Christianity

[phyllo]

Rocks do not “communicate.”

Rocks don't walk.

But that doesn't mean we need a non-physical explanation for walking.

[henry quirk]

Rocks do not “communicate.”

Rocks don't walk.

But that doesn't mean we need a non-physical explanation for walking.

Funny you bring up walking...

From way back when I was ignorant: Wed May 04, 2016 4:55 pm

I'm pretty sure mind/self/I is what a brain of particular and peculiar complexity and structure, embedded in a body of a certain type, embedded in the world, does, in the same way that legs 'do' walking. You can't examine walking without examing that which walks, and you can't examine mind without examining that which 'minds' (thinks, self-references, etc.).

I see no evidence that you or I are just 'receivers', or 'containers'. Seems to me: 'I' arises from, is the on-going result of, the workings of flesh, bone, blood, muscle and -- of course -- brain.

[bahman]

"Brain" is one physical organ. "Mind" is an abstraction which combines brain function, memory, experience, hormones, etc to account for a person's behavior.

That is the materialistic definition of mind.

You just defined it as "an irreducible substance".

Substance isn't material?

Not necessary. A substance is something that exists and has some properties. I believe in substance dualism, mind and quale, where the first one is irreducible substance whereas the second is reducible.

[Immanuel Can]

It takes the presence of minds for anything called “communication” to happen.

Well, I can think of communication that doesn't involve minds, but we can stick to the type that does only occur between minds; whether they be human minds or the minds of any other animals.

So, where does this get us?

A “mind” is cognitive. It’s a “brain” that’s the physical thing. But a “brain” without a “mind” in it is a dead lump of meat, just as a mind is ordinarily anchored to a brain.

There is no such thing as “communication” that does not involve minds, because there’s nobody to intend any message to be , at the one end, and no entity capable of receiving any message as a communication at the other. So I can’t imagine what you’re thinking of when you say, “I can think of communication that doesn’t involve minds.” As I suggested, rocks don’t “communicate.”

However, since “the type that does only occur between minds is, so far as I know, the only type there can possibly be, let’s “stick to” that, as you say.

“Where does it get us?” It gets us to the realization that even the fact that you and I are “communicating” is a definite demonstration of the existence of two minds. And minds, as I was saying, are not physical entities, but non-physical ones. So non-physical entities can be real.

[Immanuel Can]

Rocks do not “communicate.”

Rocks don't walk.

But that doesn't mean we need a non-physical explanation for walking.

That’s not a good objection.

“Walking” is a physical action. What we’re wondering about are the non-physical actions, such as “thinking,” “reasoning,” “dreaming,” or “communicating.” It’s true rocks don’t do many things…but we must then ask, how is it that some entities in the universe are inert, like rocks, planetoids, water, or molecules, and some are animate. Some even have volition, or think, or dream, or plan, or argue. How is any of that possible, without implicating something non-physical?

[Harbal]

There is no such thing as “communication” that does not involve minds, because there’s nobody to intend any message to be , at the one end, and no entity capable of receiving any message as a communication at the other. So I can’t imagine what you’re thinking of when you say, “I can think of communication that doesn’t involve minds.” As I suggested, rocks don’t “communicate.”

I believe trees can communicate with other trees via fungal mycelium in the soil. That's probably not relevant, but it's interesting.

And minds, as I was saying, are not physical entities, but non-physical ones. So non-physical entities can be real.

A mind certainly seems non-physical to me, and I can't really envisage how it could be otherwise, but I'm not confident enough to say it must be non-physical. I don't have a preference, so my tendency to think minds are non-physical doesn't have any bias in it. Even though I can grasp the idea of the mind being non-physical, I can't grasp anything about its existence beyond that, but I'm very sceptical about a mind or consciousness being able to exist in the absence of a physical object giving rise to it. It would be marvellous if it were ever demonstrated that consciousness could exist without being associated with physical matter in any way, but it isn't something I ever expect to see.

