Determinism vs. Free Will

[rvkevin]

3) Human psychology is a crazy thing. The mind screws up all the time. Memories can be implanted. I'm sure you've seen the well known cases of children who had vivid memories of them being molested "uncovered" through therapists. Only to discover that forensic evidence proves no such offenses. Through a process of accidental leading, (IE no fraud by either therapist nor child) a memory can be completely fabricated.

I just want to add how easy this can happen. You don't even need to have contact with another person for this to happen. This can happen simply by viewing photographs of the incident. People will see the photograph with them in it and then deduce that since it happened to them, they must "remember" it, so they create a "memory" of it. For example, some researchers would photo shop the participants into a picture in front of Disney's Magic Kingdom castle (with Mickey) and then show these to people who claim that they have never been there. Sure enough, they remembered being there with Mickey. Since the researchers couldn't verify this (i.e. they may have been resurrecting a memory) and having a photo taken with Mickey is a common event at Disney, they changed Mickey to Bugs Bunny (Bugs is not a Disney character so the actual event must not have happened), and the same effect happened. This happens all the time with regards to childhood memories as well. You see pictures of yourself when you were younger and then create memories that fit with the pictures. I would imagine this is the result of source confusion. When you see the picture, you create what the experience must have been like, and then when you recall that experience next time, you forget the source of it and take it as real. Also, you conveniently have photographic "evidence" showing how reliable your memory was, which only helps in increasing the persons confidence even if the photo is the source of the memory.

 

[blazedaces]

He's a computer engineer not a scientist.

Can you define scientist? Do you mean he doesn't have a PhD?

-blazed

 

[AltF4]

Well, I'm not a scientist, I'm an engineer. XD If you had to put it succinctly, the difference if that scientists discover things, engineers build things.

 

[Dre89]

I only said he wasn't a scientist because he told me he wasn't one. I wasn't trying to insult him or anything.
,
If we want to be really technical, engineers, philosophers and theologians are probably all technically scientists, seeing as the word science originially referred to the acquisition of knowledge. They're just not 'natural' sciences, and it seems today science is synonomous with 'natural science'.

 

[rvkevin]

If we want to be really technical, engineers, philosophers and theologians are probably all technically scientists, seeing as the word science originially referred to the acquisition of knowledge.

In that case, I would consider none of those three positions to be scientists. Engineers apply science and neither philosophers nor theologians acquire knowledge.

 

[Dre89]

Well if philosophy doesn't acquire knowledge, I guess we don't have the knowledge that science concludes probable facts. Guess it's just down to faith then...

Seriously though, I don't know why you never want to give philosophy or theology any credit at all.

 

[Suntan Luigi]

Don't be so quick to jump to the conclusion that something is unobservable. Consider curved timespace. Can you imagine someone coming up to you and suggesting that time was in fact a dimension just like our 3 spacial dimensions, and that you can bend these dimensions? You might easily jump to the conclusion that there's no way to observe this curved timespace.

But there is. You can use the theory to make a prediction. If the prediction comes up false, then your theory is out. If it comes up true, then this is good positive evidence.

(Curved timespace can be observed through gravitational lensing, for example. A phenomenon that Einstein predicted, and then it was observed)

In your case, you're making all kinds of claims that can make predictions. If you can have a soul outside your body, you should be able to observe something that the body couldn't otherwise. The logistics of setting up the experiment are irrelevant here. You've made a positive and testable prediction, that's all that matters.

And there are others which can possibly be tested in the future. Such as if/when we have the ability to make near perfect copies of objects like humans. You earlier claimed that any such copy ought to drop dead lifeless. I would claim that that the clone would act exactly like any normal human. Here yet again we have another positive and testable prediction your theory is making.

Don't just straight from "I can't see it or touch it" to "it's not observable".

So I guess this is a case of the theory of a soul having some experimental evidence to support it but you do not think this evidence is strong enough because you have a problem with the methodology used in the studies.

This is what I mean when I say a lack of rigor. Michael Shermer has a presentation or two where he discusses all the many ways that people are able to deceive themselves. Or be deceived by others. Here is just a small sample of explanations for these kinds of things, just off the top of my head:

1) The horoscope effect. Saying something exceedingly general, which is taken with confirmation bias as correct.

I think we can rule this out, seeing as how many of the descriptions were quite specific.

2) Leading the witness. When the subject is "recalling" the event, someone who was present in the room at the time can give subtle clues through body language as to give away the game. Note that this is not intentional fraud, this is just part of psychology.

The subject will say "Then the surgeon left the room..." and everyone's eyebrows will curl, at which point the subject says "Oh, wait, no he stayed in, that's right." Then everyone just forgets the fact that the subject got it wrong and corrected the story after input from people who were there.

I won't deny this as a possibility, however it is too unlikely that this occurred in all of the cases. In most cases the subjects have a very clear, detailed, and vivid memory of what they experienced. And what about the cases where the NDE subject correctly describes something before any input from witnesses? (See cited example from the Dutch study, the first thing the guy said when he woke up was, "Oh, that nurse knows where my dentures are.")

3) Human psychology is a crazy thing. The mind screws up all the time. Memories can be implanted. I'm sure you've seen the well known cases of children who had vivid memories of them being molested "uncovered" through therapists. Only to discover that forensic evidence proves no such offenses. Through a process of accidental leading, (IE no fraud by either therapist nor child) a memory can be completely fabricated.

This also doesn't explain how NDE subjects can correctly describe something before any input from witnesses.

How exactly would these clear, detailed, and vivid memories be implanted anyways?

4) Backward memory inference. just like with what happens in deja-vu. You see an object, and immediately remember seeing the same object in a dream the night before. You then conclude that the dream was a premonition. When in fact you just see the object, then your mind fabricates the memory of having seen the object in the past.

If a subject of an NDE was ever told what happened during the operation (or whatever period of time) then it's possible for the brain to just form a memory during that time. The person will "remember" the operation as if they really were able to see it.

But what if the subject was not ever told of what happened during the operation?


These may be plausible to explain some of the NDEs, but they are not sufficient to explain all of them.

You say this as if I'm objecting to something trivial like the font on the writing of the paper. What's bad is the complete lack of basic rigor.

It's the job of the researchers to rule out every single one of these. And lots and lots more. In order to do that, they would need a completely different methodology. Just merely studying what people remember after the fact is not sufficient. The researchers completely fail to address any of these explanations.

Ok, please tell me then. How would you design an practical experiment to study NDEs/OBEs to test for the existence of a soul, that would address all of the following points you brought up? What would satisfy your criterion for a "good" study?

I choose my words carefully. I said a combination of fraud and self delusion. Not just merely fraud.

Like I said before, it's haphazard to explain a phenomenon like NDEs as "a combination of fraud and self delusion".

You are not trying to come up with a hypothesis to explain NDEs, you are instead writing off this phenomenon to any other possible explanation, which is why you haven't even attempted to defend your supposed explanation of these NDEs (brain malfunction theory).

I highly recommend you to take a look at the Dutch study published in The Lancet. It was a comprehensive 13 year study "conducted prospectively, meaning that a large group of people experiencing cessation of their heart and/or breathing function were resuscitated during a fixed period of time, and were interviewed. Through those interviews the doctors discovered who had experienced NDEs. The advantage of this type of study is that it gives scientists a matched comparison group of non-NDE patients against which to compare the near-death experiencers, and that in turn gives scientists much more reliable data about the possible causes and consequences of the near-death experience.

For example, in the past some scientists have asserted that the NDE must be simply a hallucination brought on by the loss of oxygen to the brain [called "anoxia"] after the heart has stopped beating. This study casts doubt on that theory, in the words of its chief investigator, cardiologist Pim van Lommel, MD, "Our results show that medical factors cannot account for the occurrence of NDE. All patients had a cardiac arrest, and were clinically dead with unconsciousness resulting from insufficient blood supply to the brain. In those circumstances, the EEG (a measure of brain electrical activity) becomes flat, and if CPR is not started within 5-10 minutes, irreparable damage is done to the brain and the patient will die. According to the theory that NDE is caused by anoxia, all patients in our study should have had an NDE, but only 18% reported having an NDE... There is also a theory that NDE is caused psychologically, by the fear of death. But only a very small percentage of our patients said they had been afraid seconds before their cardiac arrest -- it happened too suddenly for them to realize what was occurring. More patients than the frightened ones reported NDEs." Finally, differences in drug treatments during resuscitation did not correlate with the likelihood of patients experiencing NDEs, nor with the depth of their NDEs." (from http://mikepettigrew.com/afterlife/html/dutch_study.html)


The results of that quite rigorous study do not support your brain malfunction/anoxia hypothesis. Here, take a look.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673601071008/fulltext.


Also, seeing as BPC has lost interest in this discussion, I would like to hear your input on that rather sticky issue we were trying to come to terms with. I'll start with another example. Let's take sound.

How does sound work? Well (off the top of my head), motion creates pressure waves in the air, which cause vibrations in the bones in the ear, which are converted into vibrations in the ear drum, which are then converted into electrical signals in the cochlea, which are then transferred to the brain via the auditory nerve, which are then processed by the brain into meaningful information, namely, sound. So far, so good?

Now, this is my question. When the brain is finished processing those electrical signals, and it "knows" that those signals = sound, how does it "tell" us this? How does processed information in the brain translate into an actual sound? And furthermore, what part of us exactly is hearing this sound?


Here is another way to think of it. If tree falls in the forest and there is one philosophical zombie around close enough to hear it, does it make a sound?


In essence, my question is this: What experiences things, if not the soul?

Ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case.

Have you ever actually thought about what exactly is causing all of these anecdotal reports? Something has to be causing them. Maybe not necessarily aliens, but something.

You know, I will say this. The universe is a far stranger place than you or I can possibly imagine. So I don't completely deny anything without just cause. If that makes me a nut, than so be it.



And, on a perhaps unrelated note, I am quite certain that you yourself do not actually believe anything you are saying right now! I am more than certain that I can prove to you that you actually believe free will exists and thus you believe that the soul exists! Do you accept this challenge?

 

[AltF4]

There needn't be a single explanation which holds true for every reported NDE event. There can be a thousand individual explanations for each one.

The point isn't that it's my duty to come up with a viable explanation for every instance. You are thinking backward. It is the duty of the "researchers" to eliminate any other possibility available. And they completely fail to do this. They don't even attempt to. This is not science, it's pseudoscience. It looks and feels like legitimate science because it has a "study", a hypothesis, and produces a result. But it lacks any amount of basic rigor and then tries to hide behind insisting that their theory is valid until someone else comes in any systematically disproves everything they've done. That's not how real science works.

The whole methodology is flawed. I'm not going to play a silly game of listening to stories. My in-law once insisted that her laundry room was haunted. She lost a shoe one time and couldn't find it for weeks. Then one day, there is was sitting on top of the washer. "It was a ghost" she said. And no matter how you tried to rationalize the story by saying that it might have been a friend, or her husband, or any number of things, she had a retort about how it couldn't have been that. Should I then conclude that her laundry room is haunted? How is this different than these "studies"?

The saying goes:

The plural of anecdote is not "evidence".

And that's all you have here. Anecdotes. It doesn't matter if you have one, or many recorded over time. It's all still hearsay and unreliable. Not evidence.

I'm not supporting some "brain malfunction" theory you're trying to pin on me. That may in fact play some part in this but it's not what I'm talking about. I'm saying that your "evidence" for NDE's is exactly the same as proponents of Elvis reincarnation believers, alien abductions, big foot, and every other unsubstantiated nonsense. There's no real evidence. Just people who swear up and down that they saw it! Well, that's not good enough.

We wouldn't take this kind of "evidence" for even ordinary claims, let alone ones as significant as the existence of a soul! Imagine going to a physics conference and claiming to have discovered a new law of motion. You tell them that you have no video of this new law of motion in action. You have no independent researchers verifying your claim. You haven't even seen it nor studied it yourself. All your "evidence" is a just bunch of people who say they saw it happen, and promise that there's no way they could be mistaken. You'd get laughed out of the place.

