The Source of Consciousness

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Post Reply
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: The Source of Consciousness

Post by Count Lucanor »

Gee wrote: April 29th, 2021, 3:19 pm
No. It is called 'BS'ing. Apparently you are under no obligation to provide anything related to the topic, "The Source of Consciousness" and are only here to argue because you can't make an argument.
You pretend to be unaware of the fact that this conversation remains at the level in which you have moved, which is very low. You have provided no substance on the topic and only relied on disqualifying, sweeping remarks, kind of a lazy way to demand from me to provide such substance, so that you can continue to make loose comments without much effort. So all your complaints are really complaints about your own approach to the subject.

Gee wrote: April 29th, 2021, 3:19 pm
Please read the above and note that you have offered no information on the topic and only argued about you and me. We are not the subject matter.
Once again it is shown that you are not willing to provide arguments, just sit there in your lazy zone and make unsubstantiated, sweeping remarks.
Gee wrote: April 29th, 2021, 3:19 pm
Yes. There are three disciplines. Since I know you will want to argue about this, because that is what you do, I will explain my thinking. When I first started my studies, I learned (as most people do) that there were a variety of theories that were not compatible with each other. Yet, there appeared to be at least some truth in each theory. How is this possible?

In order to answer that question, and to study something as elusive as consciousness, I needed a base, a premise that I could rely on to be true to build my knowledge. I settled on a statement that I had read as a child: "Man is a physical, mental, and spiritual being." After further study, I realized that we have science that studies the physical, philosophy that studies the mental, and religion that studies the spiritual, complying with Socrates admonishment to "know thyself". It is interesting to note that all life is physical, mental, and spiritual.
Religion a discipline? You could as well have said astrology or sorcery. What a load of nonsense.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
Gee
Posts: 667
Joined: December 28th, 2012, 2:41 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re: The Source of Consciousness

Post by Gee »

Atla wrote: May 1st, 2021, 4:38 am
Gee wrote: April 30th, 2021, 9:18 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: April 29th, 2021, 4:10 am The other thing with NDEs is that obviously people reporting them have brain activity prior to reporting the NDE. So it's not as if we can say, "They definitely had no brain activity yet at that very same time they had conscious experience c." The only way we can have any idea of any experience the person had is by them reporting it to us, which can only happen after they've had plenty of brain activity post the period where supposedly they had no brain activity.

To reasonably establish conscious experience when there is no brain activity we'd need
How about a qualified neuropsychologist? No? Well, then what about a life form that has conscious experience, but no brain -- like a daffodil?

This is what I was talking about, Atla. People will believe that my above responses are not serious, nor are they valid and reasonable. Why? Because people can not get past their damned belief that consciousness requires thought and a brain, so they confuse the hell out of something that does not have to be confusing, while ensuring that no serious valid discussion occurs.
Terrapin may be incompetent for more serious discussions, but again I didn't see it claimed that only thought is consciousness. What is indeed usually claimed is that brains are required for consciousness, which is indeed wrong.
It is probably unreasonable to associate Terrapin with incompetence, as I don't think that. Terrapin is intelligent, well educated, and sometimes wise -- on many subjects -- but on the subject of consciousness, Terrapin is somewhat close-minded, inflexible, and really stubborn.

So you agree that it is usual for people to think that brains are required for consciousness. Did you ever wonder why they think that? What do brains give us that people misinterpret as consciousness? Maybe language? Maybe thought? Were you aware that a brain can convert analogue consciousness (experience) into digital consciousness (thought) and also convert digital into analogue? This is not theory; neurologists are aware of this, so unless reality is digital (a theory), thought comes from the brain and only from the brain. This is WHY people associate consciousness with the brain.
Atla wrote: May 1st, 2021, 4:38 am If you want a more serious discussion: you wasted 50 years on a wrong assumption, because ironically you didn't go far enough in discarding culturally held views you thought were right.
I think you are trying to tell me something here. Any chance that you are going to, or are you just going to tell me that I am wrong and know nothing?
Atla wrote: May 1st, 2021, 4:38 am Brains aren't required for consciousness? True, and most people don't realize this. However, life isn't required for consciousness either.
I don't think that you will find anywhere in my posts a claim that life is required for consciousness. What you will find is that I state that life is required for evidence of consciousness.
Atla wrote: May 1st, 2021, 4:38 am It has as much to do with it as rocks do. Everything IS consciousness in that sense.
I am not disputing your words, but would like to know WHAT sense you are talking about. How would you describe the consciousness of a rock?
Atla wrote: May 1st, 2021, 4:38 am Which means that, if you searched for something specific, which you can point to and claim to have found consciousness, then you were mistaken all along.
Do you think that I did this? If you think that I did, you may have been mistaken all along.