[Immanuel Can]

There is no such thing as “communication” that does not involve minds, because there’s nobody to intend any message to be , at the one end, and no entity capable of receiving any message as a communication at the other. So I can’t imagine what you’re thinking of when you say, “I can think of communication that doesn’t involve minds.” As I suggested, rocks don’t “communicate.”

I believe trees can communicate with other trees via fungal mycelium in the soil. That's probably not relevant, but it's interesting.

And minds, as I was saying, are not physical entities, but non-physical ones. So non-physical entities can be real.

A mind certainly seems non-physical to me, and I can't really envisage how it could be otherwise, but I'm not confident enough to say it must be non-physical. I don't have a preference, so my tendency to think minds are non-physical doesn't have any bias in it. Even though I can grasp the idea of the mind being non-physical, I can't grasp anything about its existence beyond that, but I'm very sceptical about a mind or consciousness being able to exist in the absence of a physical object giving rise to it. It would be marvellous if it were ever demonstrated that consciousness could exist without being associated with physical matter in any way, but it isn't something I ever expect to see.

Well, fair enough…just as one never expects to see a computer program running with no computer. But it’s interesting that, unlike with a computer program, there is no physical materials that can be identified as “thought-material,” and yet we use thinking so routinely. That’s one of the things that makes pure Physicalism so utterly implausible, and also keeps the question of how that can happen so lively.

[phyllo]

Rocks do not “communicate.”

Rocks don't walk.

But that doesn't mean we need a non-physical explanation for walking.

That’s not a good objection.

“Walking” is a physical action. What we’re wondering about are the non-physical actions, such as “thinking,” “reasoning,” “dreaming,” or “communicating.” It’s true rocks don’t do many things…but we must then ask, how is it that some entities in the universe are inert, like rocks, planetoids, water, or molecules, and some are animate. Some even have volition, or think, or dream, or plan, or argue. How is any of that possible, without implicating something non-physical?

You didn't produce a good example so you didn't get a good objection.

[Harry Baird]

Well I'm not making any claims either way, but I don't see how anyone can say, with any authority, that consciousness could not emerge from physicality. The matter could only be settled empirically, you can't reason your way to the answer.

No, it's exactly the opposite: that question can only be resolved with reference to what the terms "mind", "consciousness", "physical", and "matter" actually mean. Whether mind/consciousness can emerge from physicality/matter is a philosophical question (based on the definition of those terms), not an empirical one.

So this is some kind of word game?

It's not a word "game"; it's respecting the meaning of words. Just like, "My friend drowned in a fire" is a nonsensical statement - because drowning requires liquid, not fire - so is "Mind emerges from matter" - because that which is non-conscious cannot generate its polar opposite, that which is conscious (regardless of how that non-consciousness is arranged, and regardless of how complexly).

[Harry Baird]

What do you mean by "the human body is not required for conscious experience" - are you implying that this is a conscious experience that differs from having the qualia of the 5 senses?

I mean that we have a non-physical form which interfaces with our physical form. When we permanently drop or temporarily detach from our physical form, our non-physical form has its own sensory experiences according its own non-physical means.

I'm not far off retiring for the night, so, if you respond, you might have to wait for a response in turn.

No worries Harry. I'll see you in lucid electric dreams, as I am about to nod off too.

However, if you believe in the two different conscious experiences, one while within the body, then on that account you are admitting that those experiences ARE dependent in some way upon the material body.

Sure: while in the body, experience is mediated via the body, and, in particular, sensory experience is mediated via the body's physical sense organs, and in that respect, you could say that experiences while in the body are "dependent" in some way upon the material body.

The one, 'out of body'...well I'd be interested in picking your brain regarding what qualia conscious experience is maintained then...for example...sight most definitely?

First off: I don't claim to be an expert on this. I've never been out of body myself. I've just read/watched a fair few reports of those who have, especially during near-death experiences (NDEs). That said:

Yes, sight most definitely does seem to be experienced while out of body. Some people report 360 degree vision. Some people report seeing colours that don't exist in the physical world. Physically blind people report seeing for the first time while out of body.