And, on a perhaps unrelated note, I am quite certain that you yourself do not actually believe anything you are saying right now! I am more than certain that I can prove to you that you actually believe free will exists and thus you believe that the soul exists! Do you accept this challenge?

Sounds fun. This isn't going to be some silly "then why aren't you a nihilist" or something, is it?

 

[Suntan Luigi]

There needn't be a single explanation which holds true for every reported NDE event. There can be a thousand individual explanations for each one.

The point isn't that it's my duty to come up with a viable explanation for every instance. You are thinking backward. It is the duty of the "researchers" to eliminate any other possibility available. And they completely fail to do this. They don't even attempt to. This is not science, it's pseudoscience. It looks and feels like legitimate science because it has a "study", a hypothesis, and produces a result. But it lacks any amount of basic rigor and then tries to hide behind insisting that their theory is valid until someone else comes in any systematically disproves everything they've done. That's not how real science works.

The whole methodology is flawed.

I will ask you again. What would satisfy your criterion for a good scientific study that would address these issues? Please be specific? I need to have some idea of what you are looking for here.

And you did not even acknowledge the Dutch study? What is wrong with it? It is about as rigorous a study as you can get.

I'm not going to play a silly game of listening to stories. My in-law once insisted that her laundry room was haunted. She lost a shoe one time and couldn't find it for weeks. Then one day, there is was sitting on top of the washer. "It was a ghost" she said. And no matter how you tried to rationalize the story by saying that it might have been a friend, or her husband, or any number of things, she had a retort about how it couldn't have been that. Should I then conclude that her laundry room is haunted? How is this different than these "studies"?

See, here's the thing. Just because you think something is absurd that doesn't make it any less true or false. The only thing that happens when you form such biased conclusions is that you have already decided what you think of the matter. So in the unlikely event that the room is haunted, you would be wrong. The key here is that unlikely does not equal impossible. Assuming that something is impossible is jumping to conclusions.

Sherlock Holmes says, "If you have eliminated the impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." What if in fact there really is no "rational" explanation for how her shoe got misplaced? You would just keep denying that very slim possibility of the room being haunted.

Like I said before, it is possible for something to exist outside of our ability to observe it. For this reason we should not think of supernatural things like ghosts, higher beings, and non-physicial realties as absurd. Because they could very well exist without our knowledge. Note that that does not require you to totally believe in them either, or believe in every strange thing. Rather, you should just keep some possibilities open.

The saying goes:

The plural of anecdote is not "evidence".

And that's all you have here. Anecdotes. It doesn't matter if you have one, or many recorded over time. It's all still hearsay and unreliable. Not evidence.

These are not just anecdotes though. These are anecdotes which cannot be explained with a purely materialist mindset of the world. I have shown that any possible explanation that you can come up with using this mindset is not sufficient for every single case, and the results of the Dutch study also support this. You assume that there has to be a physical explanation for each and every case. But that is begging the question. There does not have to be a purely physical explanation for each and every case.

I'm not supporting some "brain malfunction" theory you're trying to pin on me. That may in fact play some part in this but it's not what I'm talking about. I'm saying that your "evidence" for NDE's is exactly the same as proponents of Elvis reincarnation believers, alien abductions, big foot, and every other unsubstantiated nonsense. There's no real evidence. Just people who swear up and down that they saw it! Well, that's not good enough. We wouldn't take this kind of "evidence" for even ordinary claims, let alone ones as significant as the existence of a soul! Imagine going to a physics conference and claiming to have discovered a new law of motion. You tell them that you have no video of this new law of motion in action. You have no independent researchers verifying your claim. You haven't even seen it nor studied it yourself. All your "evidence" is a just bunch of people who say they saw it happen, and promise that there's no way they could be mistaken. You'd get laughed out of the place.

We went over why the kind of evidence you desire is not easy to come by. Wouldn't it be so convenient if we could simple tell someone, "Ok, please start having an NDE so we can study you lol"? Unfortunately this isn't the case. This is why such rigorous studies for NDEs are notoriously time-consuming and difficult. This lack of rigorous scientific studies does not necessarily mean that the soul is a BS concept. And the one rigorous 13 year study that I could find which should meet your expectations supports my argument, which is why I want to hear what you think about it.




Also, you didn't answer my other question: What experiences things, if not the soul?

Sounds fun. This isn't going to be some silly "then why aren't you a nihilist" or something, is it?

Ok, let's begin. First, let's clear something up. What does it mean to really believe in something? A belief is something we base our thoughts and, more importantly, our actions around. For example, if you say "I believe that God will call me to account for my actions" but live your life like a complete bum, do you really believe this? No, because if you did you wouldn't live like a low-life.

Or, for example, if you hear your instructor's advice for a project and say, "Wow that is good advice" but don't make any effort to act on it, do you really think it is good advice? No.


Now let's look at one of your recent posts in (http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=13514552#post13514552)

You will count me amongst the group of "Crypto-anarchists". We believe in an absolute freedom of speech in the digital world, no compromises. And we have the technical expertise to accomplish it. We use cryptography to ensure privacy and anonymity (which are a requirement for freedom of speech) in the digital world. Even if you disagree with us, you are powerless to do anything about it.

I don't just support this cause "in theory", I actually do work in this field. My master's thesis was a cryptographic protocol for open and secure Internet access. I'm collaborating with the EFF Open Wireless project, I briefly helped with the Tor project, am working on an implementation of a DC-net (a special kind of anonymity network), and a traffic analysis evading tool for encrypted protocol identification.

These projects help freedom of speech in the real world. Tor is used widely by activists in the Arab Spring movement to organize protesters and subsequently bring down authoritarian regimes. So these things have actual consequences, and I sleep well at night knowing that I played a part.

Clearly, you not only feel strongly about the issue of freedom of digital speech, you are highly involved in actively working towards that goal as well. Fundamentally, why do you think that this is the case? Why do you care? The answer is obvious.

You, and pretty much every person on the face of this Earth, have some kind of a morals system. You clearly believe that some things are right (digital free speech) and others are wrong (oppression of free speech). And if you believe that such concepts as "right" and "wrong" are in any way applicable to the world, this can only mean that you truly believe, as has been defined, that certain people can be held morally responsible for their right and wrong actions.

Which is, to say, you believe that free will exists.

If you truly, actually, believed that free will did not exist, you would be much worse than a nihilist. You would not even be able to function normally in society. You would have no opinions about anyone or anything, much like an actual computer. You would have serious issues.

You see, you are saying things with your mouth, but your actions are telling me something quite different. So I think you should really ask yourself "If free will is such a bogus concept then why do I base my actions around it?".

 

[AltF4]

1) Forming a proper investigation into Near Death Experiences.

Firstly, I greatly dislike the name. There's nothing spooky or special about having an experience while being near death. I've nearly died a few times (fun stories) and had interesting experiences. But that's not what we're talking about here is it? We mean more interesting things like Out of Body Experiences.

Next, an "NDE", as the Lancet study defined it, occurred in 18% of their subjects. That's a fairly common occurrence. I don't see how you can hide behind this excuse of "it's so rare, it's hard to study". 18% is a big number. For comparison, drug companies regularly examine medical side effects that occur in as few as 1 in a 1000 to 1 in 10,000 people. And they're able to establish these ratios with high degrees of confidence.

So it would not at all be unreasonable to fit an operating room in a hospital where emergencies (people who are frequently highly injured) with a video camera. That's an important part.

Next is that you have to devise a way to make the study double blind. Meaning that you can better rule out unforeseen accidental effects that poison your results. You can do this by having the person who interviews subjects not be aware of who they are interviewing. Have them interview many patients who have just come from a broad spectrum of procedures, many not life threatening at all.

Then you make it so that the subjects are blind to the study. You ensure that interviews are taken before information about the nature of their procedure is told to them. (IE: Before they are told they nearly died while in surgery) Also include many subjects who were never at risk of death.

All this is part of setting up a proper study. You have a control, you make it double blind, you try to rule out every possibility you can imagine. These people in your studies aren't even trying. The Lancet study was not "rigorous" in any way. They just took anecdotes from a larger history than previous studies.

2) "What experiences things, if not the soul?"

It's a loaded question. Built into the question is the assumption that there is some atomic (meaning indivisible) object which experiences the world. As if the brain produces information, and the soul "consumes" it.

Why does there need to be something outside the body that consumes experiences? Emotions, thoughts, and memories are all entirely contained within the brain. There's no reason to believe that the brain is biochemically incapable of doing the job. (If we looked inside someone's head and it were just air, then we might have an argument for a non-physical mind on our hands)

3) "Why aren't you a nihilist?"

As I suspected. This is the same silly argument people try to put on atheists. "Without a god, why does anything matter? We're all just worm food." Well, I don't need imaginary friends or superstitions to get me through the day.

Plus, these sorts of philosophical topics are always rather divorced from reality. It doesn't matter who wins the debate, we all act on a day-to-day basis as if we have free will. Just like if you're driving and a truck hops the median of the highway and comes hurtling toward you head on, not even the worlds most rational philosopher would take the time to think "how can I be sure that this truck really exists?" or "sure head-on 75mph car crashes usually result in death, but inductive logic is a fallacy".

 

[Reaver197]

Also, seeing as BPC has lost interest in this discussion, I would like to hear your input on that rather sticky issue we were trying to come to terms with. I'll start with another example. Let's take sound.

How does sound work? Well (off the top of my head), motion creates pressure waves in the air, which cause vibrations in the bones in the ear, which are converted into vibrations in the ear drum, which are then converted into electrical signals in the cochlea, which are then transferred to the brain via the auditory nerve, which are then processed by the brain into meaningful information, namely, sound. So far, so good?

Now, this is my question. When the brain is finished processing those electrical signals, and it "knows" that those signals = sound, how does it "tell" us this? How does processed information in the brain translate into an actual sound? And furthermore, what part of us exactly is hearing this sound?


Here is another way to think of it. If tree falls in the forest and there is one philosophical zombie around close enough to hear it, does it make a sound?


In essence, my question is this: What experiences things, if not the soul?

Putting aside that this is, unfortunately, an argument from ignorance, I must ask you a question. In your understanding of whatever a "soul" is or does, since it seems to be the ultimate repository of experience, does that mean that there can only be a single sphere of awareness for any particular person? Since all their experiences end up, in your opinion, in a single "location", so to speak. It seems to imply that you think that people's personality and sphere of awareness, all shaped by experience, is held in the "soul" if I am not mistaken.

 

[Suntan Luigi]

1) Forming a proper investigation into Near Death Experiences.

Firstly, I greatly dislike the name. There's nothing spooky or special about having an experience while being near death. I've nearly died a few times (fun stories) and had interesting experiences. But that's not what we're talking about here is it? We mean more interesting things like Out of Body Experiences.

For our purposes, the kind of NDEs we are talking about need to score above a 7 on the Greyson scale. (http://www.iands.org/research/important-research-articles/698-greyson-nde-scale.html) Do your stories qualify?

Next, an "NDE", as the Lancet study defined it, occurred in 18% of their subjects. That's a fairly common occurrence. I don't see how you can hide behind this excuse of "it's so rare, it's hard to study". 18% is a big number. For comparison, drug companies regularly examine medical side effects that occur in as few as 1 in a 1000 to 1 in 10,000 people. And they're able to establish these ratios with high degrees of confidence.

How much do they really know about a side effect that is so rare it occurs in 1 out of every 10,000 people? And in order to run so many tests you would need lots of money, which drug companies do have. But the people researching NDEs aren't exactly that well financed, for reasons which I'm sure you are well aware of. Plus, there is a greater amount of control when studying the side effects of drugs, because you can administer lots of drugs to lots of people at will.

It's not that NDEs/OBEs are rare, it's that they are beyond our control for the most part and they are primarily subjective experiences, that is why they are hard to study and not so easy to objectively verify, especially for the skeptics who want 100% convincing proof with no compromises. This is why it is usually better to study them case-by-case, and look for the key verifiable details.

So it would not at all be unreasonable to fit an operating room in a hospital where emergencies (people who are frequently highly injured) with a video camera. That's an important part.

