Inviting MoM

[Spock]

Let’s talk about the brain - mind dichotomy.

The proposed hypothesis by the materialist: “The mind is the activity of the brain.”
Suppoting argument: “There are millions of experiments which support this hypothesis. The neurological observations all show that you mess with the physical brain, you mess with the mind. You introduce chemicals into the brain you alter the mind. You stimulate certain parts of the brain with mild electric current, you invoke emotions, you invoke pleasure or pain, happiness or distress.”

These millions of experiments support the hypothesis.

Present your alternative hypothesis, and its supporting arguments. (Naturally, all are invited to the conversation, not just MoM.)

 

[shoewindow3000]

Let’s talk about the brain - mind dichotomy.

The proposed hypothesis by the materialist: “The mind is the activity of the brain.”
Suppoting argument: “There are millions of experiments which support this hypothesis. The neurological observations all show that you mess with the physical brain, you mess with the mind. You introduce chemicals into the brain you alter the mind. You stimulate certain parts of the brain with mild electric current, you invoke emotions, you invoke pleasure or pain, happiness or distress.”

These millions of experiments support the hypothesis.

Present your alternative hypothesis, and its supporting arguments. (Naturally, all are invited to the conversation, not just MoM.)

Can you at least cite one of these “millions of experiments” which you talk about?

 

[shoewindow3000]

Let’s talk about the brain - mind dichotomy.

The proposed hypothesis by the materialist: “The mind is the activity of the brain.”
Suppoting argument: “There are millions of experiments which support this hypothesis. The neurological observations all show that you mess with the physical brain, you mess with the mind. You introduce chemicals into the brain you alter the mind. You stimulate certain parts of the brain with mild electric current, you invoke emotions, you invoke pleasure or pain, happiness or distress.”

These millions of experiments support the hypothesis.

Present your alternative hypothesis, and its supporting arguments. (Naturally, all are invited to the conversation, not just MoM.)

OK, here you go…

My proposed hypothesis: Consciousness can exist outside of the brain.

My arguments:
On September 11, 2003, new research by the Institute of Psychiatry caused British scientists to announce that there is convincing evidence that people are capable of paranormal feats, such as premonitions, telepathy, and out-of-body experiences. The British Association for the Advancement of Science was told an increasing number of experiments support the theory of a human “sixth sense” - an ability which may have its roots in our past, when the ability to sense the presence of a predator was a matter of life or death. The view that people are capable of paranormal feats, such as premonitions, telepathy, and out-of-body experiences, is supported by new research by the Institute of Psychiatry, which suggests the human mind may exist outside the body like an invisible magnetic field. The research is being led by Dr. Peter Fenwick, a neuro-psychiatrist at London University, who has just completed a survey of heart patients claiming to have had “near-death experiences” after their hearts had stopped beating.

*Blind people are able to “see” during “near death experiments.” * Dr. Kenneth Ring and Sharon Cooper completed a two-year study into the NDEs of the blind. They published their findings in a book entitled “Mindsight” in which they documented the solid evidence of 31 cases in which blind people report visually accurate information obtained during an NDE. Perhaps the best example in his study is that of a forty-five year old blind woman by the name of Vicki Umipeg. Vicki was born blind, her optic nerve having been completely destroyed at birth because of an excess of oxygen she received in the incubator. Yet, she appears to have been able to see during her NDE. Her story is a particularly clear instance of how NDEs of the congenitally blind can unfold in precisely the same way as do those of sighted persons.

Science demands verifiable evidence which can be reproduced again and again under experimental situations. Dr. Jim Whinnery, of the National Warfare Institute, thought he was simply studying the effects of G forces on fighter pilots. He had no idea he would revolutionize the field of consciousness studies by providing experimental proof that NDEs are real. The pilots were placed in huge centrifuges and spun at tremendous speeds. After they lost consciousness, after they went into seizures, after they lost all muscle tone, when the blood stopped flowing in their brains, only then would they suddenly have a return to conscious awareness. They had “dreamlets” as Dr. Whinnery calls them. These dreamlets often involved a sense of separation from the physical body.