Gee
Gee
Posts: 667
Joined: December 28th, 2012, 2:41 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re: The Source of Consciousness

Post by Gee »

Terrapin Station wrote: May 1st, 2021, 6:05 am
Atla wrote: May 1st, 2021, 4:38 am
If you want a more serious discussion: you wasted 50 years on a wrong assumption, because ironically you didn't go far enough in discarding culturally held views you thought were right. Brains aren't required for consciousness? True, and most people don't realize this. However, life isn't required for consciousness either. It has as much to do with it as rocks do. Everything IS consciousness in that sense. Which means that, if you searched for something specific, which you can point to and claim to have found consciousness, then you were mistaken all along.
Talk about unqualified, and such arrogance to boot, lol.
Who are you referring to, Atla or me, or maybe both?

Gee
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: The Source of Consciousness

Post by Terrapin Station »

Gee wrote: May 3rd, 2021, 10:18 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: May 1st, 2021, 6:05 am
Atla wrote: May 1st, 2021, 4:38 am
If you want a more serious discussion: you wasted 50 years on a wrong assumption, because ironically you didn't go far enough in discarding culturally held views you thought were right. Brains aren't required for consciousness? True, and most people don't realize this. However, life isn't required for consciousness either. It has as much to do with it as rocks do. Everything IS consciousness in that sense. Which means that, if you searched for something specific, which you can point to and claim to have found consciousness, then you were mistaken all along.
Talk about unqualified, and such arrogance to boot, lol.
Who are you referring to, Atla or me, or maybe both?

Gee
Atla
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: The Source of Consciousness

Post by Atla »

Gee wrote: May 3rd, 2021, 10:15 pm Were you aware that a brain can convert analogue consciousness (experience) into digital consciousness (thought) and also convert digital into analogue? This is not theory; neurologists are aware of this, so unless reality is digital (a theory), thought comes from the brain and only from the brain. This is WHY people associate consciousness with the brain.
Never heard neurologists claim this before, can you link evidence for this? I'm fairly sure that thought is just another form of experience, just more "digital-like".
True philosophy points to the Moon
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: The Source of Consciousness

Post by Nick_A »

Atla wrote: May 4th, 2021, 1:01 pm
Gee wrote: May 3rd, 2021, 10:15 pm Were you aware that a brain can convert analogue consciousness (experience) into digital consciousness (thought) and also convert digital into analogue? This is not theory; neurologists are aware of this, so unless reality is digital (a theory), thought comes from the brain and only from the brain. This is WHY people associate consciousness with the brain.
Never heard neurologists claim this before, can you link evidence for this? I'm fairly sure that thought is just another form of experience, just more "digital-like".
All potentials and the essence of our universe exist within our source as objective interrelated ideas. They devolve into levels of reality as fragments of the whole. From this perspective a certain quality of thought or the wholeness of objective ideas can manifest as experience on a lower level.
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: The Source of Consciousness

Post by Atla »

