Ooh, please do tell us what isn't merely a correlation. Because then, at last, we might know what you mean by direct evidence.Have you looked for yourself at any of the 65 NDE scientific published studies? Be careful what you assume.
~~ Paul
Ooh, please do tell us what isn't merely a correlation. Because then, at last, we might know what you mean by direct evidence.Have you looked for yourself at any of the 65 NDE scientific published studies? Be careful what you assume.
Okay, now we know that you really have no idea what sort of evidence would satisfy you. Please demonstrate that we are wrong.What do you want me to explain? My grandma used to use a light switch.
Explain how a light switch works, preferably to the level you'd want consciousness explained (perhaps how electons do their thing etc).
Every time I see something that looks like a correlation, I'll insert some sort of magical alternative.
Uh? You have yet to demonstrate a single fact regarding how consciousness is a product of the brain. Whatever I may say consciousness is logically or scientifically has no bearing on what you claim is a scientific fact. So please Paul, just provide just a single fact. Should be simple enough for a scientific genius like you right?Okay, now we know that you really have no idea what sort of evidence would satisfy you. Please demonstrate that we are wrong.
~~ Paul
Do you have a proof of this bald assertion?
~~ Paul
Do you have a definition of nonoverlapping domains that is crisp enough to present a proof that material processes cannot be consciousness? I'm suspicious that there is no such proof, only just-so assertions.Yes. They are entirely nonoverlapping domains. Such as temperature and justice.
Do you have a definition of nonoverlapping domains that is crisp enough to present a proof that material processes cannot be consciousness? I'm suspicious that there is no such proof, only just-so assertions.
~~ Paul
What are NM and PP? Oh, PP must be panpsychism. Whether we have panpsychism depends crucially on its definition.I didn't say they couldn't *be* consciousness...that's a different issue altogether. But if material processes ARE consciousness, then we have NM or PP. Nonoverlapping domains cannot cause each other because the properties they share are the empty set. And if you claim that they CAN, and this is not sophistry, then I say that the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how, in principle, that would be possible. For example, I give you a miscarriage of justice and a hearth of coals, and ask you to demonstrate to me how the former can cause spontaneous ignition in the latter (I am not, of course, talking about indirect causation...)
What are NM and PP? Oh, PP must be panpsychism. Whether we have panpsychism depends crucially on its definition.
I am not saying that nonoverlapping domains can cause each other. I'm saying that the claim they are nonoverlapping is a just-so claim. It requires a proof if we are to eliminate any possible explanations of consciousness.
~~ Paul
There is a difference between organic and inorganic, you do realise that?
Are you implying consciousness is a kind of light switch?
All of us here use the term but though most of us know it means different things to different people we seem to just ignore that.
So, what does the term mean to you?
I thought I was clear (and I suspect that you are being deliberately obtuse to avoid the point - as usual). The explanation of anything can be presented as a series of correlations.
Heat is the cause of boiling water; coffee is a correlation of boiled water, doesn't cause it.
My Best,
Bertha
In my opinion, as well, I believe scientific evidence is pointing away from the brain causing consciousness given the scientific work in NDEs, parapsychology and unconscious psychology.
I wonder how this trend might work. I figure the multiverse will be increasingly abandoned, which guts the God vs Multiverse arguments some pseudoskeptics try to promote. Perhaps more importantly we've been told that among the alternatives to the multiverse is consciousness influencing reality at the subatomic level. Combine that with the challenges to realism from the work of physicists like Zeilinger, along with the abandonment of materialism by certain mainstream scientists, and you open up the door for more acceptance of "fringe" science.
That said, I don't know if one could say that NDEs or Psi divorces the mind from the brain? After all even guys like Braude aren't sure about that, and even when Anthony Flew became a theist he still didn't believe in an afterlife.
Distant planets do interact with us. We can, for example, detect them with the appropriate instruments. So I agree that they are real.
As I said, it is certainly the case that there are real objects that we do not know about. But as soon as you propose an object that cannot interact with us even in principle, then we might as well say that object does not exist.
So the claim begs the question? Anyway, I still think you're making a just-so claim based on unspecified definitions of experiential and nonexperiential. Also, I don't understand how this relates to whether we say consciousness is material processes or consciousness is a product of material processes. It sounds as if you think there is a difference.But Paul, experiential and nonexperiential, are by definition, nonoverlapping domains. The proof is self-contained in the premise. Just as it would be absurd to ask for a proof that the square root of minus one could meet up with you this Sunday for beer and pizza.