Jim Cross wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 12:38 pm
Ashvin,
Science isn't metaphysics. Materialism isn't science. You're confused and trying to apply science to metaphysics or metaphysics to science, I can't even tell which.
Please tell that to the materialists-physicalists, because they have not received the message yet. They confuse physicalist assumptions with the "proper" pursuit of science all the time. You actually did it in another recent thread, where you asserted Hoffman is not involved in scientific pursuit because his models don't "work" according to your own physicalist and dualist assumptions. So I suppose you have not received the message yet either. And I am going further to claim physicalism is not even metaphysics, since it speculates and relies on things like the "history of the Universe before consciousness" which are fundamentally impossible to know. Metaphysics deals with first principles which, IMO, must have some relation to our direct experience and capacity for true knowledge.
So would it satisfy you if I acknowledge that Hoffman is doing science. It is just bad science that doesn't work. I'm speaking especially of his PDA loop which is far too simplistic for modeling how we perceive reality.
I am not looking to be satisfied here. It's clear that we will not even get close to agreeing on any of these philosophical or scientific issues. I hold knowledge to be something completely different than the isolated quantitative facts of the flawed modern approach (which applies to all metaphysical positions). But when you respond and claim I am "confused", I respond to explain why I am not.
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
Please tell that to the materialists-physicalists, because they have not received the message yet. They confuse physicalist assumptions with the "proper" pursuit of science all the time. You actually did it in another recent thread, where you asserted Hoffman is not involved in scientific pursuit because his models don't "work" according to your own physicalist and dualist assumptions. So I suppose you have not received the message yet either. And I am going further to claim physicalism is not even metaphysics, since it speculates and relies on things like the "history of the Universe before consciousness" which are fundamentally impossible to know. Metaphysics deals with first principles which, IMO, must have some relation to our direct experience and capacity for true knowledge.
So would it satisfy you if I acknowledge that Hoffman is doing science. It is just bad science that doesn't work. I'm speaking especially of his PDA loop which is far too simplistic for modeling how we perceive reality.
I am not looking to be satisfied here. It's clear that we will not even get close to agreeing on any of these philosophical or scientific issues. I hold knowledge to be something completely different than the isolated quantitative facts of the flawed modern approach (which applies to all metaphysical positions). But when you respond and claim I am "confused", I respond to explain why I am not.
flawed modern approach (which applies to all metaphysical positions)
Jim Cross wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 12:38 pm
Papanca,
Regarding the secret code and NDEs. They have tried that and nobody has seen the code so far. Of course, we would also need to rule out some experimenter collaboration, deliberate or inadvertent, if somebody did claim to see the code.
A veridical OBE would still show the primacy of consciousness/mind over the "material/physical", i'm sure some convoluted argument can be made even in that case in favor of dualism, but it wouldn't be the most logical conclusion imho.
And yes, i'm aware that there is no conclusive laboratory experiment for veridical NDE/OBE, altough there are a lot of interresting cases (reported by Greyson for example).
Jim Cross wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 12:38 pm
Papanca,
Regarding the secret code and NDEs. They have tried that and nobody has seen the code so far. Of course, we would also need to rule out some experimenter collaboration, deliberate or inadvertent, if somebody did claim to see the code.
A veridical OBE would still show the primacy of consciousness/mind over the "material/physical", i'm sure some convoluted argument can be made even in that case in favor of dualism, but it wouldn't be the most logical conclusion imho.
And yes, i'm aware that there is no conclusive laboratory experiment for veridical NDE/OBE, altough there are a lot of interresting cases (reported by Greyson for example).
I would think that dualism would more or less be equally probable but that is a judgment call and I can how you might think another way.
You might want to take a look at Susan Blackmore's book if you are interested in OBEs and NDEs.
The fact that OBEs can be generated by directly stimulating the temporoparietal junction in the brain forces a quite convoluted argument for the primacy of consciousness.
Jim Cross wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 12:38 pm
Papanca,
Regarding the secret code and NDEs. They have tried that and nobody has seen the code so far. Of course, we would also need to rule out some experimenter collaboration, deliberate or inadvertent, if somebody did claim to see the code.
A veridical OBE would still show the primacy of consciousness/mind over the "material/physical", i'm sure some convoluted argument can be made even in that case in favor of dualism, but it wouldn't be the most logical conclusion imho.
And yes, i'm aware that there is no conclusive laboratory experiment for veridical NDE/OBE, altough there are a lot of interresting cases (reported by Greyson for example).
I would think that dualism would more or less be equally probable but that is a judgment call and I can how you might think another way.
You might want to take a look at Susan Blackmore's book if you are interested in OBEs and NDEs.
The fact that OBEs can be generated by directly stimulating the temporoparietal junction in the brain forces a quite convoluted argument for the primacy of consciousness.
I find the eliminativist position ridiculous to be perfectly honest with you. it reminds me of behaviorism, it's a perfect dead-end i don't waste any more time on.
I also recommend reading Greyson on how those OBE differ from the "normal" OBE/NDE
Despite the common belief among some scientists that unusual electrical activity in the temporal lobe, like that caused by epileptic seizures or stimulation, can provoke experiences like NDEs or out-of-body experiences, we didn’t find that to be true. Other researchers have reported that stimulating the temporal lobe of a patient with an electric current can produce a feeling of the body being distorted, or even a sensation of leaving the body. But there are many important differences between these sensations induced by electrical stimulation and the out-of-body experiences associated with NDEs. Perhaps the most crucial is that patients whose brains are being stimulated describe these sensations as unrealistic dreamlike events, not as things that are really happening, whereas people describe their NDEs as undeniably real events. It’s a bit like watching a war movie compared with actually fighting in a battle. Someone describing being in battle and someone describing a war movie may report seeing similar images and perhaps feeling similar emotions, but fighting in a battle is experienced as obviously real and watching a movie is experienced as an imitation of the real thing.
None of these brain-based models that seemed at first glance to be good candidates for explaining NDEs turned out to be adequate. Exploring these plausible stabs at explanations reminded me of the ancient Indian parable of the blind men and the elephant, which dates back at least to the Buddhist Udana about 2,500 years ago. In this story, a group of blind men who have never before come across an elephant try to grasp its essence by feeling it. One grabs the trunk and says that an elephant is like a water hose. Another grasps a tusk and says an elephant is like a spear. A third feels a leg and says an elephant is like a pillar. Still another touches an ear and says an elephant is like a fan. Each one comes away with a reasonable analogy for what an elephant is like based on his limited subjective perception. But none of them understands the entire elephant.
In some ways, our inadequate models to explain NDEs are also reasonable analogies based on limited subjective perceptions of one or another feature of NDEs. For example, the blissful emotions in NDEs are a bit like the good feelings produced by endorphins, and the visions in NDEs are in some ways like the hallucinations produced by ketamine, and the life review in NDEs could conceivably be compared to the fragmentary memories that can be provoked by temporal lobe stimulation. But while each of these models may give a rough analogy for one limited feature of NDEs, none of them adequately describes the entire experience.
Finally, i don't see how some experiences being provoked by brain stimulation are more threatening to the primacy of consciousness position than drinking alcohol leading to a change of experience.
