Why dualism?

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I’m not gonna bother with this any more. What you folks need to do is some basic investigation:

Go have a look at the different varieties of neural scanning and the spatial and temporal limits they inevitably encounter.

Go have a look at what is actually known (and what isn’t) about how the brain works and the incredible densities of material that are involved (far beyond anything any variety of neural scanning can even begin to adjudicate).

Go have a look at what is known about the actual relationship between the physical activity of the brain and consciousness (…nothing…no need to waste too much time there).

Go have a look at what is actually known about the phenomenology of consciousness (…again…nothing).

Go have a look at what is empirically known about human nature (very very very very little).

Go have a look at how robust cognitive theory is (…it isn’t…nothing remotely resembling anything definitive).

Your arguments are, basically, crap! What is sad is the degree to which you all seem so eager to believe your crap.

What it boils down to…is that Carroll is wrong. Period. He’s said that we know enough about enough to UNCONDITIONALLY exclude the possibility of consciousness occurring apart from a physical brain (…newsflash: THE SPECIFIC VIDEO DOES NOT MATTER…WHAT MATTERS IS THAT THIS IS WHAT HE HAS SAID!!!!). This means life after death, NDE’s, OBE’s, and any number of other anomalous events CANNOT HAPPEN ...according to Carroll (no if’s, and’s, but’s, or maybe’s).

He’s wrong. There is no way we even begin to know enough to make such a vast claim! That paragraph explains some of the actual physics about why he’s wrong. I’ve explained some of the areas of cognitive science that demonstrate that he’s wrong.

So far not one of you has come anywhere close to coming up with any kind of coherent response. Until you do…sayonara.

So, yeah, not only do you keep grossly misrepresenting what Carroll has said, when asked, you can't even name the branch of physics that he's talking about, let alone explain what iot is he says about that particular branch of physics that leads to the conclusions that he says it does. Thank you for confirming that you either have not listened to his arguments, or that you didn't take them in or understand them.

…but Squeegee….this is exactly what YOU and every other skeptic does just about every second of every minute of every hour of every day of every week of every month of every year of every decade that you will live on this planet.

You do not resort to any variety of science to adjudicate your existence, you…and everyone else (including just about every scientist alive or who ever has been) resort just about exclusively to anecdotal evidence.

…so…for upwards of 99% of your existence…you utterly disregard science and rely exclusively on something that you constantly argue is worthless.

Like I said…your reasoning is laughable.

Didn't you literally just say that you were done with this topic? Did you mean by that that you're backing off only the part of the conversation where it's clear that you really don't know what you're talking about now that there are actual specific questions to answer? Where you feel you can simply still throw out insubstantial insults you'll keep posting, it seems.

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.

As to the point made in the quoted section, I don't really understand what you mean. Can you define what you mean by the term "adjudicate your existence", please? You seem to be making assumptions about the inner workings of my head again (and, I'll remind you, if you really do have such powers, there's a society that has a history with this message board that'll give you a million dollars), but I don't want to assume.

…not according to Carroll.

This is your most bizarre misrepresentation of what Carroll has said yet.

 

[Thor 2]

I constantly wonder why it is so agonizingly necessary to constantly point out the blindingly obvious:

There is no reasonable evidence of Middle Earth, the Klingon Homeworld,
Leprechans, Vampires, Invisible dragons, Sentient lifeforms in Earth's magma, or stable isotopes of plutonium.

There is, on the other hand, LOTS of evidence of life after death.
Until it can be empirically demonstrated that this evidence is fraudulent or implicates something other than life after death...then it remains as evidence.

Lets see you're LOTS of evidence then.

 

[IanS]

I constantly wonder why it is so agonizingly necessary to constantly point out the blindingly obvious:

There is no reasonable evidence of Middle Earth, the Klingon Homeworld,
Leprechans, Vampires, Invisible dragons, Sentient lifeforms in Earth's magma, or stable isotopes of plutonium.

There is, on the other hand, LOTS of evidence of life after death.

