital patient is on the verge of death. So that the f-MRI results that we have recorded are probably not from patients who are dying. But equally, because we do not normally record f-MRI in dying patients, we also do not know that any of them were actually "brain dead" when the reported NDE imagery was being experienced.

So overall, it's probably fair to say, as I think Novella and some of the other groups in the Wiki refs are probably saying (regardless of what Carroll may, or may not have, said), that f-MRI results like that showing "exactly" the same artificially stimulated effects that are reported as NDE by patients who are near to death, does suggest that any out-of-body conciousness that was producing such imagery, would need to be interacting so strongly as to be manipulating the molecular level chemistry of the brain.

Though as I've said all through all these last few pages about Sean Carroll - what Carroll said is not really so crucial or relevant as what Novella said (and what iirc is said to be the majority expert opinion in the those Wiki refs). Namely - that neuroscientists have shown that you can produce "exactly" all the same imagery-effects which are reported as NDE by medical patients, simply by use of drugs, electrical stimulation, or oxygen-blood starvation. In which case, if that is true, the the NDE imagery is no mystery at all.

And on top of that, afaik there is no credible reliable evidence of anyone ever having detected something called a "conciousness" (or spirit or soul, or whatever anyone wants to call it) outside of a human body.

 

[Minoosh]

Well, whatever, it's up to you how you present yourself to the world, and however you want people to think of you and your reasoning capabilities.

The quote above is in response to an Annnnoid post, suggesting that Annnnoid had a choice in his posting style. But if at any instant the mind of Annnnoid is the result of materialistic processes, what does the concept of "choice" even mean? Does a rat in a lab experiment have a "choice" whether to pick the cocaine solution or the glucose solution? Or, is that rat responding to an imperative that is wholly the result of the materialistic processes of its cells? Can the rat just say no?

Though materialism seems more coherent to me than dualism, this habit we have of mentally separating body and mind is incredibly robust. My OP was intended to tease out a reason for this. Something that might be explored, for example, in an evolutionary context - that the ideas of "self" or "soul" have adaptive consequences for the human species.

I avoid discussions about consciousness. Bad personal experience. But now and then I get sucked into threads on the topic and basically I divide theories into 2 camps: One I call the AI-emergent-materialist camp; the other I will call Platonic-dualistic, with the hope that people here will know what I'm talking about.

One poster on such a thread was forcefully in the AI camp; yet his signature line was this quote from Bertrand Russell:

Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man.

If one thing emerges from another in a continuum of emergence ... does that mean "thought" is an emergent property of the universe? The other poster offered a grudging "I guess so."

I don't think Russell was referring to dog-thought (oooh smelly dog pee shall I pee here? I shall pee here!) or rat-thought (press this bar press this bar press this bar); he was referring to human thought as "the light of the world," something special. And that's decidedly dualistic, isn't it?

Many of us want to be remembered; to make our mark; to make a lasting difference in the world - we hold in mind the thought of somehow existing after our material existence is over. I don't think other animals do this but of course I have no way of knowing.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

…and you know this how?

Because we can barely observe its indirect physical effects on visible matter other than in highly controlled experimental setups.

…and you know this how?

Because the only way we know how to 'detect' them at the moment is by observing their gravitational effects at galactic and inter-galactic scales.

Actually it doesn’t.

Either you're being extremely disingenuous, or you really don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Mind you, as you demonstrated earlier in the thread that you thought that atoms were the same things as fundamental particles, it seems that the latter is the more likely.

And ‘just because I say so’ does not actually qualify as an argument!

Indeed. I wonder why, therefore, you keep using "my friend has a Masters degree" as an argument.

The paragraph is there. All you have to do is understand it.

It is, indeed, quite clear that one of us doesn't understand it.

 

[Donn]

I tend to wonder how I could know that I am free to <x> at all? Once it is done, it becomes inevitable. Was there any way I could not type this post?

I don't know how to think about the false tone that "free will" strikes. Is it a contradiction that I can think that I think on rails?

 

[Minoosh]

I tend to wonder how I could know that I am free to <x> at all? Once it is done, it becomes inevitable. Was there any way I could not type this post?

I don't know how to think about the false tone that "free will" strikes. Is it a contradiction that I can think that I think on rails?

I tend to avoid the phrase "free will," maybe because of the theological freight it carries. It feels like will or resolve when I push myself to get things done, but really what probably happens is that procrastinating gets too uncomfortable, I remember the "reward" feeling of accomplishment and this finally gets me off my rear.

