The so-called "interaction problem" of spiritual/physical

[Abrosz]

Note that “apparition detectable by humans” doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s able to be empirically measured. The apparition might not be physical, right?

In that case, how does that “apparition” manifest itself to humans, so it can be detected? We only have a few I/O systems, and all of them are physical.

 

[o_mlly]

We only have a few I/O systems, and all of them are physical.

What physical (name removed by moderator)ut activates the neuronal network to cause the lacrimal glands to overproduce tears of a different chemical composition when a mother sitting alone in the dark thinks about her dead child?

 

[Abrosz]

What physical (name removed by moderator)ut activates the neuronal network to cause the lacrimal glands to overproduce tears of a different chemical composition when a mother sitting alone in the dark thinks about her dead child?

As usual, you try to change the subject. It was - explictly - how could we find out that there is an “apparition”, if it does not interact with our senses? We only have 5 senses which are influenced by the external reality - that is all.

 

[o_mlly]

As usual, you try to change the subject.

Nope. Read the OP. Now, tell us what the physical (name removed by moderator)ut caused the mother’s physical output or you may continue to try to dodge the question.

 

[Abrosz]

Nope.

I was explicitly answering Gorgias’s post:

“Note that “apparition detectable by humans” doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s able to be empirically measured. The apparition might not be physical, right?”

Maybe I will go back to the OP, but not at this moment.

 

[Gorgias]

In that case, how does that “apparition” manifest itself to humans, so it can be detected?

Ever hear of a mirage? It exists in the senses although not physically.

When Aquinas talks about “Eucharistic miracles” as such, he talks about the possibilities therein (ST III.76.8 co):

Such apparition comes about in two ways, when occasionally in this sacrament flesh, or blood, or a child, is seen. Sometimes it happens on the part of the beholders, whose eyes are so affected as if they outwardly saw flesh, or blood, or a child, while no change takes place in the sacrament. And this seems to happen when to one person it is seen under the species of flesh or of a child, while to others it is seen as before under the species of bread; or when to the same individual it appears for an hour under the appearance of flesh or a child, and afterwards under the appearance of bread. Nor is there any deception there, as occurs in the feats of magicians, because such species is divinely formed in the eye in order to represent some truth, namely, for the purpose of showing that Christ’s body is truly under this sacrament.

So:

• in the perception of the beholders, although not physically
• in the perception of some beholder(s), although not to all
• in the perception for a period, although not permanently

(We could add, of course, “both in perception and in physical form”.)

I was explicitly answering Gorgias’s post:

“Note that “apparition detectable by humans” doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s able to be empirically measured. The apparition might not be physical, right?”

And @o_mlly was answering you: it could be a non-physical cause which gives rise to a physical effect (such as when a thought gives rise to physical tears). Similarly, an apparition might be a perception for one, many, or all, without having a physical cause, per se.

 

[Abrosz]

The first problem speaks directly to the materialist’s claim: if there really were spiritual beings who interacted with us, we’d be able to document these interactions, and since there is no documentation as such, then the claim is false.

OK, let’s start here. The claim is NOT that there are no spiritual beings, rather that there is no reason to assume that they exist.

 

[Gorgias]

OK, let’s start here. The claim is NOT that there are no spiritual beings, rather that there is no reason to assume that they exist.

Let’s correct that assertion: “rather, there is no empirically-verifiable reason to assume that they exist.”

I think we both can live with that, no?

 

[Abrosz]

Ever hear of a mirage? It exists in the senses although not physically .

The senses transmit the correct physical information, however, the receiver may incorrectly interpret the physical signals. This does not mean that there are no physical signals.

And @o_mlly was answering you: it could be a non-physical cause which gives rise to a physical effect (such as when a thought gives rise to physical tears).

The neural signals, which rise to the mental state we call “sadness” are also physical. And, of course the mental state is comprised of electro-chemical signals in the brain.

Let’s correct that assertion: “rather, there is no empirically-verifiable reason to assume that they exist.”

What other kind of verification exists? Remember, the only “window” to the external reality are the signals transmitted through our senses.

 

[o_mlly]

The neural signals, which rise to the mental state we call “sadness” are also physical. And, of course the mental state is comprised of electro-chemical signals in the brain.

Not quite. You have to identify a physical cause that fires those neural signals. A mother who, with no physical sensations, begins to cry demonstrates the existence of a spiritual (immaterial) cause, i.e., thought. Do you agree?

 

[STT]

So you can’t take a picture of them?

Not if they don’t disturb the reality to the extend which is invisible to our apparatuses. They are very soft.

 

[Gorgias]

The senses transmit the correct physical information, however, the receiver may incorrectly interpret the physical signals. This does not mean that there are no physical signals.

Ahh, but the physical signals would say “no mirage”. So, if an apparition occurs in the interpretation rather than in the signal itself, it is still an apparition.

The neural signals, which rise to the mental state we call “sadness” are also physical. And, of course the mental state is comprised of electro-chemical signals in the brain.

Yep. Predictable.

I would argue that mental states are represented physically, and not purely comprised physically. Can you refute that assertion?

Remember, the only “window” to the external reality are the signals transmitted through our senses.

Only if you stack the deck by defining “external reality” as something which is exclusively physical. So… how’s that deck stacking working out for ya?

 

[Freddy]

Only if you stack the deck by defining “external reality” as something which is exclusively physical. So… how’s that deck stacking working out for ya?