Until it can be empirically demonstrated that this evidence is fraudulent or implicates something other than life after death...then it remains as evidence.

There is certainly evidence that people do have mental experiences (dreamlike visions) which are described as NDE's and OBE's. Nobody is disputing that the mental experiences occur.

The question is whether such mental images are formed by the brain, or whether there is objective evidence to show that the images are due to a so-called "conciousness" which is independent of the brain and which continues as a sort of spirit, soul, or ghost long after the person has died. Because that is the claim which theists and mystics are making for the mental images reported in so-called NDE-OBE.

In the video which I linked, the position of Eben Alexander and Raymond Moody was exposed as quite pathetically absurd, not just by the arguments of Novella and Carroll, but actually by an intervention from the moderator near to the end of the discussions, when he first pointed out to Moody and Alexander that (a) what they said about conciousness continuing to exist after death, amounted to describing a religious belief in spirits, souls, or ghosts ... and then (b) when he asked Alexander about the counter evidence that he was claiming (i.e. countering the evidence which Novella had just described), where Alexander cited a book apparently written by a number of medical and philosophical authors who took the same view as himself and Moody, but where the evidence cited in the book was apparently gathered from (1) anecdotal stories told by hospital patients who reported NDE type experiences, and (2) interviews with psychics and mediums who convinced the books authors that they had contacted a world of spirits to confirm the existence of "concious" talking souls persisting after death.

That really is not remotely credible as any kind of intelligent argument at all. Let alone anything approaching objective evidence.

 

[annnnoid]

There is certainly evidence that people do have mental experiences (dreamlike visions) which are described as NDE's and OBE's. Nobody is disputing that the mental experiences occur.

The question is whether such mental images are formed by the brain, or whether there is objective evidence to show that the images are due to a so-called "conciousness" which is independent of the brain and which continues as a sort of spirit, soul, or ghost long after the person has died. Because that is the claim which theists and mystics are making for the mental images reported in so-called NDE-OBE.

In the video which I linked, the position of Eben Alexander and Raymond Moody was exposed as quite pathetically absurd, not just by the arguments of Novella and Carroll, but actually by an intervention from the moderator near to the end of the discussions, when he first pointed out to Moody and Alexander that (a) what they said about conciousness continuing to exist after death, amounted to describing a religious belief in spirits, souls, or ghosts ... and then (b) when he asked Alexander about the counter evidence that he was claiming (i.e. countering the evidence which Novella had just described), where Alexander cited a book apparently written by a number of medical and philosophical authors who took the same view as himself and Moody, but where the evidence cited in the book was apparently gathered from (1) anecdotal stories told by hospital patients who reported NDE type experiences, and (2) interviews with psychics and mediums who convinced the books authors that they had contacted a world of spirits to confirm the existence of "concious" talking souls persisting after death.

That really is not remotely credible as any kind of intelligent argument at all. Let alone anything approaching objective evidence.

You’re not getting it. There are two sides to this story. First…there is the side where we have all these folks over thousands of years who represent the vast range that is the human experience. You and all your experiences are also included in this demographic. The range of human experience is huge, extremely nuanced, and very complex,

…and science can’t even begin to definitively empirically adjudicate ANY of it!

Science has come a long way…but as of today, science has no idea how this thing called ‘you’ is created and no idea what it is or if it is phenomenologically differentiated. Nor can science even begin to empirically adjudicate subjective experience…which is where all these ‘things’ happen.

So…we don’t know what this ‘thing’ is, we don’t know how it’s created, and we don’t know how to measure it.

All science…and Carroll…does, is guess.

“It’s ‘consciousness’…and it’s created by a brain…and it’s all these words we use to describe it.”

Essentially, science can’t even begin to explicitly and or definitively empirically adjudicate something as simple as the cognitive event represented by a single number…let alone the cognitive event represented by something as immeasurably complex as an NDE!?!?!

…and this is a documented, indisputable, fact.