Nick_A wrote: May 4th, 2021, 2:01 pm
Atla wrote: May 4th, 2021, 1:01 pm
Gee wrote: May 3rd, 2021, 10:15 pm Were you aware that a brain can convert analogue consciousness (experience) into digital consciousness (thought) and also convert digital into analogue? This is not theory; neurologists are aware of this, so unless reality is digital (a theory), thought comes from the brain and only from the brain. This is WHY people associate consciousness with the brain.
Never heard neurologists claim this before, can you link evidence for this? I'm fairly sure that thought is just another form of experience, just more "digital-like".
All potentials and the essence of our universe exist within our source as objective interrelated ideas. They devolve into levels of reality as fragments of the whole. From this perspective a certain quality of thought or the wholeness of objective ideas can manifest as experience on a lower level.
Pretty sure neurologists don't have evidence for the second and third dimensions of thought either. Nor for Plato's realm of forms or essence or whatever.
True philosophy points to the Moon
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: The Source of Consciousness

Post by Nick_A »

Atla wrote: May 4th, 2021, 3:01 pm
Nick_A wrote: May 4th, 2021, 2:01 pm
Atla wrote: May 4th, 2021, 1:01 pm
Gee wrote: May 3rd, 2021, 10:15 pm Were you aware that a brain can convert analogue consciousness (experience) into digital consciousness (thought) and also convert digital into analogue? This is not theory; neurologists are aware of this, so unless reality is digital (a theory), thought comes from the brain and only from the brain. This is WHY people associate consciousness with the brain.
Never heard neurologists claim this before, can you link evidence for this? I'm fairly sure that thought is just another form of experience, just more "digital-like".
All potentials and the essence of our universe exist within our source as objective interrelated ideas. They devolve into levels of reality as fragments of the whole. From this perspective a certain quality of thought or the wholeness of objective ideas can manifest as experience on a lower level.
Pretty sure neurologists don't have evidence for the second and third dimensions of thought either. Nor for Plato's realm of forms or essence or whatever.
The role of the intelligence - that part of us which affirms and denies and formulates opinions is merely to submit. Simone Weil


Sometimes even the neurologists has to admit they do not understand
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: The Source of Consciousness

Post by Atla »

Nick_A wrote: May 4th, 2021, 9:32 pm
Atla wrote: May 4th, 2021, 3:01 pm Pretty sure neurologists don't have evidence for the second and third dimensions of thought either. Nor for Plato's realm of forms or essence or whatever.
The role of the intelligence - that part of us which affirms and denies and formulates opinions is merely to submit. Simone Weil


Sometimes even the neurologists has to admit they do not understand
Or at least that was Simone Weil's opinion
True philosophy points to the Moon
Gee
Posts: 667
Joined: December 28th, 2012, 2:41 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re: The Source of Consciousness

Post by Gee »

Terrapin Station wrote: April 29th, 2021, 8:39 am
Nick_A wrote: April 29th, 2021, 8:24 am What of children who report memories of past lives?

https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-stu ... e%20events.
Some young children, usually between the ages of 2 and 5, speak about memories of a previous life they claim to have lived. At the same time they often show behaviors, such as phobias or preferences, that are unusual within the context of their particular family and cannot be explained by any current life events. These memories appear to be concordant with the child’s statements about a previous life.
If true then there is some conscious connection between dying and being born. If true, then NDEs are not so absurd.
Everything I've seen evidences that "past life" memories have been very vague/nothing that can't be accounted for in terms of persons giving very detailed, confirmable, specific information where (importantly) we can confirm that there's no possible way they could be aware of the information otherwise (such as anyone having fed that information to them).
I would have agreed with you for many years. I thought that reincarnation was a philosophical / religious belief that had no basis in fact. I was wrong as there are some facts. If you look around the site noted at the top of this post, you may be able to find some of Dr. Stevenson's research on reincarnation.

What really swayed my thinking was when he tracked down some of these people, who claimed knowledge of prior lives, then his team made a full investigation and found information that I don't think could be corrupted. Part of the investigation was into the prior life, once it was identified, which included reports on the death of the prior person. When the team uncovered medical reports that showed the damage that caused death, then realized that the damage was mirrored by the birth marks on the infant, one has to wonder. This is physical evidence and would be difficult to manufacture. There were other things, but I think it was the birth marks that blew me away.