How does having a video camera help with anything?

Next is that you have to devise a way to make the study double blind. Meaning that you can better rule out unforeseen accidental effects that poison your results. You can do this by having the person who interviews subjects not be aware of who they are interviewing. Have them interview many patients who have just come from a broad spectrum of procedures, many not life threatening at all.

Even if the interviewer didn't know who came from where, he could still easily find out from the subject.

Then you make it so that the subjects are blind to the study. You ensure that interviews are taken before information about the nature of their procedure is told to them. (IE: Before they are told they nearly died while in surgery) Also include many subjects who were never at risk of death.

I don't see why it is important to include people who were not at risk of death.

Also, how can you ensure for certain that interviews are taken before the subjects find out what happened? No matter what you do it could just as easily be dismissed as anecdotal and unreliable.

All this is part of setting up a proper study. You have a control, you make it double blind, you try to rule out every possibility you can imagine. These people in your studies aren't even trying. The Lancet study was not "rigorous" in any way. They just took anecdotes from a larger history than previous studies.

They didn't "take anecdotes" like people listening to old wives' tales. They not only interviewed but also monitored and studied people who had been resuscitated after suffering cardiac arrest, both who experienced NDEs (subjects) and who did not (controls). And after doing this they found definite trends which strongly suggest that NDEs are not purely physiological in nature. Why do you think this study caused such a commotion when it was first released?

You see, "with a purely physiological explanation such as cerebral anoxia for the experience, most patients who have been clinically dead should report one" (Dutch study). But this isn't the case, in fact it's far from it.

Here are other reasons why NDEs are not simply hallucinations. Hallucinations are usually illogical, fleeting, bizarre, and/or distorted, whereas the vast majority of NDEs are logical, orderly, clear, and comprehensible. People tend to forget their hallucinations, whereas most NDEs remain vivid for decades. Furthermore, NDEs often lead to profound and permanent transformations in personality, attitudes, beliefs and values, something that is never seen following hallucinations. People looking back on hallucinations typically recognize them as unreal, as fantasies, whereas, people often describe their NDEs as “more real than real.” Further, people who have experienced both hallucinations and an NDE describe them as being quite different. (From http://iands.org/about-ndes/key-nde-facts.html?start=3)

I will say again that any attempts to explain NDEs purely in physical terms are inadequate, and the only way to do so is to dismiss real evidence to the contrary as insignificant or "anecdotal" and dismiss real researchers as deluded fanatics and charlatans.

2) "What experiences things, if not the soul?"

It's a loaded question. Built into the question is the assumption that there is some atomic (meaning indivisible) object which experiences the world. As if the brain produces information, and the soul "consumes" it.

Why does there need to be something outside the body that consumes experiences? Emotions, thoughts, and memories are all entirely contained within the brain. There's no reason to believe that the brain is biochemically incapable of doing the job. (If we looked inside someone's head and it were just air, then we might have an argument for a non-physical mind on our hands)

This topic is difficult for me to explain, but when you understand this argument you will also understand why it is a big problem for the materialist point of view. If something I say is confusing don't hesitate to ask for clarification.

The main assumption about this question is that actual experiences are distinct from the processes of and data stored in the brain. So from what I gathered you are saying that this is not the case. Is this what you are saying? I want to make sure I completely understand your position before we move on.

(You could also say that the main assumption about this question is that qualia exist.)

Basically, if you agree to those assumptions then it becomes necessary for an indivisible and non-physical part of us to be the receiver, the "experiencer" of those experiences.

Also, what exactly do you mean by "contained"?

3) "Why aren't you a nihilist?"

As I suspected. This is the same silly argument people try to put on atheists. "Without a god, why does anything matter? We're all just worm food." Well, I don't need imaginary friends or superstitions to get me through the day.

Plus, these sorts of philosophical topics are always rather divorced from reality. It doesn't matter who wins the debate, we all act on a day-to-day basis as if we have free will. Just like if you're driving and a truck hops the median of the highway and comes hurtling toward you head on, not even the worlds most rational philosopher would take the time to think "how can I be sure that this truck really exists?" or "sure head-on 75mph car crashes usually result in death, but inductive logic is a fallacy".

So you are basically saying "I don't believe in silly things like free will". I have already shown that that is just the same as saying "I don't believe that morals are applicable to people". But yet your actions clearly show that you believe morals are applicable to people.

It doesn't matter how you try to spin this very simple concept, the hard truth is that if you actually believed that morals were not applicable to the world then your actions would be in accordance with those beliefs. I don't know how to explain this any simpler.

I ask you again, if free will is such an absurd thing than why do you base your actions around it? Perhaps because it's not so absurd after all?

No offense, but I am not sure that you know exactly what it is that you believe in, because the scientific method has unfortunately blinded you to some obvious truths about humanity. Either that, or you are just arguing for the sake of being right or wrong.

Reaver:

Well I think that although people can have varying degrees of awareness there is only one "soul" that is aware for each body, if I understood correctly. If there was more than one then that would mean there were more than two people in a single body, which is nonsense (conjoined twins don't count). Unless perhaps you consider multi-personality disorder, although that is not very well understood anyways.

Also, this isn't an argument from ignorance. My argument is basically this: there is more to a human than physical components because there are certain aspects about us that can't be explained in purely physical terms. You don't have to call it a "soul".

 

[Dre89]

Putting aside that this is, unfortunately, an argument from ignorance, I must ask you a question. In your understanding of whatever a "soul" is or does, since it seems to be the ultimate repository of experience, does that mean that there can only be a single sphere of awareness for any particular person? Since all their experiences end up, in your opinion, in a single "location", so to speak. It seems to imply that you think that people's personality and sphere of awareness, all shaped by experience, is held in the "soul" if I am not mistaken.

That's not an AFI. It would be an AFI if he missed a step in the process.

For example, if someone asks how humans feel pain, because it is a mental process, as if that shows free will exists, that's an AFI because they are unware of the pain receptors etc.

But if someone is aware of the process, and is then questioning how the physical process is transferred into consciousness, a non physical activity, then that't not an AFI because they are completely aware of the science behind it, and the question they are asking is not scientific.

 

[rvkevin]

For our purposes, the kind of NDEs we are talking about need to score above a 7 on the Greyson scale. (http://www.iands.org/research/import...nde-scale.html) Do your stories qualify?

This scale is really subjective, but I think I qualify. Also, this scale is tipped in favor of someone who is primed for religious experiences. For example, no skeptic would answer "A light clearly of mystical or other-worldly origin" in response to question eight or "I clearly left my body and existed outside it" to question twelve. These aren't statements about the experience, these answers are asking the participant to assess empirical facts about the experience. Also, I am not even sure what a conflict or being united with nature is supposed to mean in an atheistic framework, let alone what it would feel like. It's not like skeptics don't have these types of experiences, its just that we don't attribute them to supernatural causes or describe it with that type of language.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

How does having a video camera help with anything?

To help register exactly what is going on. This is quite a finnicky operation, after all. We're asking for good evidence, and part of that involves recording what goes on.

I don't see why it is important to include people who were not at risk of death.

It's called a control group. Furthermore, if, say, a bunch of them somehow claim to experience NDEs, we suddenly have very, very different results to interpret. Just sayin'.

 

[AltF4]

For our purposes, the kind of NDEs we are talking about need to score above a 7 on the Greyson scale. (http://www.iands.org/research/important-research-articles/698-greyson-nde-scale.html) Do your stories qualify?

Oh, man, this kind of stuff is exactly why these studies lack scientific rigor, and veer off into the world of pseudoscience. This whole "Geyson Scale" list is designed to lead the subject into giving positive answers.

Imagine doing the interview with an "NDE" patient in two different ways:

a) Have the examiner ask them the questions in the Greyson scale, one by one, writing down the answers.

b) Have the subject recall their experience as clearly and exhaustively as they can, with the examiner marking down any hits on they Greyson scale.

These different methods will give you VERY different results. Which method did the Lancet study use? We don't know! Because they don't tell us. This is not science.

How much do they really know about a side effect that is so rare it occurs in 1 out of every 10,000 people? And in order to run so many tests you would need lots of money, which drug companies do have. But the people researching NDEs aren't exactly that well financed, for reasons which I'm sure you are well aware of. Plus, there is a greater amount of control when studying the side effects of drugs, because you can administer lots of drugs to lots of people at will.

It may be not well financed, but that's not my problem. A topic does not get MORE credibility because it is not well financed.

It's not that NDEs/OBEs are rare, it's that they are beyond our control for the most part and they are primarily subjective experiences, that is why they are hard to study and not so easy to objectively verify, especially for the skeptics who want 100% convincing proof with no compromises. This is why it is usually better to study them case-by-case, and look for the key verifiable details.

No, you do not get to invent your own methodologies. And we are not looking for "100% convincing proof". Just any verifiable and reproducible evidence. All these "studies" you're posting are pseudo-scientific nonsense that lack basic rigor.

How does having a video camera help with anything?

Come on now. To verify accounts of out of body experiences, of course. To rule out simple cases of psychological effects that I posted earlier. So you can have the OBE patient give a full (and unaided) account of the experience. Capture the recount on camera. Then compare that against the footage of the operation.

Now there's no silly psychological effects involved with asking the operation staff if the experience is correct. (Confirmation bias, implanting memories, leading the witness, etc...)

Even if the interviewer didn't know who came from where, he could still easily find out from the subject.

Which is why it's important to inform both subject and experimenter that both must remain anonymous to each others, and capture all of their interactions on video.

I don't see why it is important to include people who were not at risk of death.

It's called a control group! Basic scientific rigor that these studies lack.

Suppose I make a machine that measures a new kind of radiation. Then I go around measuring the radiation from red rocks, and notice a strong correlation between the two. 67% of the red rocks had this radiation. So I write a paper with the conclusion that red rocks cause this radiation.

What am I missing? A control group! Someone else then comes along and tests rocks of EVERY color and notices that for every other color, 99% of the rocks have the radiation. So in reality, red rocks resist the radiation, not cause it.

This is basic high school science stuff. It's okay for you to not know it, it's not your job. But these "NDE researchers" have no excuse.

Also, how can you ensure for certain that interviews are taken before the subjects find out what happened? No matter what you do it could just as easily be dismissed as anecdotal and unreliable.

You have the nurse staff be a part of the study. Upon waking from anesthesia, you have them ensure that the interview takes place before the patient is told precisely what happened. It will only take a short time.

They didn't "take anecdotes" like people listening to old wives' tales. They not only interviewed but also monitored and studied people who had been resuscitated after suffering cardiac arrest, both who experienced NDEs (subjects) and who did not (controls). And after doing this they found definite trends which strongly suggest that NDEs are not purely physiological in nature. Why do you think this study caused such a commotion when it was first released?

The difference between taking anecdotes and performing a study is the placement of basic scientific rigor, which is flagrantly absent from every one of these papers. They utterly fail to address a whole host of simple and Earthly explanations for their results, and yet conclude that the results must be other-wordly.

You see, "with a purely physiological explanation such as cerebral anoxia for the experience, most patients who have been clinically dead should report one" (Dutch study). But this isn't the case, in fact it's far from it.

Here are other reasons why NDEs are not simply hallucinations. Hallucinations are usually illogical, fleeting, bizarre, and/or distorted, whereas the vast majority of NDEs are logical, orderly, clear, and comprehensible. People tend to forget their hallucinations, whereas most NDEs remain vivid for decades. Furthermore, NDEs often lead to profound and permanent transformations in personality, attitudes, beliefs and values, something that is never seen following hallucinations. People looking back on hallucinations typically recognize them as unreal, as fantasies, whereas, people often describe their NDEs as “more real than real.” Further, people who have experienced both hallucinations and an NDE describe them as being quite different. (From http://iands.org/about-ndes/key-nde-facts.html?start=3)

I will say again that any attempts to explain NDEs purely in physical terms are inadequate, and the only way to do so is to dismiss real evidence to the contrary as insignificant or "anecdotal" and dismiss real researchers as deluded fanatics and charlatans.