…yet this doesn’t seem to stop Carroll from unconditionally insisting that this thing that we know next to nothing about simply CANNOT happen in certain ways.

He does not…as you argue…conditionally argue that relative to our imperfect knowledge and still-in-development understanding etc. etc. etc. this stuff probably is not happening.

No…he flat out says it is utterly impossible for ANY of this stuff to occur.

So…we have the side of the argument where we have all this huge amount of evidence that we empirically know next to nothing about and currently have very little capacity to empirically know anything about.

…and we have the other side of the argument where we have idiots like Carroll who baldly argue that we know enough about this stuff that we know next to nothing about to unconditionally claim that it cannot happen in certain ways.

I have addressed both sides of this argument. The evidence exists, we have very little means to empirically adjudicate it. Until this changes, the evidence has validity and relevance.

I have also posted a paragraph that very specifically addresses Carroll’s stupid physics arguments. So far no one has made a peep about it.

I guess we’ll just have to assume that … so far…Carroll is wrong.

There are, of course, arguments made by others who object to the NDE / OBE / life-after-death conclusions. I have yet to encounter a single one that isn’t any more than gross misrepresentation or wild conjecture.

IOW…the claims made by those who dispute NDE’s etc. are often just as stupid as those made in support of them. More-so actually cause they often pretend that what they’re doing is science when almost invariably it is pure unadulterated garbage. Speculation, misrepresentation, and outright lies.

 

[MuDPhuD]

I wonder if anyone here has researched how man developed into a creature that believes in an afterlife, that feels it has a "soul" apart from its body. I suggest dualism came about because of a need to believe in an afterlife, which reveals a fear of the end of one's own existence. Animals have survival instincts; they pine; they grieve. But do they actually fear death? Is it an accident that humans developed rituals and taboos around the subject, or did* it serve some adaptive purpose? Did shamanistic con men use it to increase their own power and importance?

It seems to be almost a defining factor in the development of modern man. This isn't even just about religion - many us intuitively separate body and mind. Language reinforces the idea of separation, with concepts such as "willpower" and "mind over matter."

Why did humans develop this way?

Good question which I too spend some time pondering.
As you suggest the problem seems bound up with the origin of religion itself, on which theories abound, books are written:

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...t_theories/links/5486bc8e0cf2ef34478c0c23.pdf

Even Wiki has an entry useful as a starting point:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_origin_of_religions

I would suggest that the belief in the existence body-less entities has arisen from the highly adaptive ability to detect "agency", which has been tuned by natural selection to be hypersensitive (HADD). Thus humans are driven to infer agency where none exists, and even where no corporal manifestation is apparent.
From there it is a short step to inferring the incorporeal existence of one's companions after their death. When a close companion dies, a person is left with a feeling that the missing companion is still there; the voice, manners, and habits of the deceased are maintained in memory. The senses, expecting familiar patterns, "see", "hear" or "smell", the deceased in expected circumstances. These sensory impressions can persist for quite some time. (I can still hear my father's voice saying things he used to say when I was a child, now 50 years later, and I'm sure this is a common phenomenon.)

I am not at all surprised that the common reaction would be to infer the continued presence of the deceased companion in non-corporal form. I am surprised, however, by the continued persistence of this superstition in those who are educated enough to know better.

The usefulness of religion to compel social behavior is also an area of great interest (see links above).

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I have also posted a paragraph that very specifically addresses Carroll’s stupid physics arguments. So far no one has made a peep about it.

No you haven't. You haven't even demonstrated that you know what those arguments are. When asked if you can sum up you declared yourself done with the topic, only to immediately continue talking about it - thereby only actually ignoring the question.

Since you're obviously not done with this topic, I'll ask again - can you sum up what you believe Carroll's argument to be, making reference to the particular branch of physics he says is relevant, and what it is about that branch of physics that he says precludes the existence of a consciousness outside of the brain? Shouldn't take more than a few brief sentences.