Gee
Gee
Posts: 667
Joined: December 28th, 2012, 2:41 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re: The Source of Consciousness

Post by Gee »

Consul wrote: April 29th, 2021, 9:58 am
Gee wrote: April 29th, 2021, 12:23 amThank you for this information. Descartes and Hume lived a long time ago, and although they were both brilliant men, they did not have the information on communication that science gives us now. So there is a great deal that they could not possibly know.

Have you ever wondered why we can not communicate emotion very well; it is much easier to communicate thought? This is because knowledge, memory, and thought are digital. This division of consciousness is digital, static, and works well within the rational aspect of mind and language because it breaks down into pieces.

The other division, awareness, feeling, and emotion is analogue and does not break down into language well at all, which is why we use poetry, art, music, dance, etc. to try to convey emotion. This division is fluid, and powerful; emotion is known as the motivator, it is capable of self-motivation without thought.

So I would never put emotion under thought, as they are two entirely different things. It is true that all the components of consciousness tend to work together and seem to be interdependent, but when looking for the "source" it is beneficial to keep in mind the properties of each component.
On the one hand, emotions qua subjective feelings or moods are often very hard to express in words; and on the other hand it's scientifically questionable whether all our folk-psychological emotion-terms represent real natural kinds of emotions.
This is so typical. First you agree that emotion/feeling can be "very hard to express in words", then you question whether it is scientifically "real"??? Do you suspect that it is not "natural kinds of emotions", but maybe fake kinds of emotions?

You could just accept that emotion/feeling is analog and is experienced, so it does not break down into discreet data, it is not digital; and therefore, is not well represented verbally. There is certainly enough evidence all over the world that tells us that emotion/feeling is expressed through art.
Consul wrote: April 29th, 2021, 9:58 am There are cognitivist theories of emotions according to which emotions are constitutively, essentially thought-involving or even reducible to thoughts (judgments). For example, Robert Solomon writes that "emotions are evaluative judgments".

See:
* Theories of Emotion: https://iep.utm.edu/emotion/

* Emotion: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/emotion/
This doesn't seem to have any relevance to what I am talking about. Emotion and thought are different, they work differently, emotional memory is still analog and fluid, which is why science does not trust it. Emotion can stun or kill life -- thought does not do that, at least not on it's own. They are different.

Gee
Gee
Posts: 667
Joined: December 28th, 2012, 2:41 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re: The Source of Consciousness

Post by Gee »

Consul wrote: April 30th, 2021, 8:34 am
Gee wrote: April 29th, 2021, 2:03 pm
Consul wrote: April 27th, 2021, 12:57 pmThere are three basic kinds of subjective experiences (experiential contents of consciousness):

Maybe. But you are talking about subjective experiences. This goes along with the idea that consciousness is subjective and comes from the body/brain. If one is looking for the "source" of consciousness, then where does this kind of information lead??

Take a good look at most of the theories of consciousness and you will find an examination of us. Either consciousness comes from the body/brain, which evolution disproves; or it comes from some dream reality or idealism that we create; or it comes from a "God" that was created in our image; or maybe from aliens??? When we study consciousness subjectively, we study ourselves and corrupt the study.

This is why I worked so hard to find a metaphor that would work for the study of consciousness and water does a very good job of explaining the properties of consciousness without corrupting the study with any subjective experience.
First of all, that "consciousness comes from the body/brain" is by no means disproved by the (Darwinian) theory of evolution—on the contrary! Consciousness is realized (only) in and by animal brains, having resulted evolutionarily from the natural development of animal nervous systems and especially central ones (brains).
You are confusing Darwinian evolution with Christianity -- maybe Darwin confused them also. I don't know. IF consciousness is realized (only) in and by animal brains, then consciousness did not exist prior to the development of animal brains, so any life that lead up to this development was not aware or conscious. We now know that this idea is BS, as other life was aware and conscious of many things before the development of the brain. On the other hand, Christianity is very comfortable with the idea that life is not conscious. Only man is made in "God's" image, and possibly other species that are much like us may be conscious. People say they are talking about evolution, but in reality they are stuck in their religious beliefs.
Consul wrote: April 30th, 2021, 8:34 am Consciousness science needs both extrospective, third-person data and introspective, first-person data. Unfortunately, homo sapiens is the only animal species on Earth capable of making introspective reports. So anthropocentrism with regard to those is unavoidable, which circumstance poses epistemological and methodological problems for consciousness science.