For the second time, I am not claiming that these effects are due to some kind of hallucination. You keep talking past me as if I were.

This topic is difficult for me to explain, but when you understand this argument you will also understand why it is a big problem for the materialist point of view. If something I say is confusing don't hesitate to ask for clarification.

The problem is not that I don't understand you. It's that you are making unnecessary assumptions and jumps in logic. To assert that there is such a thing as qualia is to simply assume the presence of a soul.

This whole argument amounts to "But I really really FEEL like I have a mind separate from my body!"

I hope I don't have to explain why that is not a good argument.

So you are basically saying "I don't believe in silly things like free will". I have already shown that that is just the same as saying "I don't believe that morals are applicable to people".

You have done no such thing. You've merely asserted it.

This is precisely the same as religious people telling atheists that there can be no morality if god doesn't exist. As if without a celestial Big Brother, we should all just run around ****** and murdering.

This is both rather insulting, and patently false. Insulting because you're insisting that anyone who disagrees with yourself must by definition be a bad person. And false because you have a warped view of morality that you're imposing on to me.

I do not subscribe to some celestial brand of objective morality. Everything is subjective, everything depends on context. Morality isn't much more than an evolutionary construct to help our species get along. Just as love is.

But knowing what something is and how it works in no way diminishes the thing. Knowing how a roller coaster works in no way makes riding one less fun. Knowing that love is biochemically no different than eating lots of chocolate in no way changes the fact that I love my wife. Knowing that morality is an evolutionary construct in no way makes me want to lead a less moral life.

 

[Reaver197]

Reaver:

Well I think that although people can have varying degrees of awareness there is only one "soul" that is aware for each body, if I understood correctly. If there was more than one then that would mean there were more than two people in a single body, which is nonsense (conjoined twins don't count). Unless perhaps you consider multi-personality disorder, although that is not very well understood anyways.

Also, this isn't an argument from ignorance. My argument is basically this: there is more to a human than physical components because there are certain aspects about us that can't be explained in purely physical terms. You don't have to call it a "soul".

Unfortunately, I think your explanation has only made it clearer to me that you are committing the fallacy of the "argument from ignorance". You're essentially stating that you think that there is no known way to explain or describe how certain processes or aspects come about, so therefore, you suddenly know an explanation for it.

Let me put it this way: no one currently understands the complete picture of how the human brain and mind works. I doubt you consider yourself an expert on cognition and neuroscience, I sure as hell know I’m not one, and even those who do readily admit that the complete picture is definitely not that there yet, and that cognitive science and neuroscience is still very much in the early years of its development.

It wasn’t until the 70s, a mere 40 years ago, that CAT scanning and MRI technology was able to even image human brains while they were still active and alive. Before that, everything had to be guesstimated from thought-experiments, studies on corpses, and the rather crude and imprecise electrical stimulation of certain areas of the brain. Nothing that could produce the precision and comprehensiveness that is required to understand cognition. I think it would be even silly to think that our current tools, as sophisticated as they are, will be sufficient to understand it.

Yet, despite the self-admittedly incompleteness of science’s knowledge of cognition, with even just the basic physical system of it, you are saying that there is somehow enough known about it that we will never be able to understand it in just physical terms. You essentially go “we don’t know a lot about or completely understand cognition, and that means I can know what can’t be known about it and what is there in place of our lack of understanding”. If that’s not an argument from ignorance, I don’t know what is.

It’s exactly the same fallacy of logic that people make when they say that UFOs are aliens. By the very definition of a UFO, you don’t know what it is. Yet people go “I don’t know what or how to explain that flying thing, therefore, I know that it’s aliens.”



While this certainly doesn’t disprove the argument for a soul, it definitely weakens the case for it, especially when considering the host of issues that are introduced by such a concept of a nonphysical soul. The biggest one that jumps to my mind is the issue of, if all experiences have to be at one point transferred through the brain as electrical signals, how does this manifestly physical signal become transmuted to feed into a non-physical soul? Indeed, if the soul can interact with, receive, and presumably output electrical signals to the rest of the brain, how is that a non-physical process? Would not the fact that it interacts with matter make it, by definition, physical?

Considering this in tandem with the significant amount of evidence that seem to be definitively at odds with the idea of an intangible soul that arbitrates our personality, awareness, and sense of coherency. A very comprehensive list lies within the essay that I had posted earlier on. It is a fairly long read, I shan’t hold you to reading it in its entirety, but if you really want to understand the position I’m coming from, I strongly encourage doing so.

http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html

To give the briefest and most coherent summary I can, many instances of brain damage, caused either by trauma or disease, has made the connection between our physical brain and our conscious mind extremely hard to deny. Tumors and brain damage can cause people’s personalities to swing quite wildly. Some, like the example of Phineas Gage, become an essential polar opposite to how he used to be before having a chunk of his brain blown out of his head. He went from a personable, controlled, responsible, and driven man, to an angry, impulsive, irresponsible brute after the accident.

Damage to or a disruption of the frontal lobes can deprive people of their autonomy, making them unable to resist being controlled by their environmental cues, or by orders given from other people.

Patients who have had their corpus callosum severed, usually from a surgical attempt to mitigate seizures, often end up displaying two distinct and separate fields of awareness between their left hemisphere (and the stimuli on the right side of the body) versus their right hemisphere (and the stimuli on the left side of the body).

Most damningly to your particular line of argument, it has been found that electrical stimulation of the brain's right angular gyrus results in out-of-body experiences. If it’s really a soul that keeps our sense of location and centrality, why has it been found that stimulation of a physical location of the brain recreates this issue? It seems to make more sense to me that simply any out-of-body experiences or other strange NDEs are a result of specific regions of the brain failing to function properly, which one would imagine is prone to happening in a situation that can lead to death.

If you have nearly as much interest in cognition as I believe you do, I think you may enjoy reading the whole essay. If not, at the very least you’ll understand where I’m coming from and see why I have such a hard time buying your argument. If anything, all the accumulated evidence from interactions with brain matter suggests that our consciousness and mind is inextricably tied up with the physical brain. There is no need to posit anything further.

 

[Suntan Luigi]

Oh, man, this kind of stuff is exactly why these studies lack scientific rigor, and veer off into the world of pseudoscience. This whole "Geyson Scale" list is designed to lead the subject into giving positive answers.

No, the Gryeson scale came about because of the need to better classify the different types of NDEs. In other words, those descriptions on the Greyson scale are how people normally describe them. It wasn't "contrived" to give positive answers.

Imagine doing the interview with an "NDE" patient in two different ways:

a) Have the examiner ask them the questions in the Greyson scale, one by one, writing down the answers.

b) Have the subject recall their experience as clearly and exhaustively as they can, with the examiner marking down any hits on they Greyson scale.

These different methods will give you VERY different results. Which method did the Lancet study use? We don't know! Because they don't tell us. This is not science.

Which method do you think they used? Give people some credit here.

It may be not well financed, but that's not my problem. A topic does not get MORE credibility because it is not well financed.

No it doesn't, but that also means you can't just say that lack of studies = insufficient proof.

No, you do not get to invent your own methodologies. And we are not looking for "100% convincing proof". Just any verifiable and reproducible evidence. All these "studies" you're posting are pseudo-scientific nonsense that lack basic rigor.

Lol, why can't we? Isn't it a given that somethings are studied more efficiently with better methodologies? You keep on saying that NDEs have to be run on large scale and highly controlled studies and that this methodology is the only acceptable proof. This is just not practical. Science is not a "one size fits all" kind of methodology.

Come on now. To verify accounts of out of body experiences, of course. To rule out simple cases of psychological effects that I posted earlier. So you can have the OBE patient give a full (and unaided) account of the experience. Capture the recount on camera. Then compare that against the footage of the operation.

Now there's no silly psychological effects involved with asking the operation staff if the experience is correct. (Confirmation bias, implanting memories, leading the witness, etc...)

Yes, it would be nice if we could videotape everything, but I already explained why this is not practical. Footage can be forged, and how are you going to videotape an NDE without having like 10,000 different video camera setups? All in all it would complicate things way too much and make the already large task of analyzing the data that much more difficult.

Have you even thought about why the researchers didn't use video cameras? You think that none of them ever brought up the idea even once? Maybe they didn't use it because its just a big waste of time? Again, give them some credit for God's sake.

Plus, I don't think videotaping the account would help to rule out all psychological factors. You could just as easily write it off to some other BS explanation.

You, who have never spent so much as a year studying NDEs, think you know how to study NDEs better than the people who have been studying them for decades.

Which is why it's important to inform both subject and experimenter that both must remain anonymous to each others, and capture all of their interactions on video.

I still don't understand how this could help, please elaborate some more. And there are the videotaping problems still.

It's called a control group! Basic scientific rigor that these studies lack.

Suppose I make a machine that measures a new kind of radiation. Then I go around measuring the radiation from red rocks, and notice a strong correlation between the two. 67% of the red rocks had this radiation. So I write a paper with the conclusion that red rocks cause this radiation.

What am I missing? A control group! Someone else then comes along and tests rocks of EVERY color and notices that for every other color, 99% of the rocks have the radiation. So in reality, red rocks resist the radiation, not cause it.

This is basic high school science stuff. It's okay for you to not know it, it's not your job. But these "NDE researchers" have no excuse.

It still makes no sense to me. It is already known though research that people who are not near death seldom experience near death experiences, barring sudden physical trauma or certain drugs. (That's why they are called "Near Death Experiences", lol) To use your analogy, it would be like studying black rocks that give off no radiation and you know this beforehand. What is the point??

You have the nurse staff be a part of the study. Upon waking from anesthesia, you have them ensure that the interview takes place before the patient is told precisely what happened. It will only take a short time.

The whole thing could still be easily written off as anecdotal. I even gave an account from the study where the guy gave a veridical detail before anyone told him anything. But you dismissed it. See what I mean?

The difference between taking anecdotes and performing a study is the placement of basic scientific rigor, which is flagrantly absent from every one of these papers. They utterly fail to address a whole host of simple and Earthly explanations for their results, and yet conclude that the results must be other-wordly. For the second time, I am not claiming that these effects are due to some kind of hallucination. You keep talking past me as if I were.

If a person has an out of body experience, and sees him floating above his own body, there are only two conceivable explanations.

1- What he saw was real, and he actually left his body.
2- What he saw didn't actually happen, and thus it was a hallucination.

These are really the only two explanations for NDEs and OBEs. Either it was real or it wasn't. And if it wasn't real than what was it other than a hallucination? So this is exactly what you are claiming, but you don't even realize it, because you are too busy dismissing things. And these reasons and studies I gave show why they can't be hallucinations.

The problem is not that I don't understand you. It's that you are making unnecessary assumptions and jumps in logic. To assert that there is such a thing as qualia is to simply assume the presence of a soul.

This whole argument amounts to "But I really really FEEL like I have a mind separate from my body!"

I hope I don't have to explain why that is not a good argument.

So far, yes they were assumptions. But now here comes the logic to back these assumptions up. It's kinda long but I wanted to really make this point clear, so please bear with me.

You say that there is no distinction between the electrochemical processes in our brain and our subjective experiences, correct? Basically, like BPC, you say, "Electricity = emotion". (Now that I think back, the main reason we had such trouble discussing this issue is that this critical assumption was not properly addressed).

I want to make my logic clear. Lets define "electrochemical processes of the brain" as "X", to save space. And lets have "subjective experiences" = "Y".

Now, we want to see if there is any distinction between X and Y, right? We want to see if X = Y. You say that X = Y, while I say that X != Y.

(Note: when I say X != Y I mean that X does not equal Y in any way, meaning that X cannot be a category of Y and vice versa. An analogy will be provided.)

So how can we test to see if X = Y? More generally, how can we test to see if A = B? A simple thought experiment will suffice. Basically you need to ask: "Is is logically conceivable for A(or B) to exist and B(or A) not to exist at the same exact moment in time?", then you need to answer that question. (Important note: "logically conceivable" does not necessarily equate to "actually possible".) If it is not logically conceivable for A(or B) to exist and B(or A) not to exist at the same exact time, than the only conclusion is that A = B. However, because of categories, if it is logically conceivable for A to exist and B not to exist at the same exact time, and it is logically conceivable for A to exist and B not to exist at the same exact time, only than can you conclude that A != B. Still with me?