 

[annnnoid]

No you haven't. You haven't even demonstrated that you know what those arguments are. When asked if you can sum up you declared yourself done with the topic, only to immediately continue talking about it - thereby only actually ignoring the question.

Since you're obviously not done with this topic, I'll ask again - can you sum up what you believe Carroll's argument to be, making reference to the particular branch of physics he says is relevant, and what it is about that branch of physics that he says precludes the existence of a consciousness outside of the brain? Shouldn't take more than a few brief sentences.

I find the claim that "were to occur it would be detectable" somewhat question-begging. It presumes that it (OBEs) would occur in a way that is easily detectable through the known forces of nature (EM, weak, strong, gravity). But in fact, it's not so clear. For example, the electromagnetic vacuum energy of quantum electrodynamics is an enormous energy density, yet we can barely observe its indirect physical effects on visible matter other than in highly controlled experimental setups (e.g. Casimir plates in a hard vacuum). If OBEs (say) were mediated by the E&M vacuum energy (perhaps through correlations in the vacuum field modes or whatever), it would be extremely hard to detect those correlations (much harder than doing a Casimir effect experiment). Then of course, there's the fact that there are mediums in our physical universe whose constituents or physical origins we know next to nothing about - dark matter and dark energy (it's not clear yet if dark energy is really the same as the electromagnetic/weak/strong quantum vacuum energy, or something different). These two mediums constitute around 96% of the mass-energy content of the universe, yet the only way we know how to 'detect' them at the moment is by observing their gravitational effects at galactic and inter-galactic scales. If (say) the medium for OBEs (assuming they really are 'consciousness' displacing itself from the physical brain) was mediated by dark matter and/or dark energy, it would be hopeless right now to try and detect the physical effects of an OBE with earth-bound lab experiments, and probably impossible to infer OBEs from gravitational effects at galactic or inter-galactic scales. I can't think of any evidence or theory that can decisively rule out these two possibilities for the mediums of OBEs, and I highly doubt that your skeptical associates can either. But it would be interesting to hear how they might try.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

That's nice.

Can you sum up what you believe Carroll's argument to be, making reference to the particular branch of physics he says is relevant, and what it is about that branch of physics that he says precludes the existence of a consciousness outside of the brain? Shouldn't take more than a few brief sentences.

 

[annnnoid]

That's nice.

Can you sum up what you believe Carroll's argument to be, making reference to the particular branch of physics he says is relevant, and what it is about that branch of physics that he says precludes the existence of a consciousness outside of the brain? Shouldn't take more than a few brief sentences.

Carroll’s argument is very simple. He claims that we know all the laws of physics governing atoms in a body at the energy, mass, and length scales relevant to everyday life. Thus there is no medium through which anything can occur that would not be detectable. That paragraph quite explicitly addresses that argument.

He claims atoms in a body are exclusively responsible for all of what is called consciousness. This is utterly impossible to establish since no one has a clue either what consciousness is or how the physical activity of the brain (on the atomic, molecular, or cellular scale) generates it.

Finally he concludes that since a body stops functioning upon death…so does consciousness. Given that this conclusion is entirely a function of his two earlier failed conclusions…this statement has no credibility.

He is wrong and it is trivially easy to prove it.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

His argument concerns fields, not atoms. That it's fields he's discussing is actually very important to his argument.

Thank you for demonstrating that you don't actually know what his arguments are. I recommend watching the video linked above in order to see what it is that he is actually arguing before attempting to dismiss his arguments.

 

[IanS]

I think we are still waiting for any genuine quote of Carroll claiming anything that annnnoid says.

We now have him saying that Carroll has claimed that -

Carroll’s argument is very simple. He claims ... there is no medium through which anything can occur that would not be detectable.

It appears there is zero chance of annnnoid ever supporting anything he says by producing an actual quote of Carroll saying such things, because he has been asked here countless times by various people, and has failed to produce even one such quote from Carroll.