 

[annnnoid]

In which case, if that is true, the the NDE imagery is no mystery at all.

…but it’s NOT true...and you have yet to provide a shred of an argument defending a single one of your dumb claims!

Carroll’s argument is crap…and so are the rest of these claims.

…and I have demonstrated quite clearly and explicitly why and how these claims are crap.

Just for example…the claim that ‘events have been replicated EXACTLY’. First of all, it is physically impossible to accomplish such a thing (for reasons which I’m not going to waste my time elaborating here). Secondly…it is technically impossible to adjudicate neural conditions to definitively establish ANY variety of neural or cognitive condition (the MOST that can be accomplished are varying degrees of conditional certainty…usually very conditional). Thirdly…it is utterly impossible to empirically adjudicate subjective experience to establish what is even going on in the first place (so it's utterly impossible to figure out what exactly is supposed to be 'duplicated'...not to mention...which version of an NDE is supposed to be the authentic version????).

So not only is it utterly impossible to explicitly replicate a neural event (let alone a cognitive event), it is ALSO utterly impossible to empirically adjudicate to any explicit degree of granularity (to establish what, precisely, has supposedly been 'duplicated') ...AND it is utterly impossible to empirically adjudicate subjectively as well.

I could also address this stupid assumption that neural activity exclusively generates cognitive activity.

…what empirical evidence supports that dumb conclusion????

…is it not possible that cognitive activity (the phenomenology of which no-one has a clue) could be influencing neural activity?

So far neither you nor anyone has come remotely close to countering a single point I’ve made. Go find Novella. I have no doubt (as in…no doubt what-so-ever) that I could argue him into the ground as well (assuming that is actually his argument)…because that is exactly what I’ve done with other similarly qualified ISF members on other threads where these topics have been discussed.

That position is garbage…and I’ve even gone to the trouble of explaining why so many seemingly intelligent cognitive scientists trip all over themselves with this particular subject.

…but…again…not one of you seems to actually want to debate the issues. All you do is stand on the sidelines and make bare assertions, stupid arguments from authority, and wave your hands about like an epileptic on an ant hill.

What is truly pathetic…is that despite the fact that you can’t (and you haven’t) substantially defended a single argument that you have…this never seems to stop you from insulting and ridiculing anyone who holds contrary positions.

Pathetic….yeah…I think that’s the right word!

In which case, if that is true, the the NDE imagery is no mystery at all.

That you can still make this claim just goes to show how little you actually know about this subject. Even IF all your other claims were valid (and not a single one of them is)… whatever actually IS occurring subjectively during these experiences would STILL be an utter mystery since science STILL cannot even begin to adjudicate subjective experience nor does there currently exist anything remotely resembling a definitive theory of mind.

…but why don’t you waste your time telling everyone once again how all of these FACTS just don’t matter. They are, after all, only facts!

Because we can barely observe its indirect physical effects on visible matter other than in highly controlled experimental setups.

…and how does this in any way shape or form definitively establish that it cannot affect neural or cognitive conditions?

Because the only way we know how to 'detect' them at the moment is by observing their gravitational effects at galactic and inter-galactic scales.

…again…… how does this in any way shape or form definitively establish that this phenomena cannot affect neural or cognitive conditions? Does the fact that we can only empirically adjudicate a phenomena on a macro scale establish that it only occurs on a macro scale?

That is the whole point! The very fact that these things theoretically occur and there is no way to definitively adjudicate their existence. Thus, there is absolutely no way to establish that they are NOT mediating consciousness…

…THAT….IS….THE….POINT!

Carroll is unconditionally insisting that if it were happening…we could measure it.

Quite obviously…CARROLL IS WRONG!

 

[JoeMorgue]

Thus, there is absolutely no way to establish that they are NOT mediating consciousness…

Okay and?

Fine whatever we're all jacked into the Matrix and none of us exist we're all just shadows on the wall of your own personal Plato's Cave.

There's this huge air gap between our senses and reality that can never be bridged and all manner of Woo can live there and we can't say anything about it.

Okay and?

Please finish that thought. What difference does it make? What are we supposed to do differently? How are we supposed to adjust how we live our lives or how we gather or process information.

All this ever amounts to is a sad little "Science doesn't know anything neiner neiner neiner" skit or some passion play script Woo Slingers have in their head where the big mean skeptics is supposed to break down and "Well golly gee Mr. Woo Slinger since I can't somehow prove that I'm not a butterfly dreaming I'm a man I guess that means I can't ever question any unsupported, unreasonable, illogical Shinola you spout off."