Let's try an example. Let's define A = "cars" and B = "automobiles". Now lets ask the question. "Is is logically conceivable for cars to exist and automobiles not to exist at the same exact moment in time?" Now let's answer it. It is easily seen that no matter how hard you try you cannot think of cars existing while at the same time automobiles are not existing, and vice-versa. Since the answer to this question is no both ways we conclude that "cars" = "automobiles". This makes sense, because they are two different ways to describe the same exact thing.

But what about categories? Does "cars" = "Ferraris"? Let's ask the question."Is is logically conceivable for cars to exist and Ferraris not to exist at the same exact moment in time?" Even though the answer to this question is yes that doesn't mean that "cars" != "Ferraris", because you have to reverse the variables. "Is is logically conceivable for Ferraris to exist and cars not to exist at the same exact moment in time?" Now we can see that since this isn't possible "cars" = "Ferraris", and Ferraris are a category of cars since the answer to the question is no only one way.

One more analogy. "cars" != "cheese" would be correct, because the answer to "Is is logically conceivable for cars to exist and cheese not to exist at the same exact moment in time?" is yes both ways, thus no cars are cheese and no cheese are cars.

OK! I hope you read through all that. Now it's time to look and see if X = Y! What is the answer to, "Is is logically conceivable for electrochemical processes of the brain(X) to exist and subjective experiences(Y) not to exist at the same exact moment in time?" I'll tell you. The answer can be found in the creature known as a Philosophical zombie, which is a hypothetical being that is physiologically completely indistinguishable from a normal person but lacks consciousness, sentience, and subjective experiences.

The fact that such a being is logically conceivable is a yes to the first part. Now lets flip the question. "Is is logically conceivable for subjective experiences(Y) to exist and electrochemical processes of the brain(X)not to exist at the same exact moment in time?" It is easy to think of a disembodied consciousness from the body that can experience emotions and other things. The answer to this question is also yes.

From this analysis we can conclude that X != Y, and thus electrochemical processes of the brain are not the same thing as subjective experiences. Electrochemical processes of the brain are simply part of a mechanism that causes subjective experiences. "Electrochemical processes of the brain" and "subjective experience" are not two different ways to describe the same exact thing.

Thus qualia exist and thus this makes the existence of the soul necessary.

If this was too long, then I'll try to find a shorter way to explain my point. But I wanted to be as thorough as I could and cover all the possible refutations.

You have done no such thing. You've merely asserted it.

What? I though I was very clear on that point. Go back and see my Hitler argument. Anyways, I'll explain again.

What is free will? The ability to make a choice.

Does it make any sense to judge the actions of something that cannot make a choice as good or bad? No, this is why you know that it doesn't make sense to get mad at a rock that you trip over. And this is why when your cat scratches you it doesn't make sense to say that it did a morally bad thing.

If free will does not exist, as you claim, than can anything make a choice? No.

If nothing can make a choice, than can humans make choices? Nope.

If humans can't make choices, than does it make any sense to claim that such concepts as "good" or "bad" are applicable to people? Not at all, no more than it does to say a rock rolling down a hill is immoral.

It is quite clear that belief in free will = belief in morals. You clearly believe in morals, so you clearly believe in free will. When you say "I don't need to believe in free will to believe in morals" you are actually saying "I don't need to believe in morals to believe in morals", which is obviously a ridiculous contradiction.

This is precisely the same as religious people telling atheists that there can be no morality if god doesn't exist. As if without a celestial Big Brother, we should all just run around ****** and murdering.

This is both rather insulting, and patently false. Insulting because you're insisting that anyone who disagrees with yourself must by definition be a bad person. And false because you have a warped view of morality that you're imposing on to me.

I do not subscribe to some celestial brand of objective morality. Everything is subjective, everything depends on context. Morality isn't much more than an evolutionary construct to help our species get along. Just as love is.

But knowing what something is and how it works in no way diminishes the thing. Knowing how a roller coaster works in no way makes riding one less fun. Knowing that love is biochemically no different than eating lots of chocolate in no way changes the fact that I love my wife. Knowing that morality is an evolutionary construct in no way makes me want to lead a less moral life.

Why do you keep bringing religion into this issue? The two are not at all related. Belief in morals does not necessarily mean belief in God, but belief in morals means belief in free will.

Also your analogies miss the point. It doesn't matter how you feel or what think you know about morality or anything else. This is a simple logical issue which you have yet to respond to. I'll ask you one more time: if free will is such an absurd thing than why do you base your actions around it? If you dodge the question again I'll just answer it for you next time.

Reaver:

Ok, before you could say it was an argument from ignorance, but now I have given my logic. Things like consciousness and sentience are a logical contradiction to the notion of a purely physical world.

Also, I am not saying that there is no connection between the mind and the brain. There is indeed. But it is not the brain the experiences the world. That is the mind/soul.

As for the OBE stimulation, that proves nothing. Suppose I had the means to stimulate your senses to make you taste strawberry ice cream. But this doesn't mean you are actually tasting strawberry ice cream, it's just a stimulated sensation in this case.

 

[AltF4]

(I'm going to break the quote-reply format, if you don't mind)

1)
I'm not sure why you feel the need to make excuses for bad research. Or come up with reasons why a proper study couldn't be formed. There is no such thing as giving researchers the benefit of the doubt, in science. You have to show all (100%) of your work, or your entire conclusion is thrown out. It is extraordinarily common for the tiniest mistake in bookkeeping to result in a full re-do of the whole experiment.

Things like video do not rule out intentional fraud but they do rule out psychological effects. Almost nothing can rule out fraud in any single experiment. That's why it's important to have many different independent researchers all come to the same conclusion.

And yes, you most certainly CAN say "lack of studies = insufficient proof". What on Earth would constitute "insufficient proof" if not? If you haven't yet properly studied something, then you ought not to make conclusions.

There are more than two possible explanations for a Near Death Experience. I have even stated these before:

1- What he saw was real, and he actually left his body.
2- It was a hallucination by a malfunction in the brain.
3- It was a memory implanted after-the-fact.
4- The person is lying.
5- The experimenter is lying.


2) The "body == mind"? question.

Ahh, that argument again. This precise argument came up once before in this thread, and even then it was admitted wrong. It's just a bunch of clever word play. You never actually conclude that minds are different than bodies, you merely conclude that the concept of a mind is different than the concept of bodies.

You start out by defining the words:
Mind = Something
Body = Something else

And then you go on some unnecessarily long and confusing "proof" just to show that Mind != Body. Well DUH! You defined them to be different! You have not shown that minds are separate from bodies. You have merely shown that the word mind has a different definition than the word body.

Consider:

The two concepts "Earth" and "The third planet from the Sun". Now are these two concepts identical? Can we imagine a universe in which the Earth is not the third planet from the Sun? Yes we can. So do we therefore jump to the conclusion that "The Earth is not the third planet from the sun"? No.

All you can conclude is that "Earth" and "Third planet from the Sun" are different concepts. Which comes obviously from the fact that we defined the words so as to BE different. The "proof" has shown nothing.


(I'll respond to the rest later. I've got to go at the moment.)

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

@SL: Your argument is not valid because the mere assumption of the existence of "subjective experiences" which are separate from the brain is not a given. In fact, it's what we're debating about in the first place.

 

[Reaver197]

Reaver:

Ok, before you could say it was an argument from ignorance, but now I have given my logic. Things like consciousness and sentience are a logical contradiction to the notion of a purely physical world.

Also, I am not saying that there is no connection between the mind and the brain. There is indeed. But it is not the brain the experiences the world. That is the mind/soul.

As for the OBE stimulation, that proves nothing. Suppose I had the means to stimulate your senses to make you taste strawberry ice cream. But this doesn't mean you are actually tasting strawberry ice cream, it's just a stimulated sensation in this case.

As BPC and Alt has pointed out before me, your argument commits the error of “begging the question”, in which the very point that you are trying to prove is implicitly assumed in the premises you put forth. The issue is that we are saying that the “electrochemical processes of the brain” and the “subjective experience of the mind” is one in the same, and not distinctly different terms.

Additionally, as Alt has shown, the argument isn’t even a good barometer for determining the accuracy or truth of a statement. Furthermore, there is another issue with your usage of “logically conceivable”; what people will decide is logically conceivable about any particular object or statement will depend upon their knowledge and experience of that statement. It’s hardly an objective test. If I were to ask whether it is logically conceivable for a human to exist without being a collection of specialized cells to an African bushman, or say, someone from the 12th century, they very well may say yes. If I asked a modern doctor or biologist, they very well may say no.

The argument doesn’t actually bring forth any accurate or truthful statements about the world. It simply reveals people’s relative knowledge and biases about it. People are incomplete logicians, if not by the very fact that we don’t know everything. Using them as the standard for determining the logical veracity of a statement is a faulty task.

In the end, it’s still an argument from ignorance, especially when you say it’s easy to think of a disembodied conscious process. It might be easy to think that because know one understands how it arises. Once it’s understood, maybe in the same level it’s understood that a collection of specialized cells is necessary to form a human, it might be hard to actually think that conscious can ever be dissociated from the physical brain.

You also go too far in saying that “consciousness and sentience are a logical contradiction to the notion of a purely physical world”. Even accepting the argument despite all the flaws it has, you’ve still only shown that it’s possible that electrochemical processes and subjective experience are not the same thing, not that it’s a logical contradiction with purely physical world. I don’t even know where you are pulling that from, especially since, once again, that you do not, nor anyone, understand the entirety of what a purely physical world implies.

It’s also a blatant contradiction to then state that consciousness is somehow something that cannot exist in the physical world, in your opinion, but then to say that it somehow is still affected by it. If consciousness is affected by the physical world, then it clearly has, and is, a physical property. If destruction and alteration to the brain affects the mind’s experiences (or, even it’s ability to recollect or retain experiences), then how does that add up to a mind that is ostensibly not physical?

Also, you are misunderstanding the implications of the stimulation of the right angular gyrus. Your claim is that out-of-body experiences signify that there is a soul or consciousness that floats free of the body, a non-physical entity that should be beyond, somehow, the proddings and pokings of physical objects. The very fact that you can directly and physically stimulate and recreate this phenomena shows that this is a distinctly physical and material experience. Are you trying to say that someone the right angular gyrus is a “button” that can somehow make the soul hop out of the body when “pushed”? Why would such an ostensible non-physical entity be at the beck and call of a physical process?

Your example actually helps prove my point. Just because you experience (or have anecdotes for) what can be called an “out-of-body” phenomena, doesn’t mean you are actually having one. It could very well, and might just be, a physical and stimulated experience.

 

[Suntan Luigi]

1)
I'm not sure why you feel the need to make excuses for bad research. Or come up with reasons why a proper study couldn't be formed. There is no such thing as giving researchers the benefit of the doubt, in science. You have to show all (100%) of your work, or your entire conclusion is thrown out. It is extraordinarily common for the tiniest mistake in bookkeeping to result in a full re-do of the whole experiment.

Things like video do not rule out intentional fraud but they do rule out psychological effects. Almost nothing can rule out fraud in any single experiment. That's why it's important to have many different independent researchers all come to the same conclusion.

If you insist on setting the bar to such impractical heights then I don't think I will ever be able to find studies suitable to you. There are practical limitations to how robust a study can be. Like, for example, you can't run 10,000 tests on all of your bacteria samples to see if one of them contains the enzyme of interest. It would be nice if you could, though.

And besides, you have not shown any evidence for your view of NDEs. So there is no reason why I should be convinced that these studies are not valid.

And yes, you most certainly CAN say "lack of studies = insufficient proof". What on Earth would constitute "insufficient proof" if not? If you haven't yet properly studied something, then you ought not to make conclusions.

In this case the lack of studies is due to practical limitations. And so far the studies that have been done support my argument.