But afaik - no neuroscientists or others who have tried investigate signs of brain functioning by such things as f-MRI, have ever claimed to be able to detect every possible chemical or electrical action that could possibly take place in the human brain. So it seems extremely unlikely that Carroll would be claiming that science has now detected and explained all possible reactions in the human brain.

In the video, all that Carroll contributed on that issue of what has been, or could be, detected as brain activity in respect of patients claiming NDE, was to stay silent and not disagree with Novella, when Novella said that we can now use such things as drugs, blood-oxygen starvation, and electrical stimulation to reproduce "exactly" the same NDE's reported by hospitalised patients.

In any case, in that video debate, and in the case of all so-called "medics, neuroscientists, psychologists, philosophers etc., who are claiming that NDE is evidence of conciousness existing separately from the physical brain (and in fact after complete death of the brain), the claim appears to be either directly religious as a God-claim of "spiritual life after death", or else indirectly religious as a claim of some sort of disembodied conciousness in the universe.

But you (anyone) can read a great deal about all of that by the simple act of merely looking at the long article in Wikipedia (which is, fortunately, filled with nearly 200 references to the various papers, books, and reports in which most practitioners have reported their studies). And if you simply look at all of that in Wiki, then you are left in no doubt that almost all researchers agree that the reported NDE-OBE effects are quite clearly activities within the physical brain. And the one recent study in which a researcher, a certain Sam Parnia specifically attempted to follow-up a contemporary report from Dutch cardiologist Pim van Lommel who believed he had shown that conciousness did indeed persist after brain death, but whose work was immediately subject to savage criticism by Jason Braithwaite (Senior Lecturer in Cognitive Neuroscience in the Behavioral Brain Sciences Centre, at the University of Birmingham) in a lengthy analysis published in the British medical research journal The Lancet, and where Parnia's results, far from having his intended outcome of supporting van Lommel's belief in conciousness independent of the brain, entirely failed to show any credible reproducible signs of any such thing at all ...

... and you can read a pretty detailed & lengthy description of all of that in that in the Wikipedia link below. Where you can of course also check all of it by consulting all of the references listed there. And what the entire Wiki page says, is exactly what Novella said in that video, and the complete opposite of what Moody and Alexander were trying to claim about conciousness existing independently of the brain as support for their belief in God!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience

 

[LarryS]

One could substitute the word 'fields' for atoms, one could substitute the word 'all of matter' for atoms and annnoid's point still stands. Carroll is effectively saying: The natural world is all that exists, and, we've searched high and wide and have found no medium to support consciousness outside of the brain . . . so therefore the brain is all we need to explain consciousness.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

One could substitute the word 'fields' for atoms, one could substitute the word 'all of matter' for atoms and annnoid's point still stands.

No one couldn't. Atoms are literally at least hundreds of thousands times bigger than the fundamental particles that quantum field theory explains. It's an entirely different branch of science.

It's like saying that the science of the orbit of the Earth around the sun is the same as the science of electrons orbiting a nucleus.

"All of matter" is an entirely different thing again.

Carroll is effectively saying: The natural world is all that exists, and, we've searched high and wide and have found no medium to support consciousness outside of the brain . . . so therefore the brain is all we need to explain consciousness.

That's not it, either.

I suggest watching the video linked above, in order to see what he actually says.

 

[LarryS]

I have watched the video - and this is what he's suggesting - - - we have found no mechanism/process/wave/particle or whatever where consciousness/soul or whatever touches/moves or whatever the brain - so - there is no reason to believe there is a soul or that consciousness is anything other than the brain.

 

[annnnoid]

His argument concerns fields, not atoms. That it's fields he's discussing is actually very important to his argument.

Thank you for demonstrating that you don't actually know what his arguments are. I recommend watching the video linked above in order to see what it is that he is actually arguing before attempting to dismiss his arguments.

I am quite familiar with his arguments...and so is the theoretical physicist who wrote that paragraph....within which 'fields' are quite clearly referenced.

I think we are still waiting for any genuine quote of Carroll claiming anything that annnnoid says.