Moreover, an introspection-based analysis of the neurophysiological causation or constitution of subjective experiences is impossible in principle. There is an introspective psychology or phenomenology, but there can be no introspective neurophysiology.
Consciousness science? Does science have a department of consciousnessology? As I read the above, it occurs to me that you actually believe Dennett -- I do not.
Consul wrote: April 30th, 2021, 8:34 am
Gee wrote: April 29th, 2021, 2:03 pm I am not surprised that "imagination" came into this explanation as an intermediate between emotion and cognition. We often do this, taking things like imagination and instincts (things that are part of the unconscious aspect of mind) and dropping them into buckets marked "imagination" or "instincts" and then assuming that we have solved or understood something. We understand nothing when we do that; we just sort different parts of the unconscious.
Cases of imagination are conscious episodes of imagining. There is no unconscious imagination, and there is no unconscious cogitation/thought either.
So you say, but I remember you stating that you did not study the unconscious in prior conversations. Why should I take your word for it now?

Gee
Gee
Posts: 667
Joined: December 28th, 2012, 2:41 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re: The Source of Consciousness

Post by Gee »

Terrapin Station wrote: May 1st, 2021, 6:08 am (A) a way to definitively establish that there are no biologically-sourced changes or events in S's brain for a time period from Tx to Ty,
(B) S reporting specific/detailed and confirmable events, E, that occurred during the same time period Tx to Ty--where this can't rely on any sort of interpretation of vague things S says, and where
(C) we can unquestioningly establish that S has not been fed or subtly suggested or in any other way had post-Ty access to the detailed/specific information about E.

So it would require a carefully controlled experimental setting where the above criteria are clearly met.
Terrapin Station wrote: May 1st, 2021, 6:08 am
Gee stated:
I think we are talking about killing a person under carefully controlled experimental settings so that we can prove that we are right. Anyone who thinks that my responses are invalid and unreasonable, but have accepted the idea of an experiment has lost their little minds.
It would be possible to set up the more controlled conditions in a medical setting where, should a supposed NDE occur, we can confirm that there wasn't a much more mundane explanation for it. The criteria I outlined are what is necessary for a more mundane explanation to be ruled out.
I am sure that you believe this, but I do not for some very specific reasons. First, we do not really know enough about consciousness, nor do we know enough about death, so the parameters of the "test" would be set by our guesses, biases, and misconceptions. Would this make a difference? Absolutely, as every strength has a weakness and the worst weakness of the scientific method is the possibility of confirmation bias. Scientists are aware of this problem, but creating a test for something where you don't even understand the subject matter is bound to simply reinforce biases and beliefs.

Consider the following: Years ago I read a report about testing people, who claimed to be able to read auras. As you suggested, the people doing the research also used different means to prevent "mundane" explanations, one of which was a glass shield between the aura readers and the people they were trying to read. This all looked reasonable to me, and I was not surprised when the "readers" all failed the test. All the "readers" had claimed some ability to read auras, but failed completely. What did surprise me was that the "readers" anticipated failure. I did not understand that.

Years later, I met a woman, who can read auras, and I believed her, as she was very convincing. One of the things that she tried to explain was the misconception that reading auras was like seeing little colored lights around people. She said it doesn't work that way -- people are not lit up like little bulbs. To help me understand this idea, she said that reading auras is much like reading words. If you look at a page of text, you will not get much information until you focus on specific words, then the meaning of the word will blossom in your mind. She said that reading auras is much like that.