There are more than two possible explanations for a Near Death Experience. I have even stated these before:

1- What he saw was real, and he actually left his body.
2- It was a hallucination by a malfunction in the brain.
3- It was a memory implanted after-the-fact.
4- The person is lying.
5- The experimenter is lying.

The reason it can't be 2 or 3 is because unlike hallucinations or memories NDEs are profound and orderly psychological events. How would such a profound experience, which many describe as "more real than reality", be implanted into a person?

As for 4 and 5, I just don't know what to say really. Lol.

So basically you are saying, "There is no instance in any case of any NDE that has ever happened that cannot be explained by either 2, 3, 4, or 5". But there are plenty of cases which can't be explained by either 2, 3, 4, or 5. Naturally that leaves 1 as the only option for those cases.

2) The "body == mind"? question.

Ahh, that argument again. This precise argument came up once before in this thread, and even then it was admitted wrong. It's just a bunch of clever word play. You never actually conclude that minds are different than bodies, you merely conclude that the concept of a mind is different than the concept of bodies.

You start out by defining the words:
Mind = Something
Body = Something else

And then you go on some unnecessarily long and confusing "proof" just to show that Mind != Body. Well DUH! You defined them to be different! You have not shown that minds are separate from bodies. You have merely shown that the word mind has a different definition than the word body.

Consider:

The two concepts "Earth" and "The third planet from the Sun". Now are these two concepts identical? Can we imagine a universe in which the Earth is not the third planet from the Sun? Yes we can. So do we therefore jump to the conclusion that "The Earth is not the third planet from the sun"? No.

All you can conclude is that "Earth" and "Third planet from the Sun" are different concepts. Which comes obviously from the fact that we defined the words so as to BE different. The "proof" has shown nothing.

You can disregard my "proof", it is too long and has flaws anyways like you guys said. I'm going to have to find a better way to make this point. Ugh, this is tough.

Let's try a different approach. Can you please define "consciousness" and "subjective experience"? What do those terms mean to you? I think there may still be some assumptions on both sides that haven't been addressed yet.

In the end, it’s still an argument from ignorance, especially when you say it’s easy to think of a disembodied conscious process. It might be easy to think that because know one understands how it arises. Once it’s understood, maybe in the same level it’s understood that a collection of specialized cells is necessary to form a human, it might be hard to actually think that conscious can ever be dissociated from the physical brain.

Can you also define "consciousness" and "subjective experience" please, as best as you can?

You also go too far in saying that “consciousness and sentience are a logical contradiction to the notion of a purely physical world”. Even accepting the argument despite all the flaws it has, you’ve still only shown that it’s possible that electrochemical processes and subjective experience are not the same thing, not that it’s a logical contradiction with purely physical world. I don’t even know where you are pulling that from, especially since, once again, that you do not, nor anyone, understand the entirety of what a purely physical world implies.

I will elaborate on that point after you guys have provided your definitions.

It’s also a blatant contradiction to then state that consciousness is somehow something that cannot exist in the physical world, in your opinion, but then to say that it somehow is still affected by it. If consciousness is affected by the physical world, then it clearly has, and is, a physical property. If destruction and alteration to the brain affects the mind’s experiences (or, even it’s ability to recollect or retain experiences), then how does that add up to a mind that is ostensibly not physical?

Will answer after you provide the definitions.

Also, you are misunderstanding the implications of the stimulation of the right angular gyrus. Your claim is that out-of-body experiences signify that there is a soul or consciousness that floats free of the body, a non-physical entity that should be beyond, somehow, the proddings and pokings of physical objects. The very fact that you can directly and physically stimulate and recreate this phenomena shows that this is a distinctly physical and material experience. Are you trying to say that someone the right angular gyrus is a “button” that can somehow make the soul hop out of the body when “pushed”? Why would such an ostensible non-physical entity be at the beck and call of a physical process?

I want to say this: the sensation produced via that kind of stimulation falls short of producing a full blown OBE (http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j39/out-of-body.asp).

I will address all of these after you guys provide the definitions. I really need to get a better understanding of what goes through your head when you think of "subjective experiences", so help me out with that please. Right now I'm pretty sure that when I think of "subjective experiences" something entirely different is going through my mind. BPC if you want you can provide your definitions as well.

Your example actually helps prove my point. Just because you experience (or have anecdotes for) what can be called an “out-of-body” phenomena, doesn’t mean you are actually having one. It could very well, and might just be, a physical and stimulated experience.

You're right, but that's just one side of the coin. The experiences could just as well be real, and the electrical stimulation could only be giving the illusion of a genuine OBE.

 

[Theftz22]

You guys are wrong that the definitions of the modal argument beg the question. We may define consciousness as a function of the mind. That does not itself beg the question for dualism, since it may turn out that the mind is identical to the brain after all and so therefore, by transitivity, consciousness will be a function of the brain. Then, from that non-question-begging definition, the argument, if successful, shows that since consciousness possibly exists without the brain, ergo the mind possibly exists without the brain, ergo the mind is possibly not identical to the brain, ergo the mind is not actually identical to the brain.

So the argument doesn't beg the question.

 

[AltF4]

as promised

What? I though I was very clear on that point. Go back and see my Hitler argument.

I searched the last few pages, and I can't seem to find any reference to Hitler there. Are you thinking of a different thread perhaps? They all tend to muddle together after a while.

So I'll just respond to what you posted immediately after:

Does it make any sense to judge the actions of something that cannot make a choice as good or bad? No, this is why you know that it doesn't make sense to get mad at a rock that you trip over. And this is why when your cat scratches you it doesn't make sense to say that it did a morally bad thing.

If free will does not exist, as you claim, than can anything make a choice? No.

If nothing can make a choice, than can humans make choices? Nope.

If humans can't make choices, than does it make any sense to claim that such concepts as "good" or "bad" are applicable to people? Not at all, no more than it does to say a rock rolling down a hill is immoral.

This is where we differ. Morality is an evolutionary construct to better enable our species to coexist in large groups. By this definition, it only applies to humans. Free will really has no role in the topic.

And isn't this what we should expect? Why would we expect a universal moral code? Our morals have been sown into us by millions of years of social interaction in a particular set of environments. If we were to genetically engineer a highly intelligent species of ant, it would have a vastly different concept of morality. They would be going on about how selfless subservience to the queen is an objective moral good.

Our sense of morality is so obviously and transparently created by our evolutionary upbringing.

And yet I still feel morally obligated to do certain actions. Why? Because I can't help it any more than I can help feel sad, happy, or love. Like it or not, we are human. And are subject to human emotions and experiences. We're not Vulcans.

Put another way:

Consider for a moment a fully deterministic world. With intelligent animal species living in this world. One can surely imagine the animals talking about morality. Talking about what they should and shouldn't do. Their sense of morality was given to them by their evolutionary upbringing.

Now you're looking at this world from the outside saying "That's not morality. Because there's no choice". And, you're right according to how you're defining morality. But that's not how I'm defining it. And that's not how the animals in the hypothetical world would define it, either.

I'll ask you one more time: if free will is such an absurd thing than why do you base your actions around it? If you dodge the question again I'll just answer it for you next time.

I hope I sufficiently answered your (loaded) question. By unloading it. I do not base my actions around free will. The honest answer is that 99% of the time these sorts of silly philosophical quandaries are never in my mind. (With the remaining 1% being the time I'm on this forum)

I do what I can because I can. What is the alternative? Sure you can say "In 10^100 years from now, the heat death of the universe will destroy any evidence humans ever existed: what's the point?" But I'll be dead before then anyway. So what do I do in the short time that I do have? Might as well make the best of it for whatever I can gather "best" is.

Then, from that non-question-begging definition, the argument, if successful, shows that since consciousness possibly exists without the brain, ergo the mind possibly exists without the brain, ergo the mind is possibly not identical to the brain, ergo the mind is not actually identical to the brain.

(Emphasis mine)

I must again refute this argument. You can't jump from "the definition of X is different than the definition of Y" to "X is not Y".

See directly above about "Earth" and "Third planet from the Sun". Different definitions. Different concepts. Not "identical". Yet in reality, they are the same thing. You cannot jump from:

-"Earth" is not identical to "Third planet from the Sun" (a true statement)
to
-The Earth is not the third planet from the Sun (a false statement)

In the first line, you're talking about the CONCEPT of the thing. The definition of the word. NOT the thing itself. In the second line, you're talking about the thing itself. Not merely its definition.

 

[AltF4]

A new angle:

I just had thought of this. Didn't really think it through, so let's see how it goes.

1) Free will and time travel cannot both exist.
- Due to the grandfather paradox.
2) Time travel does exist.
C) Free will does not exist.

When I say "Time Travel" I mean real time travel. Not "traveling into an alternate past". I mean traveling into YOUR past.

 

[Suntan Luigi]

How does that link prove that time travel exists? I don't think time travel is possible due to logical contradictions.

For example, if you travel back in time to your own past, then you would have already been there in the past and interacted with things, etc. But prior to building a time machine no one has ever traveled back in time. So that means you never actually went back in time, because time travel is impossible. And what if you decide to go back one minute and then kill yourself? That means you would be killed by yourself before you even went back to kill yourself. Time travel is a cool concept but utterly impossible irl.

 

[AltF4]

Blah, that was a highly technical link, sorry. Trying to find some less technical links...

Maybe here. (slightly bad quality)
Also here.

I'm struggling to find a less technical link about antiparticle time travel. It's a Feynman thing, so I'm pretty sure you can find videos of him talking about it. But basically, an antiparticle is equivalent to a normal particle moving backwards in time.

So picture the following scenario (which happens in Quantum Mechanics all the time):
- Out of nothing, a particle and antiparticle spring into existence, move around a little, and then collide with each other and vanish.
- 1 particle moves forward in time, and we observe it as a particle. It then reaches a point and then goes backward in time, during which point we observe it as an antiparticle. (Which then becomes a particle again, etc... all in a loop. What is called a closed timelike loop.)

 

[blazedaces]

They have done tests where they send clocks into a plane, then when they take them out they are behind in time... a very simple proof of time travel.

Edit: You might ask why, it's a combination of being further away from earth's gravity (which is not significant) and moving closer to the speed of light. The time shift is not significant, but it is calculable to the exact microsecond (probably more-so).

Time is not one constant thing we all move through simultaneously. We all have an independent "view" of time. We could move close to the speed of light for a long time and emerge and we could be younger than our children. This isn't something crazy or impossible, it would actually occur.

-blazed

 

[Suntan Luigi]

Sure that is possible. But that's not the kind of time travel I'm thinking of. I'm thinking of actually going back to the past, like to a previous event that already happened, as opposed to slowing down time and aging slower.

 

[blazedaces]

Sure that is possible. But that's not the kind of time travel I'm thinking of. I'm thinking of actually going back to the past, like to a previous event that already happened, as opposed to slowing down time and aging slower.

Well, no, in terms of that definition of time travel, so far at least, time travel is not possible.

-blazed

 

[Suntan Luigi]

Right, and that was the type of time travel Alt was talking about, if I'm not mistaken.

Note: I hope no one thinks I am dropping the debate, I'm justing waiting for the definitions.

 

[Theftz22]

I must again refute this argument. You can't jump from "the definition of X is different than the definition of Y" to "X is not Y".

See directly above about "Earth" and "Third planet from the Sun". Different definitions. Different concepts. Not "identical". Yet in reality, they are the same thing. You cannot jump from:

-"Earth" is not identical to "Third planet from the Sun" (a true statement)
to
-The Earth is not the third planet from the Sun (a false statement)

In the first line, you're talking about the CONCEPT of the thing. The definition of the word. NOT the thing itself. In the second line, you're talking about the thing itself. Not merely its definition.

You've already used this example, and as I already explained, the earth isn't the same thing as the third planet from the sun. It's certainly not identical to the third planet from the sun. Sure it contingently is the third planet from the sun, but to draw an identity inference from that is to equivocate on the word "is". As I once explained to Dre, "is" in the second case means "has the property of", so the earth has the property of being the third planet from the sun, but it is not identical to the third planet from the sun, just as the grass is green (has the property of green) but it is not identical to green. And so when we apply this to the mind and the brain, if you were to claim that the mind is the brain, where you have already conceded it to not be identical the brain, it would be something like "the brain has the property of being mental". But then of course you concede that they are not the same thing, so materialism is eliminated, and you explicitly endorse property dualism by saying that the mind is a property of the brain, which just is property dualism! Brain properties and mental properties are in no way the same thing even though mental properties may be entirely caused by brain properties.