But aren’t these your parameters? The op is asking about the problem of how we determine the interaction between the spiritual and the physical. If it’s akin to a mirage then, just like a mirage, it doesn’t exist. Our senses have fooled us. And in the case of Zeitoun, a bright light on a roof has fooled people into thinking they saw the Virgin Mary.

And the Vatican obviously doesn’t think it’s genuine. If it were actually the very mother of Jesus Christ appearing to millions then it would be the biggest event in human history. I think they may have said something. But they have taken a sensible stance and gone with the obvious answer as just noted: It was a bright light that some people interpreted as being a figure. A mirage if you like. Not real.

 

[JimG]

Apparition of Our Lady of Zeitoun

 

[Abrosz]

Only if you stack the deck by defining “external reality” as something which is exclusively physical.

You have been invited many times to give evidence for the non-physical external reality. Each and every time you tried to evade the question, by asking that I should help you and solve the problem for you. It will not work.

Can you provide evidence for the non-physical, or is your view wholly based on blind faith?

 

[Gorgias]

But aren’t these your parameters? The op is asking about the problem of how we determine the interaction between the spiritual and the physical.

I don’t think so. You’re asking a particular question – how do we determine whether this apparition has physical effects that are measurable? – but I was trying to ask a general question about the “interface”, which would speak to any action by spiritual forces in the world.

So… let’s look at your case in particular, without derailing the general question:

If it’s akin to a mirage then, just like a mirage, it doesn’t exist. Our senses have fooled us.

In the case of a mirage, what’s happening is that our senses are working just fine – it’s that our brain is misinterpreting what (name removed by moderator)uts our senses are providing.

The example I gave, with respect to apparitions, is that it’s akin to a mirage (it’s not exactly the same): the assertion is that a spiritual being (God, as it were) is changing not the physical world, but our senses or our interpretation of them. It really is happening, from our perspective, even if there is no physical change that is measurable. And, of course, I’m not asserting that this is the only way an apparition can appear.

And in the case of Zeitoun, a bright light on a roof has fooled people into thinking they saw the Virgin Mary.

Perhaps it has, and perhaps it hasn’t.

And the Vatican obviously doesn’t think it’s genuine. If it were actually the very mother of Jesus Christ appearing to millions then it would be the biggest event in human history.

It’s happened before – this isn’t a singleton event. Lourdes, Fatima, Mexico City – many times.

And the Vatican obviously doesn’t think it’s genuine… I think they may have said something. But they have taken a sensible stance and gone with the obvious answer as just noted: It was a bright light that some people interpreted as being a figure.

Are we even talking about the same event? Everything you assert here, I see contradicted in the reports I’m reading. For example, see this article, which makes very different claims about why there’s no official Vatican response, and very different reactions from Church sources…

 

[Gorgias]

You have been invited many times to give evidence for the non-physical external reality. Each and every time you tried to evade the question, by asking that I should help you and solve the problem for you. It will not work.

Oh, I know it won’t work – because you know that what you’re asking for is unreasonable. So, every time I respond to an unreasonable request, asking for clarity, you obfuscate. “Evasion!”, you claim. “Do your own homework!”, you bluster.

I’m doing neither: you’ve made an unreasonable request, and I’ve asked for you to clarify how it might be made more reasonable. When you do not respond to those requests… who’s the one who’s evading?

Can you provide evidence for the non-physical

Physical, empirical evidence? C’mon, @Abrosz… you’ve gotta know by now that your game is up. We can see right through your bad faith requests: just admit it, so we can move on.

 

[Abrosz]

I’m doing neither: you’ve made an unreasonable request, and I’ve asked for you to clarify how it might be made more reasonable.

There is nothing unreasonable to ask for evidence. It is not my job to help you out. You claim (not I) that there is a “spiritual” realm. All I ask is: “present your evidence, any evidence”. And then you asked back:

Physical, empirical evidence?

Maybe you have some very serious comprehension problem. Which part of the “no restriction” don’t you understand? Because I explicitly said that you are free to use ANY method you desire.

I see two possible answer from you. One is to enumerate: “this is my evidence”, which I could evaluate myself, and come to a conclusion. The other one would be admitting that there is no evidence, it is all based on faith.

Now faith based argument can be two kind as well. Either there is SOME non-faith-based evidence, and then it could be evaluated. Or there is none, and then you have a “blind-faith-based” assertion.

That is the situation. Let me repeat: “Which part of no restriction can’t you understand?”.
Read again: “Which part of no restriction can’t you understand?”
And a few more times, until you start to understand???

 

[Gorgias]

There is nothing unreasonable to ask for evidence.

If the evidence is impossible to gather, as such, and you know that this is the case, then yeah… it is unreasonable.

Maybe you have some very serious comprehension problem. Which part of the “ no restriction ” don’t you understand? Because I explicitly said that you are free to use ANY method you desire.

Perfect! Thank you!

OK, the response is exactly what we started this thread off with: unless you can demonstrate a method guaranteed to predict when and how the interactions will take place, then it’s impossible to prepare for and conduct an “empirical evidence gathering” campaign. Glad I could help ya out with that!

See? No evasion. Just a refutation of the reasonableness of your request!

 

[Freddy]

In the case of a mirage, what’s happening is that our senses are working just fine – it’s that our brain is misinterpreting what (name removed by moderator)uts our senses are providing.

The example I gave, with respect to apparitions, is that it’s akin to a mirage (it’s not exactly the same): the assertion is that a spiritual being (God, as it were) is changing not the physical world, but our senses or our interpretation of them.

Then you have answered your own question. There is no ‘interaction problem’.