Emotions and Consciousness Seperate from the Brain ??

Hello,If you are interested, there is some facinating research being done on NDE's. Google search Near Death Experience.

Further thoughts:It seems that you are subscribing to physicalism: in this case meaning the brain and the mind are the same thing. If that is true, then the brain and mind would have to have the same properties, and if a property could be established for one that is not true for the other, we would appear to have a duality (ie, the brain and mind could not be the same thing).With that in mind, picture a pink elephant in your mind. Now close your eyes and look at the image. In your mind, you will see a pink property. There is no pink elephant outside of you, but there is a pink image in your mind. However, there is no pink entity in your brain; a neurosurgeon could not open your brain and see a pink entity while you are having the experience of imagining it. The sensory event has a property (pink) that no brain event has. Therefore they (the brain and the mind) cannot be indentical.Also, this sensory perception of a pink elephant has no weight, no chemical content, and no electrical properties, and no true location in space (it is not closer to your left ear than it is your right). Your brain of course has all of these properties. Thus dualism (the reality of the brain being seperate from, although connected to the mind) is established.Thanks for the considerationDennis

Hey ParasomniumThank you for your response in which you say:"If monitoring means gathering knowledge about something, then monitoring the monitoring means gathering knowledge about the gathering of knowledge."This "meta-monitoring" concept is very interesting to me and I would like to hear you speak more about it. However.....Then you say:"The colour pink as such doesn't exist in reality."Here again we have the Darwinian rejecting anything that even has the taste of the supernatural and calling it an argument. But be careful, if the colour pink in this analogy doesn't exist in reality, then neither does the knowledge you speak of the brain gathering.BTW, could you help me figure out these UBB codes.Looking forward to your reply, and MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!!

Hey Parasomnium: Thanks for the reply in which you say: I honestly can't figure out if you are arguing for or against dualism. Your contention that the experience of pink in the mind is merely a perception would seem to indicate further to me that there are two realities: the mental perception and the actual physical properties that cause the perception. Why, if the brain is simply a physical entity, would it not simply perceive the physical and nothing more?But more interestingly, you seem to concede my ultimate point, which is that if physicalism is true, then we cannot truly "know" anything. Knowledge is what knowledge is to the individual. What is true for you is not necessarily true for me. There are no "ultimate truths" which can be known universally. You agree?Thanks for the UBB tip; also, where could I read up on this meta-monitoring concept? It seems pretty plausible and there ought to be some brain research somewhere that would provide some insight.Well, the tree is lit, the packages are set and the kids are going to be hitting the stairs any second. Thanks for the dialogue!DennisThis message has been edited by dshortt, 12-25-2004 07:43 AMThis message has been edited by dshortt, 12-25-2004 07:44 AMThis message has been edited by dshortt, 12-25-2004 07:46 AMThis message has been edited by dshortt, 12-25-2004 07:47 AMThis message has been edited by dshortt, 12-25-2004 07:48 AMThis message has been edited by dshortt, 12-25-2004 07:48 AM

Hey Brad,So you are suggesting that society or "mankind" can "know" more or have more "knowledge" than a given individual at the same point in time, right?

Hey Parsomnium, thank you for taking time from the slopes to reply,You wrote:

quote:

---

I am inclined to say that I agree. Since all we can have of reality are models, and since our models are dependent on the medium - our senses and our brain combined - we create these models with, and since we know other media are possible in principle - insect eyes, non-human brains, etc. - we must conclude that there are indeed no "ultimate truths".

---

Then you would, I assume have to agree that naturalism becomes a self-refuting proposition, in that when the scientist goes from the practical statement of "the natural is all we can study" to the ultimate truth statement "the natural is all there is" he has made an ultimate truth statement that cannot exist in a purely naturalistic worldview.Dennis

Hey Parsomnium,Thanks once again. This dialogue is a benefit to me as I hope it is to you. You say:

quote:

---

When I conceded that there are no ultimate truths, I meant that we cannot say that reality is exactly the way we perceive it, so that we cannot proclaim our perception of reality to be the absolute truth about it.

---

Which then this becomes a serious problem for education, because why should each new generation trust the old one to have perceived reality at all. Must each generation start from scratch then and rediscover or recarve out a reality of their own, pouring over the books and self-serving gurus to determine what is real. And then the ultimate conclusion that nothing is really trustworthy including your own perception so why bother.

quote:

---

This does in no way mean that there has to be something beyond the natural, which I think is what you are trying to get me - and, I notice, some others - to concede.