@Current discussion of time travel: You all seem to be presupposing an Einsteinian rather than Lorenzian interpretation of general relativity.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

If you insist on setting the bar to such impractical heights then I don't think I will ever be able to find studies suitable to you. There are practical limitations to how robust a study can be. Like, for example, you can't run 10,000 tests on all of your bacteria samples to see if one of them contains the enzyme of interest. It would be nice if you could, though.

...Actually, you kinda do, more often than not.

And besides, you have not shown any evidence for your view of NDEs. So there is no reason why I should be convinced that these studies are not valid.

Basic. Scientific. Rigor. They failed even the most basic requirements for a test of this sort. And you're going to trust them because, "well, we don't have anything better"?!

In this case the lack of studies is due to practical limitations. And so far the studies that have been done support my argument.

Yes, but those studies don't ****ing matter. I don't know how I can make this more clear to you. You're basically saying "Well, this (absolutely horrible) study is the best we have, so I'm gonna roll with it".
No.
Stop.
That is NOT how actual research works. If the best you have is ****ty research and awful papers, you do it better or honestly admit "I don't know". You don't say "all right, this **** science that I have right now indicates X, so X must be true failing further investigation". Again: there is a reason why nobody is seriously pouring money into this crap.

The reason it can't be 2 or 3 is because unlike hallucinations or memories NDEs are profound and orderly psychological events. How would such a profound experience, which many describe as "more real than reality", be implanted into a person?

You'd be pretty ****ing surprised. There are cases where a psychologist has convinced someone that they had had suppressed memories of being ***** as a child. THAT'S HOW FAR THIS **** CAN GO. You wanna claim that pedophile **** is less traumatic than an NDE, be my guest.

So basically you are saying, "There is no instance in any case of any NDE that has ever happened that cannot be explained by either 2, 3, 4, or 5". But there are plenty of cases which can't be explained by either 2, 3, 4, or 5. Naturally that leaves 1 as the only option for those cases.

Or 6: "We don't ****ing know". Just sayin'.

You can disregard my "proof", it is too long and has flaws anyways like you guys said. I'm going to have to find a better way to make this point. Ugh, this is tough.

Uh... The flaw is not that it's "too long". The flaw is that your premises are flawed, as has been pointed out.

I want to say this: the sensation produced via that kind of stimulation falls short of producing a full blown OBE (http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j39/out-of-body.asp).

Ah, "Enlighten Next" magazine. Good to know that we're using well-vetted and unbiased sources.

BPC if you want you can provide your definitions as well.

But that's hard, and I'm drunk.

 

[AltF4]

You've already used this example, and as I already explained, the earth isn't the same thing as the third planet from the sun. It's certainly not identical to the third planet from the sun.

I agree. I said the same thing myself. It is true that "Earth" and "Third planet from the Sun" are not identical. Which is a confusing way of saying "The words have different definitions".

Using only this information, It is POSSIBLE for them to be different. But we have no idea whether they actually are or not in reality.

Sure it contingently is the third planet from the sun, but to draw an identity inference from that is to equivocate on the word "is".

I'm not making an identity inference. I am saying that in reality, the Earth actually IS the third planet from the Sun. (Though the concepts are not identical)

As I once explained to Dre, "is" in the second case means "has the property of", so the earth has the property of being the third planet from the sun, but it is not identical to the third planet from the sun, just as the grass is green (has the property of green) but it is not identical to green.

I most certainly agree. This whole argument hinges (dishonestly, if you ask me) on hoping that the reader doesn't catch the subtle change in meaning of the word "is".

And so when we apply this to the mind and the brain, if you were to claim that the mind is the brain, where you have already conceded it to not be identical the brain, it would be something like "the brain has the property of being mental". But then of course you concede that they are not the same thing, so materialism is eliminated,

Here you make the same mistake of using the word "is". Which is ambiguous here. From now on, if we mean to say that two concepts are identical, let's say so. And if you mean to say that something has the property of something else, say so. This "is" business is completely ambiguous in this context.

I do not claim that the mind is identical to the brain. This does not concede that materialism is wrong. This only means that there exists a word who's meaning points to something non material.

IE: The fact that we have the word "non-physical" does not mean that non-physical things exist. Pretty obvious, I think.

I do claim that the mind has the property of being a brain. Or (better stated) being contained entirely within brain processes and states.



So, back to my counterexample. The argument goes like this:

The definitions of the terms X and Y are not identical, therefore instances of X do not have the property of being Y.

Note that when you stop using the ambiguous "is" term, it's pretty obvious why this is wrong. But let's continue...

Let's insert "Earth" for X and "Third planet from the Sun" for Y. We get:


The definitions of terms "Earth" and "Third planet from the Sun" are not identical. (true)
therefore:
Instances of "Earth" (IE: The Earth itself) do not have the property of being "Third planet from the Sun". (false)

The argument leads to a false statement. The argument is wrong.

 

[Theftz22]

I agree. I said the same thing myself. It is true that "Earth" and "Third planet from the Sun" are not identical. Which is a confusing way of saying "The words have different definitions".

It's not just that they have different definitions, it's that they're entirely different things. One is a relative spacial location and the other is a planet that contingently has the property of occupying that spacial location. They're not the same things at all.

Using only this information, It is POSSIBLE for them to be different. But we have no idea whether they actually are or not in reality.

Firstly they very clearly are different in reality, I think I've shown already that we don't even need to recourse to logical possibility, it's simply physically possible that these are not identical. And remember that for two things to possibly be not identical entails that they are not actually identical, as they have different modal properties.

I'm not making an identity inference. I am saying that in reality, the Earth actually IS the third planet from the Sun. (Though the concepts are not identical)

Again, as I emphasized here "is" must mean "has the property of" (or else you are in fact making an identity claim), and in that case I agree. But what I tried to show is that applying that to the mind in this case doesn't work out in your favor.

I most certainly agree. This whole argument hinges (dishonestly, if you ask me) on hoping that the reader doesn't catch the subtle change in meaning of the word "is".

I'm afraid you've misunderstood my charge. The modal argument doesn't equivocate on the word "is", in fact it doesn't even use that word, it simply refers to identity. The conclusion is that the mind is not identical to the brain. What my actual charge is is that you are the one equivocating on the word "is" in your argument about the earth and the third planet from the sun, and that when the proper meaning of the word "is" (has the property of) is substituted into the argument, it is correct, but it proves fatal to your side when applied to the mind body issue.

Here you make the same mistake of using the word "is". Which is ambiguous here. From now on, if we mean to say that two concepts are identical, let's say so. And if you mean to say that something has the property of something else, say so. This "is" business is completely ambiguous in this context.

...how am I equivocating on the word is? I clearly stated that the way the word would have to be used is either "identical to" or "has the property of". And since you concede the first is not the way you are using it, it must be the second. But using the second term actually proves property dualism.

I do not claim that the mind is identical to the brain. This does not concede that materialism is wrong. This only means that there exists a word who's meaning points to something non material.

Materialism with respect to the mind holds that the mind is identical to the brain. So yes, you are conceding materialism is false. And again, the argument is not about the terms "mind" and "brain" which obviously are not identical (the first starts with "m" and the second with "b" to begin with), but that the actual things that are the mind and the brain are not identical.

IE: The fact that we have the word "non-physical" does not mean that non-physical things exist. Pretty obvious, I think.

I do claim that the mind has the property of being a brain. Or (better stated) being contained entirely within brain processes and states.

Firstly you can stop straw-manning property dualism by claiming that it posits the existence of a non-physical entity, that's patently false. Secondly, you are (implicitly, whether you recognize it or not) committed to the truth of property dualism. Even if mental properties are entirely "contained" within the brain and caused by brain states, that does not show that they are the same thing. As long as they are not identical, mental properties are different than brain properties. You my friend, are a property dualist. It's worth quoting J.P. Moreland on this point.

Mental states may be caused by physical states, and physical states may be caused by mental states. A feeling of pain (mental state) may be caused by being stuck with a pin (physical state), and one’s arm going up (physical state) may be caused by an intention to vote (mental state). But just because A causes B, that does not mean that A is the same thing as B! Fire causes smoke, but fire is not smoke itself. Being stuck by a pin causes pain, but being stuck by a pin is not pain itself. A desire to vote causes one’s arm to go up, but that desire is different than the arm’s going up. The fact that a state of one’s mind can affect physical states and the fact that physical states can affect the state of one’s mind do not mean that corresponding mental and physical states are identical to each other.

I would simply replace every time where he says "physical state" with "brain state".

So, back to my counterexample. The argument goes like this:

The definitions of the terms X and Y are not identical, therefore instances of X do not have the property of being Y.

Note that when you stop using the ambiguous "is" term, it's pretty obvious why this is wrong. But let's continue...

Let's insert "Earth" for X and "Third planet from the Sun" for Y. We get:


The definitions of terms "Earth" and "Third planet from the Sun" are not identical. (true)
therefore:
Instances of "Earth" (IE: The Earth itself) do not have the property of being "Third planet from the Sun". (false)

The argument leads to a false statement. The argument is wrong.

Your argument is invalid, I agree, the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Fortunately, that's not how the modal argument for dualism goes.

 

[AltF4]

I'm going to disregard the first few parts of our exchange, as I think it was all a bunch of semantic misunderstandings.

The conclusion is that the mind is not identical to the brain.

...really? That's the conclusion? The conclusion is that the mind is not identical to the brain? Which is just a confusing way of stating:

"The mind is a different concept than the brain"

As I've said previously: Duh! This comes naturally from the fact that we've defined them to be different! You haven't yet shown that minds exist at all. (Which is what we're really interested in) You've just shown that they're NOT identical to something.

I can also state that Pink Unicorns are not identical to brains. Does this mean that Pink Unicorns exist?

Materialism with respect to the mind holds that the mind is identical to the brain. So yes, you are conceding materialism is false.

That's certainly not true. Materialism just holds that everything which exists is physical. Minds not being identical to brains is perfectly fine as long as minds don't exist.

(Alternatively, you can redefine "mind" to mean something entirely physical. And some do. At which point you can say the mind is identical to the brain. But I think that just makes this conversation confusing when words keep changing definitions. "Mind" here means something non-physical.)

Again, Pink Unicorns are not identical to brains either. But this is fine for materialism, because Pink Unicorns don't exist.

Firstly you can stop straw-manning property dualism by claiming that it posits the existence of a non-physical entity, that's patently false.

?!

I never mentioned property dualism once...

Secondly, you are (implicitly, whether you recognize it or not) committed to the truth of property dualism. Even if mental properties are entirely "contained" within the brain and caused by brain states, that does not show that they are the same thing.

I'm not trying to prove materialism true here. I'm just refuting a claim by someone else.

As long as they are not identical, mental properties are different than brain properties. You my friend, are a property dualist.

This would only matter if minds (and therefore mental properties) exist. No such thing has been shown.


So in conclusion, your "Modal Argument" just merely shows that the brain and mind are not identical. Great. I'll grant you that. This doesn't need an argument, since it follows naturally from the fact that the concepts were defined to be different. They will not be identical.

This does not show that minds exist. You can go on talking about mental processes and properties all you want. But you haven't shown that minds exist.

 

[Suntan Luigi]

...Actually, you kinda do, more often than not.

...Ok, change that number to 1,000,000. Now do you see my point? Lol.

Basic. Scientific. Rigor. They failed even the most basic requirements for a test of this sort. And you're going to trust them because, "well, we don't have anything better"?!

"Basic scientific rigor" is code for "highly impractical and unnecessarily complex" in this case as far as I'm concerned, and I've given you reasons why (Let's videotape everyone! Lol!). The Dutch study is perfectly accpetable as a rigorous scientific study and no matter what you say it doesn't change the fact that it was good enough to be listed in the Lancet.