We now have him saying that Carroll has claimed that -

It appears there is zero chance of annnnoid ever supporting anything he says by producing an actual quote of Carroll saying such things, because he has been asked here countless times by various people, and has failed to produce even one such quote from Carroll.

But afaik - no neuroscientists or others who have tried investigate signs of brain functioning by such things as f-MRI, have ever claimed to be able to detect every possible chemical or electrical action that could possibly take place in the human brain. So it seems extremely unlikely that Carroll would be claiming that science has now detected and explained all possible reactions in the human brain.

In the video, all that Carroll contributed on that issue of what has been, or could be, detected as brain activity in respect of patients claiming NDE, was to stay silent and not disagree with Novella, when Novella said that we can now use such things as drugs, blood-oxygen starvation, and electrical stimulation to reproduce "exactly" the same NDE's reported by hospitalised patients.

In any case, in that video debate, and in the case of all so-called "medics, neuroscientists, psychologists, philosophers etc., who are claiming that NDE is evidence of conciousness existing separately from the physical brain (and in fact after complete death of the brain), the claim appears to be either directly religious as a God-claim of "spiritual life after death", or else indirectly religious as a claim of some sort of disembodied conciousness in the universe.

But you (anyone) can read a great deal about all of that by the simple act of merely looking at the long article in Wikipedia (which is, fortunately, filled with nearly 200 references to the various papers, books, and reports in which most practitioners have reported their studies). And if you simply look at all of that in Wiki, then you are left in no doubt that almost all researchers agree that the reported NDE-OBE effects are quite clearly activities within the physical brain. And the one recent study in which a researcher, a certain Sam Parnia specifically attempted to follow-up a contemporary report from Dutch cardiologist Pim van Lommel who believed he had shown that conciousness did indeed persist after brain death, but whose work was immediately subject to savage criticism by Jason Braithwaite (Senior Lecturer in Cognitive Neuroscience in the Behavioral Brain Sciences Centre, at the University of Birmingham) in a lengthy analysis published in the British medical research journal The Lancet, and where Parnia's results, far from having his intended outcome of supporting van Lommel's belief in conciousness independent of the brain, entirely failed to show any credible reproducible signs of any such thing at all ...

... and you can read a pretty detailed & lengthy description of all of that in that in the Wikipedia link below. Where you can of course also check all of it by consulting all of the references listed there. And what the entire Wiki page says, is exactly what Novella said in that video, and the complete opposite of what Moody and Alexander were trying to claim about conciousness existing independently of the brain as support for their belief in God!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience

“We know enough to say that if there are any other forces, particles, fields, phenomenon (MEDIUMS…IOW)…they can’t affect the atoms in your brain…because either they are so weak that they would have no affect on what the atoms are doing…or we would have found them (in other words…they would be detectable).”

His words…verbatim.

…as for your constant references to this idiot Novella…why don’t you take some time and actually do some basic research. The first question you could ask (which I’ve already asked…and which has yet to receive anything remotely resembling an answer)…is how on earth is it possible to empirically establish that NDE’s can be artificially duplicated when it is utterly impossible to empirically establish what is happening in the first place, let alone whether or not the ‘duplicate’ is explicitly equivalent to the original.

…note the words ….UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE! That applies to Novella as well. If you had any interest in this subject you would take the time to find out why that is the case.

You would also take the time to find out how much is actually empirically known about the brain, how it generates consciousness, what is known about consciousness, what is known about human nature and experience.

…but you’re not interested. You’re only interested in propping up your shaky philosophy. Don’t ever let a few inconvenient facts get in the way of a good dose of denial!

I have watched the video - and this is what he's suggesting - - - we have found no mechanism/process/wave/particle or whatever where consciousness/soul or whatever touches/moves or whatever the brain - so - there is no reason to believe there is a soul or that consciousness is anything other than the brain.

Exactly. He assumes (and he has explicitly stated this) that the mind is the brain. His argument is simply that we know the physics of the brain sufficiently to exclude any ‘outside’ possibilities.