“NDEs” are not hallucinations .NDEs are not a denial of reality, as is often seen in drug or oxygen deprivation induced hallucinations. There are not the distortions of time, place, body image and disorientations seen in drug induced experiences. They instead typically involve the perception of another reality superimposed over this one. For example, one young boy told Dr. Melvin Morse that the “god took me in his hands and kept me safe” while medics were frantically trying to revived his body after a near drowning. He said and understood everything that happened to him, but simply perceived something we usually don’t perceive at other times in our lives. German psychiatrist Michael Schroeter-Kunhardt in his extensive review of all published near death research states there is no reason to believe that NDEs are the result of psychiatric pathology or brain dysfunction.

“Group NDE.” A rare type of NDE called the “group near-death experience” is a phenomenon where a whole group of people have a NDE at the same time and location. They see each other outside of their bodies and have a shared or similar experience. In 1996, NDE researcher Arvin Gibson interviewed a fire-fighter named Jake who had a most unusual NDE while working with other fire-fighters in a forest. What makes it unique is that it happened at the same time as several co-workers were also having a NDE. During their NDEs, they actually met each other and saw each other above their lifeless bodies. All survived and they verified with each other afterwards that the experience actually happened. Jake’s near-death experience was so interesting that Gibson’s local chapter of IANDS invited him to tell his story at one of their meetings. Another example of a group NDE is described in the IANDS publication Vital Signs (Volume XIX, No. 3, 2000) and is described in a greater way in Dr. Stephen Hoyer and May Eulitt’s book entitled “Fireweaver: The Story of a Life, a Near-Death, and Beyond.”​

Problem With Skeptics:

Sociologist Dr. Allan Kellehear states that some scientific theories are often presented as the most logical, factual, objective, credible, and progressive possibilities, as opposed to the allegedly subjective, superstitious, abnormal, or dysfunctional views of mystics. The rhetorical opinions of some NDE theories are presented as if they were scientific (Kellehear, 1996, 120). Many skeptical arguments against the survival theory are actually arguments from pseudo-skeptics who often think they have no burden of proof. Such arguments often based on scientism with assumptions that survival is impossible even though survival has not been ruled out. Faulty conclusions are often made such as, “Because NDEs have a brain chemical connection then survival is impossible.” Pseudo-skeptical arguments are sometimes made that do not consider the entire body of circumstantial evidence supporting the possibility of survival or do not consider the possibility of new paradigms. Such pseudo-skeptical claims are often made without any scientific evidence.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Correlation is not causation.

 

[Spock]

OK, here you go…

My proposed hypothesis: Consciousness can exist outside of the brain.

My arguments:
On September 11, 2003, new research by the Institute of Psychiatry caused British scientists to announce that there is convincing evidence that people are capable of paranormal feats, such as premonitions, telepathy, and out-of-body experiences.

Thank you. That is a serious argument. Here are few problems with it.

First, the consciousness is still within the realm of the brain, albeit in “strange” circumstances.

Second, a simple objection: If there would be a verifyable instance of any paranormal activity, there is a group of skeptics, who offer a million dollar reward for its demonstration. (The James Randi Foundation.) So far there were a few takers, but no winners. This, of course proves nothing. There may very well be something “out there”, which has not been demonstrated yet.

Third, a more serious one: Such an ability would have tremendous survival value. To have premonition of impending danger would increase the ability to survive and during the millenia of evolution, this trait would have been “filtered” through and would be quite prevalent today. And, of course it has not. At best it is a sporadic and unpredictable phenomenon.

The **fourth **one is the most serious one, and it criticizes the methodology of how the raw data was obtained and evaluated. When one presupposes a correlation between two events (in this case premonition and its accuracy) then there are 4 possible scenarios, which must be quantified, and then a correlation matrix can be set up. I am using the premonition as an example, but the same method can be used for all the other instances.