So when she was in a crowd, like in a shopping mall, or at a carnival, etc., she found the effects of her "talent" disturbing. As she moved through the crowd and focused on different individuals, she would see auras blinking in and out of existence, which she found a little disorienting. Her solution? She learned to keep sunglasses in her purse because one can not see auras through glass, clear plastic, or water.

So looking back at that testing report that I read years ago, it is no wonder that the "readers" anticipated failure. The question is did the testers intentionally nullify the test? It sure looks like it.

I do not think you would intentionally create an invalid test. But I do think you would take your beliefs about consciousness and create a test that supports them. I also think that you would assume that you know when death occurs as you believe that it is an event. It is not. Death, like birth, is a process that is much longer than most people realize. We give times of birth and death for practical reasons, but medical science is quite aware of the fact that the times are not an accurate representation. I also think that you would "test" the NDE by asking for information that could only be had by the rational aspect of mind, rather than the unconscious aspect, which would not be a valid test.

Gee
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: The Source of Consciousness

Post by Terrapin Station »

Gee wrote: May 11th, 2021, 12:15 am
Terrapin Station wrote: May 1st, 2021, 6:08 am (A) a way to definitively establish that there are no biologically-sourced changes or events in S's brain for a time period from Tx to Ty,
(B) S reporting specific/detailed and confirmable events, E, that occurred during the same time period Tx to Ty--where this can't rely on any sort of interpretation of vague things S says, and where
(C) we can unquestioningly establish that S has not been fed or subtly suggested or in any other way had post-Ty access to the detailed/specific information about E.

So it would require a carefully controlled experimental setting where the above criteria are clearly met.
Terrapin Station wrote: May 1st, 2021, 6:08 am
Gee stated:
I think we are talking about killing a person under carefully controlled experimental settings so that we can prove that we are right. Anyone who thinks that my responses are invalid and unreasonable, but have accepted the idea of an experiment has lost their little minds.
It would be possible to set up the more controlled conditions in a medical setting where, should a supposed NDE occur, we can confirm that there wasn't a much more mundane explanation for it. The criteria I outlined are what is necessary for a more mundane explanation to be ruled out.
I am sure that you believe this, but I do not for some very specific reasons. First, we do not really know enough about consciousness, nor do we know enough about death, so the parameters of the "test" would be set by our guesses, biases, and misconceptions. Would this make a difference? Absolutely, as every strength has a weakness and the worst weakness of the scientific method is the possibility of confirmation bias. Scientists are aware of this problem, but creating a test for something where you don't even understand the subject matter is bound to simply reinforce biases and beliefs.

Consider the following: Years ago I read a report about testing people, who claimed to be able to read auras. As you suggested, the people doing the research also used different means to prevent "mundane" explanations, one of which was a glass shield between the aura readers and the people they were trying to read. This all looked reasonable to me, and I was not surprised when the "readers" all failed the test. All the "readers" had claimed some ability to read auras, but failed completely. What did surprise me was that the "readers" anticipated failure. I did not understand that.

Years later, I met a woman, who can read auras, and I believed her, as she was very convincing. One of the things that she tried to explain was the misconception that reading auras was like seeing little colored lights around people. She said it doesn't work that way -- people are not lit up like little bulbs. To help me understand this idea, she said that reading auras is much like reading words. If you look at a page of text, you will not get much information until you focus on specific words, then the meaning of the word will blossom in your mind. She said that reading auras is much like that.

So when she was in a crowd, like in a shopping mall, or at a carnival, etc., she found the effects of her "talent" disturbing. As she moved through the crowd and focused on different individuals, she would see auras blinking in and out of existence, which she found a little disorienting. Her solution? She learned to keep sunglasses in her purse because one can not see auras through glass, clear plastic, or water.

So looking back at that testing report that I read years ago, it is no wonder that the "readers" anticipated failure. The question is did the testers intentionally nullify the test? It sure looks like it.