I haven't particularly taken note of which other senses are reported while out of body, but I'd hazard a guess that all of the standard five physical senses have non-physical correlates.

Also, and I don't know whether you'd consider this a "sense", but some out-of-body experiencers report communicating telepathically with others who are out-of-body, and some of them report reading the thoughts of those still in body (reports which were later confirmed by the person who was thinking the thoughts).

And on that 'out of body' concept, then surely you have some level of spiritual belief, God?

Yes. Definitely.

[Harry Baird]

What do you mean by "the human body is not required for conscious experience" - are you implying that this is a conscious experience that differs from having the qualia of the 5 senses?

I mean that we have a non-physical form which interfaces with our physical form. When we permanently drop or temporarily detach from our physical form, our non-physical form has its own sensory experiences according its own non-physical means.

I'm not far off retiring for the night, so, if you respond, you might have to wait for a response in turn.

Some kind of spirit or soul which exists without a physical form?

Bingo.

[Harry Baird]

Some kind of spirit or soul which exists without a physical form?

Well you can see why he favours a philosophical approach to support that idea, rather than an empirical one.

Oh, no, I came to that view via empirical evidence, especially veridical perceptions during the OBE component of NDEs. A great book on the subject, with plenty of carefully-researched case studies, is The Self Does Not Die: Verified Paranormal Phenomena from Near-Death Experiences by Titus Rivas, Anny Dirven, and Rudolph H. Smit.

Here's an introduction to it on the IANDS website:

https://iands.org/research/publications ... t-die.html

(I have only dipped into this book because I had already encountered enough of these cases to be satisfied with the evidence, but I consider it to be worth recommending anyway given its reputation and my correspondence with two of its authors).

[Harry Baird]

I mean that we have a non-physical form which interfaces with our physical form. When we permanently drop or temporarily detach from our physical form, our non-physical form has its own sensory experiences according its own non-physical means.

This is where we part company, Harry.

Well, it's also where you part company with the evidence then, hq. Maybe you just haven't encountered it in its strongest form before though, so that's completely understandable - but do check out the book I linked to above at least.

[Harry Baird]

Some kind of spirit or soul which exists without a physical form?

Well you can see why he favours a philosophical approach to support that idea, rather than an empirical one.

Oh, no, I came to that view via empirical evidence, especially veridical perceptions during the OBE component of NDEs. A great book on the subject, with plenty of carefully-researched case studies, is The Self Does Not Die: Verified Paranormal Phenomena from Near-Death Experiences by Titus Rivas, Anny Dirven, and Rudolph H. Smit.

Here's an introduction to it on the IANDS website:

https://iands.org/research/publications ... t-die.html

(I have only dipped into this book because I had already encountered enough of these cases to be satisfied with the evidence, but I consider it to be worth recommending anyway given its reputation and my correspondence with two of its authors).

I stress that this is simply in my view the strongest evidence for a non-physical self - one which persists after the death of the physical body. There is plenty of other evidence though. For a sample, readers might like to check out the winning and lauded entries in the Bigelow Institute For Consciousness Studies' essay competition seeking the best evidence for survival of human consciousness (SOHC):

https://www.bigelowinstitute.org/contest_winners3.php

(Similarly, I haven't read any of these entries myself, but I feel justified in recommending them anyway based on what I know of the authors, and the competition judges).

[Dontaskme]

And minds, as I was saying, are not physical entities, but non-physical ones. So non-physical entities can be real.

Nope...There's no such idea as a non-physical entity.

A physical entity is known as itself via the direct experience of being, and not as some non-entity...or not-being.


The physical world is never seen as an object outside of seeing. The physical world is only known conceptually, and never seen as a physical object outside of itself, because there is no such place as outside or inside of YOU, except as a concept.

The world you perceive is made of consciousness; what you call matter is consciousness itself. You do not see consciousness, you are consciousness. And consciousness is matter, and matter is consciousness.
There is no such state as substance dualism IC...Sorry, but there isn't.


.