Yes, but those studies don't ****ing matter. I don't know how I can make this more clear to you. You're basically saying "Well, this (absolutely horrible) study is the best we have, so I'm gonna roll with it".
No.
Stop.
That is NOT how actual research works. If the best you have is ****ty research and awful papers, you do it better or honestly admit "I don't know". You don't say "all right, this **** science that I have right now indicates X, so X must be true failing further investigation". Again: there is a reason why nobody is seriously pouring money into this crap.

It's better than nothing, and I wouldn't call them horrible, especially not the Dutch study. They don't matter to you or anyone else who is so biased.

You'd be pretty ****ing surprised. There are cases where a psychologist has convinced someone that they had had suppressed memories of being ***** as a child. THAT'S HOW FAR THIS **** CAN GO. You wanna claim that pedophile **** is less traumatic than an NDE, be my guest.

Do you even know how that process works? The psychologist has an very active role in convincing the subject, and it takes a while for the memories to start being formed. Whereas with NDEs the subject is the one who is doing the talking and the interviewer is listening for the most part.

Basically what you are saying is just about as plausible as me suggesting to you, "Remember Vietnam?", and then you having vivid and detailed recollections of seeing your friends being blown to bits and fighting the Viet Cong. (Assuming you aren't like an 80 year old Vietnam vet or something.)

Or 6: "We don't ****ing know". Just sayin'.

Well, this pretty much was what I was looking for. Your attitude summed up in a nutshell:

"We don't know what it is, it could be hallucinations, false memories, anything! But whatever it is, it definitely can't be real."

That's real open-minded, oh yeah. Hmm, wait, no actually it sounds more like, I don't know, freaking begging the question!

Have you even once, even once, considered this possibility: (GASP!!) You might be wrong! :grimer:

Uh... The flaw is not that it's "too long". The flaw is that your premises are flawed, as has been pointed out.

I'm gonna repost my argument in a better form once you guys define "consciousness" and "subjective experiences" for me.

Also, stop glaring at me.

Ah, "Enlighten Next" magazine. Good to know that we're using well-vetted and unbiased sources.

Yeah, the testimony from both the subject and the researcher sure is unreliable.

But that's hard, and I'm drunk.

Wait till sober-time.

 

[Suntan Luigi]

This is where we differ. Morality is an evolutionary construct to better enable our species to coexist in large groups. By this definition, it only applies to humans. Free will really has no role in the topic.

If morality is simply an evolutionary construct, why does it only apply to humans? Why not monkeys, cats, birds, insects, cells, viruses? Why should it not make sense to call things animals do morally right or wrong? How do you draw this arbitrary line?

And isn't this what we should expect? Why would we expect a universal moral code? Our morals have been sown into us by millions of years of social interaction in a particular set of environments. If we were to genetically engineer a highly intelligent species of ant, it would have a vastly different concept of morality. They would be going on about how selfless subservience to the queen is an objective moral good.

Well there's no way to know that for certain. They are just doing what they have been programed to do, how would we know what a super intelligent ant would think? It would cease to be an ant and it would become something else, something much closer to a human.

Our sense of morality is so obviously and transparently created by our evolutionary upbringing.

I will contest this very point in my future thread on Evolution, hopefully.

And yet I still feel morally obligated to do certain actions. Why? Because I can't help it any more than I can help feel sad, happy, or love. Like it or not, we are human. And are subject to human emotions and experiences. We're not Vulcans.

Fundamentally, if there is no choice in a matter I fail to see where morality comes in. This morality you speak of is nothing more than an illusion, if free will is also an illusion. According to this definition there is nothing objectively wrong with murders and child rapists. Why should there be, if they had no choice but to **** and kill? Sure, everyone may think they are wrong, but that's just subjective perception due to evolutionary influences. We also shouldn't think badly of racists and bigots, because since everything is subjective, who's to say who's opinion is right or wrong?

Hmm. Can you also please answer this. What exactly do you mean by, "We are human"?

I hope I sufficiently answered your (loaded) question. By unloading it. I do not base my actions around free will. The honest answer is that 99% of the time these sorts of silly philosophical quandaries are never in my mind. (With the remaining 1% being the time I'm on this forum)

This is not real morality. Free will is what is needed to transform the illusion of morality into actual morality. Without free will you cannot hold a person accountable for his actions.

I now want to take this time to elaborate on an important point. You may certainly wonder, "Why do people assume things like free will, the soul, God, ghosts, and other such things exist?" Certainly many people have assumed many things that seemed to make sense but were later proven to be untrue. Why do people assume these things?

Unlike other things, belief in the soul and free will is a nearly universal belief. You see, the reason why so many people throughout history assume these kinds of things is simple: they make sense. They greatly help to explain things which otherwise seem to have no other explanation. When you see people being tortured and killed for no reason, or when you witness a generous gift of kindness, it makes a lot of sense to assume that someone, somewhere, is utilizing free will to make some kind of a decision that will have an effect on the lives of others. As for the soul, it helps to explain life and death.

Yes, they are still assumptions, but the point is that they are not nonsensical ones.

I do what I can because I can. What is the alternative? Sure you can say "In 10^100 years from now, the heat death of the universe will destroy any evidence humans ever existed: what's the point?" But I'll be dead before then anyway. So what do I do in the short time that I do have? Might as well make the best of it for whatever I can gather "best" is.

Live life for the now. Because tomorrow it'll be gone forever. Doesn't that depress you a bit? I know that if I really believed that there was no purpose to life I'd probably go emo if I thought about it too much.

Also can you respond to my other post please, and provide your definitions. Sorry if this is a lot to reply to.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

...Ok, change that number to 1,000,000. Now do you see my point? Lol.

Yes, but you miss mine completely. We're, again, not asking for something unreasonable here. We're asking that you follow the same degree of caution and rigor that a question of this sort of magnitude would demand, or even a medical science discovery of a far lesser magnitude would demand. What you're doing is akin to pointing to testimonials of MMS and saying, "Well, seeing as we have no REAL testing on it, this is better than nothing".

Well, this pretty much was what I was looking for. Your attitude summed up in a nutshell:

"We don't know what it is, it could be hallucinations, false memories, anything! But whatever it is, it definitely can't be real."

That's real open-minded, oh yeah. Hmm, wait, no actually it sounds more like, I don't know, freaking begging the question!

Have you even once, even once, considered this possibility: (GASP!!) You might be wrong! :grimer:

This is actually a problem with any explanation which can be classified as "Supernatural", from god to magic to the soul: how do you ever want to clearly verify it? The difference between my explanations and your idea of the soul is that one is clearly verifiable, while the other is not.

QualiaSoup sums up this issue very, very nicely. I mean, how do you know that the cause of this is the soul, and not some other (currently unknown) physiological phenomenon? You have, after all, no independent evidence of the soul; you have no way of establishing it's existence beyond pointing to this and saying, "Oh look, it's the soul". Meanwhile, let's say it is a malfunction of a node of the brain (as others have mentioned, stimulating certain cranial areas will have the effect of creating an out-of-body experience). We can directly verify this, we can independently investigate it, we can apply the scientific method.

But the soul? It's as good of an explanation as... any other completely unverifiable, unestablished explanation that still manages to explain the phenomenon present. There are limitless explanations as such – the human imagination is a powerful tool! But alas, it's not likely to bring us any closer to the truth, just like claiming "God Did It" in regards to things we have no understanding of (the birth of the universe, the reason we die, how hallucinogenic drugs work, the cause of volcanoes, the diversity of species, etc.) will not help us explain them. This is what Reaver meant when he spoke of your Argument from Ignorance. You're completely forgetting that you neglected to independently verify any of this. You have not proven the soul. If you could even go so far as to claim this, you have proven that there's some sort of medical phenomenon we do not understand. See also: Elan Vital. Of course, the problem is, you haven't established to any real degree that this phenomenon isn't more than just a malfunction in some part of our brains.

(And if I may be perfectly honest, using the word "Soul" in connection with said phenomenon seems more than a little bit disingenuous to me. It's like when William Lane Craig claims there is a creator of the universe and refers to it as "God" – Yes, you could call it that, but that's probably going to confuse some people and cause them to conflate it with what they refer to as "God", or in your case "the soul".)

I'm gonna repost my argument in a better form once you guys define "consciousness" and "subjective experiences" for me.

I don't see the point. The problem with your post wasn't just that you defined them as two different things, it's that the whole idea of subjective experiences is a subset of consciousness, which is in itself a biomechanical function. Again: there is no paradox like you make there out to be. It simply doesn't exist. The question of "what does the experiencing" is loaded (and bull****).

Also, stop glaring at me.

No.

 

[AltF4]

If morality is simply an evolutionary construct, why does it only apply to humans? Why not monkeys, cats, birds, insects, cells, viruses? Why should it not make sense to call things animals do morally right or wrong? How do you draw this arbitrary line?

As I described right below what you quoted, morality doesn't merely apply to humans. But it's different for every species. An ant has a very different set of morals than a vulture does. Ours happens to be complex, but only because we are complex.

Morality as an evolutionary construct is complex in proportion to how evolutionary complex the intelligence of the species is. So a virus hasn't much morality to speak of. It's borderline not even "alive".

Well there's no way to know that for certain. They are just doing what they have been programed to do, how would we know what a super intelligent ant would think?

"Doing what they have been programmed to do" is a not terribly inaccurate way of describing what I'm calling morality, here. Yes.

Fundamentally, if there is no choice in a matter I fail to see where morality comes in. This morality you speak of is nothing more than an illusion, if free will is also an illusion. According to this definition there is nothing objectively wrong with murders and child rapists. Why should there be, if they had no choice but to **** and kill?

That's right, there is nothing objectively wrong with anything. Everything is only subjectively right or wrong. Subjective morality is not equivalent to no morality.

We also shouldn't think badly of racists and bigots, because since everything is subjective, who's to say who's opinion is right or wrong?

I am. And you are. And when enough people collectively view something as wrong, it becomes law, and we punish the behavior. That's how society works.

Hmm. Can you also please answer this. What exactly do you mean by, "We are human"?

That's a rather open ended question. You could write a book trying to answer that. So I don't know if I can do it "precisely". But...

Biologically, we're differentiated from our mammalian brethren by our DNA. There are, however, no hard lines that divide species. It's a sliding gradual scale of difference between us and chimps.

This is not real morality. Free will is what is needed to transform the illusion of morality into actual morality. Without free will you cannot hold a person accountable for his actions.

No, Free Will is what's needed to transform what I'm describing as morality into what you're describing as morality. Don't suggest that something is "fake" just because it's not what you subscribe to.

Unlike other things, belief in the soul and free will is a nearly universal belief. You see, the reason why so many people throughout history assume these kinds of things is simple: they make sense.

I think it's pretty obvious why just asserting that your views "make sense" is not a convincing argument.

Live life for the now. Because tomorrow it'll be gone forever. Doesn't that depress you a bit? I know that if I really believed that there was no purpose to life I'd probably go emo if I thought about it too much.

No, it doesn't. I told you: I'm perfectly happy to live in the real world. No imaginary friends for me.

And there is a meaning to life. You have to make it for yourself. I don't know why you'd consider your life meaningless without a celestial dictator demanding that you obey his every command. Are you so naturally helplessly subservient that your life loses meaning without someone to boss you around?

Let's try a different approach. Can you please define "consciousness" and "subjective experience"? What do those terms mean to you? I think there may still be some assumptions on both sides that haven't been addressed yet.

I think "subjective experience" is pretty self explanatory. I just contend that an "experience" (as a mental event) is contained entirely within the brain.

"Consciousness" is the active part of our thinking. You can contrast this with our unconscious thoughts. I'm sure you've seen the Eye Blindspot? It's a wonderful example about how there is a lot of processing that your brain does unconsciously. I'm not a neurologist, so I'm going to be unable to give you a good account of exactly what sections of the brain are responsible for different things. But consciousness is just what we call it when there is sensory perception and reaction, with in a certain area of the brain.