I do not think you would intentionally create an invalid test. But I do think you would take your beliefs about consciousness and create a test that supports them. I also think that you would assume that you know when death occurs as you believe that it is an event. It is not. Death, like birth, is a process that is much longer than most people realize. We give times of birth and death for practical reasons, but medical science is quite aware of the fact that the times are not an accurate representation. I also think that you would "test" the NDE by asking for information that could only be had by the rational aspect of mind, rather than the unconscious aspect, which would not be a valid test.

Gee
Way too flowery. You'd need specific, detailed objections to what I'm proposing, and then alternate, detailed suggestions and some justification for why they'd be preferable.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: The Source of Consciousness

Post by Terrapin Station »

Gee wrote: May 11th, 2021, 12:15 am
Terrapin Station wrote: May 1st, 2021, 6:08 am (A) a way to definitively establish that there are no biologically-sourced changes or events in S's brain for a time period from Tx to Ty,
(B) S reporting specific/detailed and confirmable events, E, that occurred during the same time period Tx to Ty--where this can't rely on any sort of interpretation of vague things S says, and where
(C) we can unquestioningly establish that S has not been fed or subtly suggested or in any other way had post-Ty access to the detailed/specific information about E.

So it would require a carefully controlled experimental setting where the above criteria are clearly met.
Terrapin Station wrote: May 1st, 2021, 6:08 am
Gee stated:
I think we are talking about killing a person under carefully controlled experimental settings so that we can prove that we are right. Anyone who thinks that my responses are invalid and unreasonable, but have accepted the idea of an experiment has lost their little minds.
It would be possible to set up the more controlled conditions in a medical setting where, should a supposed NDE occur, we can confirm that there wasn't a much more mundane explanation for it. The criteria I outlined are what is necessary for a more mundane explanation to be ruled out.
I am sure that you believe this, but I do not for some very specific reasons. First, we do not really know enough about consciousness, nor do we know enough about death, so the parameters of the "test" would be set by our guesses, biases, and misconceptions. Would this make a difference? Absolutely, as every strength has a weakness and the worst weakness of the scientific method is the possibility of confirmation bias. Scientists are aware of this problem, but creating a test for something where you don't even understand the subject matter is bound to simply reinforce biases and beliefs.

Consider the following: Years ago I read a report about testing people, who claimed to be able to read auras. As you suggested, the people doing the research also used different means to prevent "mundane" explanations, one of which was a glass shield between the aura readers and the people they were trying to read. This all looked reasonable to me, and I was not surprised when the "readers" all failed the test. All the "readers" had claimed some ability to read auras, but failed completely. What did surprise me was that the "readers" anticipated failure. I did not understand that.

Years later, I met a woman, who can read auras, and I believed her, as she was very convincing. One of the things that she tried to explain was the misconception that reading auras was like seeing little colored lights around people. She said it doesn't work that way -- people are not lit up like little bulbs. To help me understand this idea, she said that reading auras is much like reading words. If you look at a page of text, you will not get much information until you focus on specific words, then the meaning of the word will blossom in your mind. She said that reading auras is much like that.

So when she was in a crowd, like in a shopping mall, or at a carnival, etc., she found the effects of her "talent" disturbing. As she moved through the crowd and focused on different individuals, she would see auras blinking in and out of existence, which she found a little disorienting. Her solution? She learned to keep sunglasses in her purse because one can not see auras through glass, clear plastic, or water.

So looking back at that testing report that I read years ago, it is no wonder that the "readers" anticipated failure. The question is did the testers intentionally nullify the test? It sure looks like it.

I do not think you would intentionally create an invalid test. But I do think you would take your beliefs about consciousness and create a test that supports them. I also think that you would assume that you know when death occurs as you believe that it is an event. It is not. Death, like birth, is a process that is much longer than most people realize. We give times of birth and death for practical reasons, but medical science is quite aware of the fact that the times are not an accurate representation. I also think that you would "test" the NDE by asking for information that could only be had by the rational aspect of mind, rather than the unconscious aspect, which would not be a valid test.

Gee
The lengthy Skeptic's Dictionary entry on Stevenson is worth reading: http://skepdic.com/stevenson.html
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021