And now, after earlier hitting the wrong key and having had to then come back to the page...with this little box as white as snow...I will respond to
jeeprs (see
this post).
I'm am glad you decided to continue to take a look at this. I'd like to stress once again (
and perhaps it cannot be over stressed) that it doesn't really matter if we are discussing within the bounds of formal philosophy (or even informal philosophy) or science, so much at all. What matters is that when we make assertions as to what the real facts of nature are--
as regards the topic at hand--we need to be careful and thorough in making the effort to determine, as much as possible, just how much we can actually demonstrate to be the real facts of nature.
For example
(and let me get two birds with one stone, here) when I say 'blind spot' in he context of the eye, I am specifically talking about an area of the retina in which there are no photoreceptors, and thus no sensory input sent to LGN, or the occipital lobe. The visual field has a black spot there which is hard to draw top-down attention to, so as to cognize it in the consciousness state subjectively. If one were to claim that there is no such 'blind spot,' they would have to demonstrate that the evidence for there being one, is faulty and incorrect--
and of course, it cannot be done.
Likewise, if one were to assert that the emotional disposition of one's mind is a non-physical thing, and has nothing whatsoever to do with, especially, for example, the amygdala's being cellularly alive (meaning that major functioning cells in that structure are alive), then they will have to demonstrate that in those cases where that structure is materially (as in degree) damaged, the lost emotional state is fully operative somewhere...or somehow. Not only that, they'll have to demonstrate how it is that the implicit claim to know is valid--
how they received that knowledge.
jeeprs wrote:I wonder what such evidence would constitute? How would it turn up in practice? Would, for example, . . .
There are a number of ways to enter into a response mode on the section of your post which I have simply shown the beginning (to provide the link), and I intend to go into the details too (
but possibly not on this thread). I will take the following entry firstly:
It can be very well established that you could never have written that paragraph if you had been in the state of slow wave sleep (SWS). While oral speech is possible (
just as having sex, climbing a tree, driving a car, and even killing someone ,also are) coherency at such a level is not, and sitting down at a PC and communicating such in response to a statement, is not. It can well be established that if you had been in a minimal state of consciousness (MSC), a state of persistent 'pre-conscious' (
persistent vegetative state (PVS), or a state of brain death, you could not have written what you had written.
It can be well established that as well, that if your brain build/state had been one of low-functioning autism, Down's syndrome, advanced Alzheimer's, or alexia with agraphia, etc., you couldn't have written what you had. This observation holds across the Homo genus. It also holds in most cases, to a similar (but not perfectly matching, of course) degree across a number of species. If one asserts that they know (
and I am not pointing to you, jeeprs, or anyone here, really, but to the beginnings of such lines of thought) that the cognition processes which all the above signify a direct and immediate deficiency of, are still exactly intact and functioning in a non-physical state, under non-physical conditions, then they have the obligation of first demonstrating how all the evidence saying such is not the case is faulty and incorrect, and secondly, how the implicit claim (whoever may have said so) to have knowledge of such a said reality of nature, is valid. (how did they come to 'have that knowledge?')
To assert that cognition does not happen in brain (and ganglia to an extent too, but not like the brain) has most clearly been demonstrated to be a valid and real fact of nature. I could fairly easily fill one post the length of the entirety of page 7 of this thread with references for that (although the typing would be very time consuming, of course)
In looking at the two things you mentioned in your post,
jeeprs, we find one very important and basic common denominator, namely, the brain.
As the real facts of nature stand, we cannot have long-term memory without long-term potentiation, and we cannot have that without certain biochemicals or all the proper proteins. Not only that, we will find that for increments of long-term memory recall (otherwise it's not called memory in the real world out there) we'll need certain structural elements (which is exactly why some folks have better recall, others less). So, how is it that a brain can recall (as fully established, both a physical state and process condition derived matter) something that is not part of it? The most obvious answer is that it cannot! It would be exactly the same as a person with a fully damaged V4, V5 telling us that they can see motion as perfectly as we can.
The concept of remote viewing is seemingly a misleading one. The idea appears to be not with actually visual inspection, but even so being able to describe some state of affairs at some location where a person isn't. I very seriously doubt that the phenomenia which does occasionally occur, is being treated correctly. Of the case studies I've seen (and they
are few, I'll admit), and the overviews I've come across, the inconsistency is about what one would expect of the random occurrance range (chance).
Again, to be thorough here (and of course any who wishes to claim it is a truth of nature that what have clearly been demonstrated to be brain processes are not solely physical processes would want to do so) one will have to demonstrate how the
information was processed in the synaptic systems--
through what is called the 'binding process.' This true because there is only evidence that brain processes and binds in this fashion, quantum theories don't have any evidence, and field theories do not support pre-conscious nor above the threshold of consciousness facts.
Fido, your claim that 'no mind can be produced from a brain,' doesn't seem to fit the facts at all, actually. I believe, however, that what you are trying to present is (as I've said before) a different topic, pretty much. The idea of never being in the same river twice is interesting philosophy, but it has extremely little practical application or value...especially when talking about '
that which thinks, perceives; feels; wills; seat or subject of consciousness b) the thinking and perceiving part of consciousness; intellect or intelligence c)attention; notice d) all of an individual's conscious experiences e) the conscious and unconscious together as a unit.'
Otherwise, some points you are making, I don't disagree with in a philosophical manner of pondering them, but I am fully aware that in a practical sense, some of those statements will have the opposite conclusions:
for example two people looking at the same wall will have the same experience of looking at that same wall--and there's no advantage in any pragmatic manner to break that down any further.
But here, I am talking about the mind of an individual. I am presenting the knowledge, based on the firmest of evidences, that the mind is brain. I hope that you are not trying to assert that culture spheres derived from geo-demographically based social groups of certain genetic lines over thousands of years were facts of nature before the first H. sapiens had ever been around. I really hope that's not what your trying to assert. Additionally, I hope that you are not trying to assert that other primates do not have minds, or that other animals also are void of minds...like these cats that I have here. This physical organ called the brain, in the special tissue that makes it (brain), is what minds. Are you outright denying that?