---

Oh yes, and you were so close. I still maintain that a naturalistic philosophy is unsustainable for the reasons I have outlined here as well as many others.

quote:

---

I would like to turn the tables and say that it is the supernatural that becomes self-refuting. Merely by really existing, any so-called supernatural phenomenon becomes, by definition, part of the natural.

---

You are equating "real" with "natural". Hypothetically, if there existed a universe-making machine, operating completely outside of our known universe, the time, space, matter and energy that make it up, but we were able to detect the occasional "nut" or "bolt" this machine had pieced our universe together with, is that machine part of the "natural real" world? Or if the laws of physics are temporarily suspended and something happens that is ordinarily "impossible", (just hypothetical now mind you), is that phenomena then part of the natural?Dennis

Hey Ben,Jump on in, the water is fine, and like you I am enjoying this little thread.You say:

quote:

---

BUUUUT... Scientists are not after this "ultimate truth." It's not attainable. We're simply looking for the best way to model the reality.

---

For some scientists this may be true, but for many, it is exactly what is sought. SETI seeks to establish the "ultimate truth" that we are not alone in the universe and should consider ourselves thereby less "special". The hunt for life in our solar system takes on the same flavor for many. The search for the mechanism that brought life into existance is a search for an "ultimate truth", as is the attempts to theorize a mechanism that could have brought a universe out of nothing. And don't let the rhetoric of some scientists disuade you; origins is everything in terms of worldviews.

quote:

---

The question of imploring God or not comes down to this--can we model reality simply based on what you call "the natural" ? If we can, then there's no need to postulate the existence of God. If we fail at the present... well that's a different story. That's closer to what I would call "self-defeating" than the line you're taking.

---

But that is just the point: we can't model reality currently (as NosyNed and other scientists and scientific types will admit) simply based on the natural. This thread is only one evidence of that. So how long do we wait for science to come through on it's promissory notes? I would prefer to follow the more logical course.

quote:

---

"Ultimate truth" is in principle unknowable.

---

But at least let's stick to worldviews in which it is logically possible to even postulate an ultimate truth!Dennis

Hey Parasomnium,

quote:

---

Normally, education is about teaching new generations practical knowledge.

---

But under a naturalistic philosophy, why should they trust any of it?

quote:

---

It seems I had a narrow escape there.

---

As any Superhero would have done. Or were you just teasing me?

quote:

---

You used "realities", "the physical" and "the natural", I just followed along.

---

I think if I were to press you further on this one, you do equate the "natural" with the "real". But it seems the rest of my post has veered us off topic somewhat, and I apologize. Let me try another experiment, if I may.I am betting, from looking at your picture, that when you walk into a room, that room is changed forever. Nobody in that room could NOT notice you if they were even half awake. And then, upon meeting you, the combination of your talents, intellect, humor, and the unity of your experiences that make you YOU would be a permament imprint upon the mind of that person. Now, imagine someone parading your dead body (I know, I know, I am already deeply sorry for this analogy) through the same room, or an accurate (not currently available in stores kids) physical representation of you. Wouldn't quite have the same effect, would it? There is a youness to you that has never happened in the history of the universe and suggests strongly that the "self" is seperate from the physical, or at least an addition to.Dennis

Hey Ben,I like the way you think; you and I seem to be quite similar, just coming at it from different directions.

quote:

---

Ah, but there's the rub. In my view (and of course I really want everybody else to think the same way!), there's only a very fine line (and only a philosophically interesting one) here. YES, we CANNOT know ultimate truth. HOWEVER, we are searching for knowledge, data, and theories that DO explain our experience consistently and completely. If we do actually attain consistency (with data and within the explanation) in our explanations, then there's really very little difference (and zero PRACTICAL difference) between "absolute truth" and what we've done.