Here I'll use a bunch of random capitals and a lot of periods. WHAT.... DIFFERENCE.... DOES... IT.... MAKE?

 

[Minoosh]

Okay and?

I upvote your entire post.

 

[annnnoid]

Okay and?

Fine whatever we're all jacked into the Matrix and none of us exist we're all just shadows on the wall of your own personal Plato's Cave.

There's this huge air gap between our senses and reality that can never be bridged and all manner of Woo can live there and we can't say anything about it.

Okay and?

Please finish that thought. What difference does it make? What are we supposed to do differently? How are we supposed to adjust how we live our lives or how we gather or process information.

All this ever amounts to is a sad little "Science doesn't know anything neiner neiner neiner" skit or some passion play script Woo Slingers have in their head where the big mean skeptics is supposed to break down and "Well golly gee Mr. Woo Slinger since I can't somehow prove that I'm not a butterfly dreaming I'm a man I guess that means I can't ever question any unsupported, unreasonable, illogical Shinola you spout off."

Here I'll use a bunch of random capitals and a lot of periods. WHAT.... DIFFERENCE.... DOES... IT.... MAKE?

Edited by jsfisher: 

<snip> Edited for compliance with rules 11 and 12 of the Membership Agreement.

 

[Thor 2]

Once during a conversation with a Woo Slinger they dropped a big "gotcha" on me with "How does your precious science know if there are colors we can't see?"

Apparently no one ever introduced him to the concept of the infrared or ultraviolet parts of the spectrum.

Like the term "Woo Slinger".

So you weren't got by the gotcha.

 

[Minoosh]

Like the term "Woo Slinger".

So you weren't got by the gotcha.

If Annnnoid ignores Joe, does Joe still exist?*

ETA: *Assuming any of y'all exists ... my only evidence is pixels.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

…and how does this in any way shape or form definitively establish that it cannot affect neural or cognitive conditions?

…again…… how does this in any way shape or form definitively establish that this phenomena cannot affect neural or cognitive conditions?

This is explained, at length, in Carroll's video, which you claim to have watched and understood.

If you have any counter-arguments to offer to the reasoning he presents in that video, then I suggest you offer them.

 

[IanS]

Apart from the fact that there is actually no evidence of any conciousness existing outside a human brain after death, and in contrast almost all objective experimental tests (apparently) show that the reported imagery is happening inside the brain just as it does during normal life, we might also ask - why, if there is actually credible evidence of conciousness outside the brain, is that not headline news in every paper, every TV and radio broadcast all around the world?

If there really had been even one reliable report confirming conciousness existing in free space outside of the human living body/brain, then it would have been instantly seized upon by every Christian and Islamic leader around the world to proclaim direct irrefutable evidence of God ... and it would be front page headline news for ever more ... everyone in the world would have known about it as the most important story ever.

But of course, that's never happened. There never has been any such discovery splashed across the worlds media. There are no reliable reports of any such disembodied conciousness.

 

[Donn]

I tend to avoid the phrase "free will," maybe because of the theological freight it carries. It feels like will or resolve when I push myself to get things done, but really what probably happens is that procrastinating gets too uncomfortable, I remember the "reward" feeling of accomplishment and this finally gets me off my rear.

Resolve is a good word. It seems to be the engine of life; the if-then-else of each moment.

 

[Donn]

Edited by jsfisher: 

Moderated content and response to same redacted.

 

[marplots]

Edited by jsfisher: 

Moderated content and response to same redacted.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Edited by jsfisher: 

Moderated content and response to same redacted.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Apart from the fact that there is actually no evidence of any conciousness existing outside a human brain after death, and in contrast almost all objective experimental tests (apparently) show that the reported imagery is happening inside the brain just as it does during normal life, we might also ask - why, if there is actually credible evidence of conciousness outside the brain, is that not headline news in every paper, every TV and radio broadcast all around the world?

As evidenced in this and many other threads attempting to use philosophical nonsense, linguistic hairsplitting, meaningless infinite recursivism or other such silliness to try and paint the base idea that reality exists as some horrible unreasonable assertion that makes us big mean skeptics just as bad as believers in unsupported nonsense which in turn somehow paradoxically makes their own Woo somehow more likely which makes zero sense has become one of the favorite pastimes of Woo Slingers and Woo Apologists on this board.

There has been a concentrated effort to turn "Reality exists" into some crazy belief with "materialist" practically being turned into a slur.