Based upon the correlation matrix we can calculate if there exists a positive or negative correlation. Let’s call the existence of a premontion: event “A”. The lack of premonition will be event “not A”. Let’s call the assumed events which was foreseen: event “B”. Consequently the lack of this event will be event “not B”. As an example: One may report that he had a premonition that his child will have an accident, and the accident actually happened - “x1 times”. He had no premonition and the event happened - “x2 times”. He had premonition, but the event happened - “x3 times”. And finally, he had no premonition and the event did not happen - “x4 times”.

The correlation matrix will need to contain these 4 numbers:

                     |    event A            event not-A
-----------------------------------------------------------------
event B              |      x1                     x3
                     |
event not-B          |      x2                     x4

If and only if the four values of x1, x2, x3 and x4 can be obtained then the correlation matrix can be evaluated. However, that never happens. People remember vividly when a “foreseen” event actually occurs. But that is only the frequency of “x1”. If the event was “foreseen” but it never happened (“x3”) no one remembers that. If the event was not foreseen, but it happened (“x2”) that is not recorded anywhere. And of course, “x4”, the event was not foreseen and it did not happen is the most elusive one. No one can assign a numerical value to this combination - it is impossible in theory.

The trouble is therefore with the “research”, that it had no control group, only one of the 4 possibilities was taken into consideration and therefore their result is useless. Worse than useless, actually, because it creates a “false positive hope”.

Conclusion: the evidence cited does not support anything, either the existence of out-of-body “mind”, or the lack of it. There is not even a little bit of correlation, which might merit further evaluation.

Contrast this with the naturalist’s millions upon millions of actual pieces of evidence, you will see that only the hypothesis of naturalist qualifies as a good working hypothesis.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Correlation is not causation.

Let me expand this, so as to make it a serious argument.

There is a phenomenon, consciousness, that we experience. When this phenomenon is active, certain other phenomena can be observed (through the medium of consciousness itself). Some of these other phenomena indicate that brain activity occurs when consciousness occurs. Brain activity and consciousness, therefore, show a correlation.

But how can we know that one causes the other? What kind of evidence can be admitted that brain activity is a necessary condition of consciousness?

The whole attempt here is the attempt to prove a negative – to prove that it is not the case that consciousness could exist independently of the brain. But the claim that consciousness does exist independently of the brain is logically possible. If it is logically possible, and it can be reconciled with existing evidence, then it cannot be disproven.

I will admit at least this much: that we are, epistemologically, at a point where we have reason to suspend judgment. I fail to see how there could be any possible evidence that would prove your point, however.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Let’s talk about the brain - mind dichotomy.

The proposed hypothesis by the materialist: “The mind is the activity of the brain.”

This isn’t a hypothesis. It is a declaration of definition.

If you intend to make it a hypothesis, then provide a definition for the word “mind”, else this discussion is pointless.

 

[James_S_Saint]

But the claim that consciousness does exist independently of the brain is logically possible.

By what “logic” is it possible?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Let’s talk about the brain - mind dichotomy.

The proposed hypothesis by the materialist: “The mind is the activity of the brain.”
Suppoting argument: “There are millions of experiments which support this hypothesis. The neurological observations all show that you mess with the physical brain, you mess with the mind. You introduce chemicals into the brain you alter the mind. You stimulate certain parts of the brain with mild electric current, you invoke emotions, you invoke pleasure or pain, happiness or distress.”

These millions of experiments support the hypothesis.

Present your alternative hypothesis, and its supporting arguments. (Naturally, all are invited to the conversation, not just MoM.)

metaphysical libertarianism. free will is incompatible with a materialistic view of the mind. if the universe is deterministic, than there could be no free will, however trillions of tests per day empirically observe free will, now if the state of a system can be known at the beginning of that system one can predict with absolute certainty the state of that system anywhere along its developement. so in order for the universe to fake trillions of data points per day for thousands of years the universe had to be in the exact configuration necessary to do so, something that would scream design, even were it true. so we cannot reasonably deny free will

is the universe deternministic? of course. when do we see the PSR violated? never.