---

But a rub upon the rub if you will, is that under a purely naturalistic philosophy, knowledge itself cannot be trusted. And yes, certainly consistencey could not be ignored, (except by the ingorant or insane), but anything resembling a philosophical statement that is an outflow of this consistency, or that the consistency itself is based on could not be trusted. And that is how we find empirical science in the priviliged postion of being the arbitror or truth today.

quote:

---

Here I think is the interesting question, and I thought this was one of the directions you are headed. ... (deleting many sentences, going for simplicity now). I guess the answer is, I don't know. I was tempted to say "there IS no 'longest time'," but now I think not. I guess it would be at the point where we stop making progress (i.e. stop creating theories that INCREASE the amount of data that we can explain) and where we stagnate on our knowledge for a long time.

---

And maybe our answers to some of these questions is different because in my view, science has stagnated on the big questions. Where did we come from, why are we here, origins if you will. Forty years ago, it looked pretty promising, I will admit. And I bit off on the notion that science would find the origins of life, the universe and man. Now you may be able to argue some evolutionary trivia with me, but ultimately I am sure you will agree we don't have scientific answers to these questions some forty years later, and don't appear to be any closer. I would liken our progress in these areas to the clearing of a field. We see the outer edges and think we are closer to clearing the entire landscape without realizing the horizon is an infinite distance from us. I am not at all suggesting we give up; on the contrary, as you and others have pointed out, science is very important to our knowing anything. But to put it in the postition of being our ONLY tool to gain knowledge is foolish and dangerous.

quote:

---

Science doesn't have to be "right." You can get the right answers through other means. Science is just a method to get some answers. It has its benefits and its shortfalls. Certainly all of those on this board reap the benefits of science. But it's not the only way to get answers. Maybe it's the only quasi-dependable, communicable way though.

---

I would like to hear you expound on this when you have time.ThanksDennis

Hey Ben,

quote:

---

"knowledge" MUST be trusted. And if that applies, then I would also argue that the argument has nothing to do with science or anything else.

---

I somewhat agree until you say "anything else". Science is based on some philosophical premises that come into question, but robinrahn has addressed those and hopefully cleared up some confusion as to what I have been saying (sorry to be confusing).But the "anything else" is where it gets stickier. To illustrate allow me to draw an example, similar to one from a previous post:I have been reading some of David Dennett at the suggestion of Parasomnium, and have come across a frightening controversy that appears to be real and I will now take to it's logical conclusion. Project yourself for a moment into the future; you find yourself in a society where overpopulation is a serious problem. Now the prevailing worldview is naturalistic philosophy, and it is determined by the powers that be that, since Creationists are a constant threat to the power structure (education, government, etc) and an attempt to localize or seal off this threat has failed, it is now time to eliminate some of the problem. So Creationists are lined up and executed and then ground up for meat (since food is also a problem). Would this be truly wrong?

quote:

---

We have quantum chromodynamics, which according to the author can relate gravitational and intertial mass, marrying quantum mechanics with general relativity. That's new stuff.

---

Any idea where I can read about it?

quote:

---

... but thinking more about it, I understand where you're coming from I think. 40 years isn't much time (it seems to me) in the history of the world. And I think that the actual building blocks that are being developed have not, in any way, stagnated. I think "revolutionary" thought is based on good, solid, unexplained data. I think we're still getting new, good, data. I think the new ideas are, then, only inevitable. But of course, maybe not. It's all personal viewpoint. And if you want to turn away from science, that is a choice of course you have.

---

I don't want to turn away from science at all. Keeps my blood perculating, if nothing else. And certainly the sciences are capable of amazing discoveries which fascinate, inform, heal, and serve to explain many things. But you seem to be alluding to the God of the Gaps fallacy, and I would say that what I have witnessed in admittedly a very short time historically, but a very long ride personally, is what I will call the Science of Expanding Complexities. In Darwin's day, there was no thought of the vast world that awaited in the microbiology of a living cell. Before Hubble, and even well into the 70's many thought and argued for an infinite universe where "anything that could happen does happen." Now comes the complexity of explaining a universe that begins literally from nothing. I think you yourself have provided more evidence of this "growing complexity" I speak of with this quantum chromodynamics. And there is of course string theory, and all of it's related complexities. And DNA (which I believe we will find is not the sole informational component of living creatures). And lastly the subject of this thread, which even though progress is being made in terms of the physical explanations for how the brain works, I am arguing these musings come nowhere near explaining the mind. And thus we have fodder for further posts.But at some point, I believe an individual who is paying attention begins to wonder "How did all of this complexity on top of complexity come together so exquisitely from mere particles bouncing off of each other?"

quote:

---

can you think of any alternate forms besides religion, philosophy, and ignorance?