My earlier 'paragraph' exposes some of the flaws in that position.

But of far greater relevance... we don’t know the physics of the mind…at all. We don’t know what it is, and we don’t know how it is created by the physical activity of the brain. Both of these are indisputable facts. Carroll just pretends they are irrelevant.

…but what kind of credible science blatantly ignores the phenomenology of what it is measuring? Like all good materialists…Carroll just assumes that ‘mind’ simply cannot have any distinct phenomenology. The evidence is gradually proving him wrong.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I am quite familiar with his arguments...

Then is it that you think that atoms and fundamental particles are the same thing?

[...]and so is the theoretical physicist who wrote that paragraph....within which 'fields' are quite clearly referenced.

And that's a nice try at a save, but mentioning vacuum energy is not the same thing that Carroll is talking about.

 

[annnnoid]

Then is it that you think that atoms and fundamental particles are the same thing?

And that's a nice try at a save, but mentioning vacuum energy is not the same thing that Carroll is talking about.

So what is Carroll talking about…and how is it related to that paragraph I included? I have suggested at least a dozen times that you actually present a response to that paragraph. So far you have avoided doing so just as many times.

That paragraph is an explicit response from a theoretical physicist to the exact issues that Carroll has raised. If you are going to constantly insist that Carroll’s arguments are valid…but constantly ignore a direct challenge to those very same arguments…I am going to have to assume that it is you who don’t actually know what you’re talking about.

Besides the issues raised in that paragraph, Carroll utterly ignores the massive gaps in our understanding of consciousness, human nature, and the relationship between neural and cognitive activity. He just pretends these are non-issues.

How is it possible to make such unconditionally definitive statements about a subject when so little is actually known about it…and especially when so much evidence implicates alternate paradigms?

Just assume that your response to these questions will determine whether or not you get put on ignore. Not that I expect you to care…but I don’t either. You’re either going to specifically address the issues…or you’re not. If you’re not…then you’re a waste of my time.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I don't see how science can be used for such a purpose. If it could, then it would.

Surely it has been? It's just that no reliable evidence of the paranormal has been found.

And herein the nub, the base core problem with any methodology of obtaining information that doesn't use objective evidence.

Some people see the fact that science can't explain nonsense as proof that science is incomplete or faulty. The nonsense exists in their worldview so since science says "no" it has to be wrong.

The problem is when we asks these people how they know the nonsense exists, they can't give us a valid answer. They have to invoke meaningless nonsense like faith or just some form of self realization that is indistinguishable from "I just made it up."

 

[annnnoid]

And herein the nub, the base core problem with any methodology of obtaining information that doesn't use objective evidence.

Some people see the fact that science can't explain nonsense as proof that science is incomplete or faulty. The nonsense exists in their worldview so since science says "no" it has to be wrong.

The problem is when we asks these people how they know the nonsense exists, they can't give us a valid answer. They have to invoke meaningless nonsense like faith or just some form of self realization that is indistinguishable from "I just made it up."

...want to hear some indisputable nonsense Joe. How about this:

…the idea that you require objective evidence to subjectively function.

Science is utterly incapable of objectively adjudicating your existence…so how on earth do you manage to do it….survive…with just you around to handle things. No science. Nothing remotely ‘objective’ about any of it.

In fact…and I’m sorry if this is a bit complicated…’objective’ is the opposite of ‘subjective’.

Meaning…your dumb argument flatly contradicts your very existence!

…but don’t worry…just go stick your head back in the dirt. Those nasty facts will fade away soon enough. Nothing works better than ignorance!

...but hang on. I forgot to mention 'faith'. That's what you are Joe....or did you not check with the latest from science. Here...I'll fill you in:

Science can't even begin to empirically explain what you are or how you are created by your brain. Nor can science ultimately explain what anything is or where anything comes from.

Everything...including you...is faith.

There...those are the facts Joe. Sorry...are you feeling sick! Head-back-in-the-sand-time I think.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Are you paid by the ellipse?