so we have both free will and a deterministic universe. incompatible. so what are the options? generally it is attempts to change the idea of free will to some caricature of the maximal freedom of will, which is empirically observed in our daily existence.

so what are we left with? the brain is not the mind. sensory perception and motor controls are not the same as a closed loop conciousness. if it were then we wouldnt have free will, but then that doesnt fit the data we have. so i suggest we simply confuse sensory effects and there corresponding patterns found in the brain as effects on the mind, when the mind cannot be materialistic/deterministic, and still fit the data we have. ergo, the mind, that which is in controlling entity is not physical, and when experimenting on the brain, one is simply messing with the mind/body interface. not with the actual mind itself.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Let me expand this, so as to make it a serious argument.

There is a phenomenon, consciousness, that we experience. When this phenomenon is active, certain other phenomena can be observed (through the medium of consciousness itself). Some of these other phenomena indicate that brain activity occurs when consciousness occurs. Brain activity and consciousness, therefore, show a correlation.

But how can we know that one causes the other? What kind of evidence can be admitted that brain activity is a necessary condition of consciousness?

The whole attempt here is the attempt to prove a negative – to prove that it is not the case that consciousness could exist independently of the brain. But the claim that consciousness does exist independently of the brain is logically possible. If it is logically possible, and it can be reconciled with existing evidence, then it cannot be disproven.

I will admit at least this much: that we are, epistemologically, at a point where we have reason to suspend judgment. I fail to see how there could be any possible evidence that would prove your point, however.

If it can be reconciled with existing evidence, perhaps, but what if all aspects of consciousness are demonstrated to be a manifestation of brain activity?

 

[Spock]

Let me expand this, so as to make it a serious argument.

There is a phenomenon, consciousness, that we experience. When this phenomenon is active, certain other phenomena can be observed (through the medium of consciousness itself). Some of these other phenomena indicate that brain activity occurs when consciousness occurs. Brain activity and consciousness, therefore, show a correlation.

But how can we know that one causes the other? What kind of evidence can be admitted that brain activity is a necessary condition of consciousness?

The whole attempt here is the attempt to prove a negative – to prove that it is not the case that consciousness could exist independently of the brain. But the claim that consciousness does exist independently of the brain is logically possible. If it is logically possible, and it can be reconciled with existing evidence, then it cannot be disproven.

I will admit at least this much: that we are, epistemologically, at a point where we have reason to suspend judgment. I fail to see how there could be any possible evidence that would prove your point, however.

The concept that “correlation is not causation” is at best a bit sloppy. It should say: “correlation is not necessarily causation”.

When we observe two phenomena (A and B) occurring in an apparently correlated fashion, there can be four possibilities: A causes B, B causes A, A and B are both caused by a third cause C, or we say that they just happened to show up together, we merely see a coincidence.

Which one is true dependens on the circumstances. When we cause damage to the brain, we see a change in the working of the mind. When we introduce a chemical substance into the brain we also see a change in the working of the mind. When the fronal lobe is severed, we see a disappearance of the personality. If the two halves of the brain are separated, we see the emergence of two competing personalities. Let’s examine the possibilities:

1. the physical activity made to the brain caused the mind to work differently.
2. the mind caused the physical damage to the brain.
3. both were caused by some unknown factor.
4. it was a sheer coincidence.

Which one would you bet on, if offered a bet?

Suppose you see the same guy with a bloody knife in his hand sneak away from (say) a 1000 murder scenes. Would you think that it is just some strange coincidence?

 

[Spock]

This isn’t a hypothesis. It is a declaration of definition.

If you intend to make it a hypothesis, then provide a definition for the word “mind”, else this discussion is pointless.

If it is pointless, you have the option to stay away.

 

[James_S_Saint]

If it is pointless, you have the option to stay away.

If you are not going to actually adhere to logic and reasoning, I’ll take you up on that.

{and Prodigal_Son was exactly correct in his wording}

 

[Spirithound]

If it is pointless, you have the option to stay away.

Isn’t it proper scientific protocol to have all terms defined?