---

I think it is certainly possible, if we back off of a purely naturalistic philosophy, to gain knowledge from the humanities, literature, legends and myths (maybe the stories aren't true, but there could be "lessons" to be learned), a forum such as EVC; I know it gets more complex and subjective perhaps, but formulating a cohesive worldview is the most important endeavor a human being can undertake.

quote:

---

This seems to be implying--excuse me if I am jumping to conclusions--that without a moral absolute, morality is ultimately arbitrary. I think so too.

​

Something in our heart says, "That would be wrong" (although Lam might think, "That's OK with me!"--just joking, Lam).

​

The problem is that our heart is not very reliable, seemingly.

​

There is a brand of Islamic conservatism that looks to me like gender apartheid. But does the Islamic conservative feel that what he is doing is right in his heart--in forcing women to wear berkas, and not drive cars, and not be educated, etc.? I rather think he does.

---

But then it cuts back the other way in that you have no basis to truly condemn the Islamic conservative. This would imply there is no basis for being appalled, or horrified by anything. Morality, at the point it is arbitrary, becomes "Ahhem, excuse me sir, you are screwing with the normal construct of our society here, and would you please stop or you will suffer the consequence _________ (fill in the blank)." And what we may find in the future is that Islam (it is multiplying faster than any other religion in the world) has become the norm and your offspring are suffering exactly what was appalling to you. So why don't we acknowledge what we all know in our "hearts", that there are moral absolutes, and then return to the quest to find them. At least then there is some basis to even discuss it.Dennis

Hey Jar,Must have missed those other requests. I am not claiming to have all the answers, even from the angle I am taking here. My claim is that naturalistic logic has a/some fatal flaws. I have outlined, I hope an argument that, logically there can be no Ultimate Truth statements if naturalistic philosophy is true. It becomes a self-defeating statement. Somehow, we have gotten off topic slightly, into this morality issue. To pursue this much further would seem to me to require a seperate thread. But I will throw what I consider to be a moral absolute out there: Love your neighbor as you love yourself.Dennis

Hey Holmes, thanks for the reply:You said:

quote:

---

This is not true at all. Absolute (meaning external and objective) moral rules are not necessary as a basis to truly condemn anything, nor for one to be appalled.

---

So you are saying society sets up the standard and we could feasably be "appalled" that one or several members do not choose to live their lives by this particular societies manufactured set of rules. I think, at the least, you make "appalled" a relative term as well. There could not be an absolute appalling incident so much as "I am appalled because I buy into the moral construct I live in". The person living next to you could just as easily be appalled that you buy into such an immoral society.

quote:

---

There would not be a debate in the first place if people all felt in there hearts that there were moral absolutes, and more importantly that these absolutes were absolute.Really, if they are absolute, then why must we quest for them? How did we lose them?

---

Putting together a cohesive worldview it would seem to me would entail a quest for morality. I think we, (Americans in this case) began to lose sight of Ultimate Moral Guidlines early in this century when naturalistic philosophy began to ooze out of academia and permeate society at large. This really should be another thread, don't you agree?

quote:

---

Once we understand that morals are not absolute we may then address how we can best live within a moral diversity, which is a much more practical pursuit.

​

Moral relativism does not require us to abandon or berate ethics as meaningless. What it says is that they are individually derived and so will differ, it does not make them less important. I consider them quite important.

---

You are obviously young enough to believe this has a prayer of working in the real world. Consider my scenarios in two previous posts in which future societies could quite easily be led to some truly appalling outcomes with moral relativism in place.DennisThis message has been edited by dshortt, 12-29-2004 19:19 AM

The problem Jar, is that in a purely naturalistic philosophy, no Ultimate Truth or Ultimate Reality statements can even be made. I have argued this point in another thread (if you are part of the discussion over there, forgive me for not remembering) in that, truth itself is a shifting sand or evolving landscape, if you will, under a purely naturalistic philosophy. Therefore there is no Ultimate Truth which is sought or can be known, and an Ultimate Truth statement becomes self-defeating. So my statement "Love your neighbor as you love yourself", taken as an Ultimate Morality or Ultimate truth statement, cannot even exist in a purely naturalistic philosophy.Dennis