Really, the supporting argument in your OP seems factual, apart from the first sentence saying “There are millions of experiments which support this hypothesis”, because I don’t know what your hypothesis is, because you haven’t defined “mind”.

Frankly, I can’t figure out what I’m supposed to be arguing against (but since you’re an atheist, I bet it’s something ).

 

[Spock]

metaphysical libertarianism. free will is incompatible with a materialistic view of the mind. if the universe is deterministic, than there could be no free will, however trillions of tests per day empirically observe free will, now if the state of a system can be known at the beginning of that system one can predict with absolute certainty the state of that system anywhere along its developement. so in order for the universe to fake trillions of data points per day for thousands of years the universe had to be in the exact configuration necessary to do so, something that would scream design, even were it true. so we cannot reasonably deny free will

is the universe deternministic? of course. when do we see the PSR violated? never.

Irrelevant and off topic. Violation of the PSD.

so we have both free will and a deterministic universe. incompatible.

The universe is not deterministic. See the quantum events.

so what are the options? generally it is attempts to change the idea of free will to some caricature of the maximal freedom of will, which is empirically observed in our daily existence.

Free will is just a plausible assumption, which cannot proven or disproven.

so what are we left with? the brain is not the mind. sensory perception and motor controls are not the same as a closed loop conciousness. if it were then we wouldnt have free will, but then that doesnt fit the data we have. so i suggest we simply confuse sensory effects and there corresponding patterns found in the brain as effects on the mind, when the mind cannot be materialistic/deterministic, and still fit the data we have. ergo, the mind, that which is in controlling entity is not physical, and when experimenting on the brain, one is simply messing with the mind/body interface. not with the actual mind itself.

At last something of an argument. Hydrogen and oxygen are not wet. Their composition - water - is wet. Something that is not wet cannot produce “wetness”. Therefore we see an immaterial entity at work, which lends “wetness” to an otherwise dry substance. Is that your argument? Have you ever heard of emerging attributes? Do you know what that means? When one is messing with the interface (like severing the power cord to a TV set), the result is very simple: the reception will stop. No “messing” with the power cable will ever change the channels or change the volume, will it?

Anyhow, you did not present any evidence to show that the mind is somehow controlling the brain. You did not explain how that assumed interface is supposed to work. How do you explain the millions of data which show the exact opposite?

 

[Spock]

This isn’t a hypothesis. It is a declaration of definition.

Really, the supporting argument in your OP seems factual, apart from the first sentence saying “There are millions of experiments which support this hypothesis”, because I don’t know what your hypothesis is, because you haven’t defined “mind”.

Fight it out between each other. One complains that I only provided a definition. The other complains that I did not provide a definition.

My definiton of the mind is that it is the activity of the brain. The supporting evidence is the millions of experiments, which all show the correctness of this definition. To say that it is all one huge piece of coincidence will not stand. If anyone wishes to establish a different explanation, I am here, attentive and listening.

 

[James_S_Saint]

My definiton of the mind is that it is the activity of the brain.

With this given definition, you don’t need any experimentation at all.

The supporting evidence is the millions of experiments, which all show the correctness of this definition.

I doubt this is anything but hyperbole, but unnecessary given the definition you provided.

 

[Spock]

With this given definition, you don’t need any experimentation at all.

You (or anyone else) is welcome to offer a different one and bring up some evidence to support it. I am here to listen.

 

[Shredderbeam]

I think that James means that if you define the mind as the brain’s activity, then of course, the mind is material, just by definition.

Could we define the mind as that seemingly disembodied sense of consciousness that (presumably all) humans have?

 

[Fran65]

Hi Spock,

If as you state, your definition of the mind is activity of the brain, then in the context of this discussion there is nowhere to go! You might as well say x = a;now prove that x is not a.

Before you made this statement, prodigal -son said that we cannot prove that consciousness does not exist outside the brain. This means that it remains a possibility for those who understand science and a reality for those who have faith.

Beware, history is littered with those who make assertions that this or that is ‘impossible’ or will never happen, or is definitively not the case.

As a psychologist I know that we are learning more about human mind every week.