It would be easier if you tell me what you don't understand about the post I referred you to.

There is nothing that I don't understand in that post. You asked for a mystery and I gave you one.

Yes, but then I do not believe the distinction in your other post that there are these mental things separable from physical things and have to somehow causally affect them.

Of course, the phenomenon experience is distinct from matter. That is one thing. I am, however, wondering how you could type your thoughts, given that you believe that physicalism can provide an answer to all phenomena?

the phenomenon experience is distinct from matter. — MoK

What is the evidence for this claim?

Dead people don't experience, according to physicalism. The experience is a feature of alive things. So, it is on and off depending on whether we are dealing with a living thing or a dead thing.

I don't see how this example attempts to show what you're saying it does. Dead people don't experience things ok. Living people do, yep.

Where's the experience distinct from matter?

My question is not silly. Considering that your thoughts are mental events and have no physical properties, I wonder how they could affect physical processes, such as typing. Do you have an explanation for that? — MoK

This makes an assumption that NDEs or any paranormal experience involving disembodied spirits (ghosts, reincarnation, etc) challenges Cartesian dualism. It would seem that type of evidence, if accepted as valid, would be amenable to monistic theories. That is, if I can see a ghost, it must be physical. If I can leave my body and see myself on the operating table, then whatever that floating mass is has the ability to see. These are all examples of physical interactions. It takes light to see and soundwaves to hear, and there must be some apparatus to sense them.

My point here is that if we take the mind/body interaction problem seriously, we don't just shrug our shoulders and claim that ghosts exist as a seperate substance in a mysterious way, but we say instead that ghosts must be physical as well. Once you start observing and measuring, you're a physicist, and you need to categorize your discoveries scientifically. That is, it is impossible to physically prove the non-physical.

In modern western societies, a testimony that appeals to clairvoyance falls under misrepresentation of evidence, an inevitable outcome under witness cross examination in relation to critical norms of rational enquiry and expert testimony, possibly resulting in accusations of perjury against the witness. I would hazard a guess that the last time an American court accepted 'spectral' evidence was during the Salem witch trials. — sime

I agree with this generally, but I don't think it's a fair criticism of @Sam's position. That is, in court, if the physical evidence contradicts the testimonial evidence or if the testimonial evidence is not possible under the laws of physics as we know them to be, then then testimonial evidence fails. If it doesn't fit, you must acquit so to speak.

If we accept the priority of the laws of physics over testimony as a given, then it would become impossible to ever challenge the laws of physics as we know them to be by testimony.

To give two differing examples to make this point: If I say I saw Bigfoot, you might challenge that because you don't believe there to be a Bigfoot, but it's not based upon the fact that our laws of physics deny the possibility of there being a Bigfoot. You will listen to my testimony and others and you may or may not believe Bigfoot was seen, but it stands as a possibility that there is a Bigfoot. As a juror, you would be weighing the credibility of the testimony.

If I say I had an NDE and you say that me saying it can never overcome the fact that disembodied spirits are physically impossible, and no matter how convincing I might be, you reject it based upon your belief in the priority of physics over testimony, then you are creating a situation where I can never prove the NDEs exist. As a juror, you would not be weighing the credibility of the testimony. You would be rejecting it as impossible.

You can give a description in terms of what brains do and perhaps how brain relates the perception in of thought.

One can say that money or love or meaning are not strictly physical properties, but that doesn't mean those concepts aren't instantiated in the physical world in such a way that physical modela describe all the events one could possibly associate with any of these things. I would s ay the same goes with consciousness. Ofcourse consciousness is conceptually distinct from the physical just like money is from paper, machine learning from brains, musical theory from the physical vibrations that carry pitch, squiggles on pages from meanings. But that doesn't mean there are inherent dualisms carrying distinctly independent causal powers regarding any of these things. Its just in regards to different levels of explanation that concern different scales of detail regarding patterns that exist in the universe.

Let's assume that there are at least two substances for the sake of discussion: soul and body, for example. We say that these substances are independent if they share no properties in common; otherwise, they are dependent, hence interacting with each other. There is, however, a little problem here: Could we somehow measure the presence of the soul when the person is alive, accepting that the soul and the body are interacting? The answer to this is no if we accept that the soul is a light substance, by light I mean its effect is beyond the precision of our instruments.

I have to say that NDEs are a serious anomaly in physicalism. So we minimally need two substances to explain NDEs and life coherently.

Anyhow, my point in that post was not about NDE. That is my own objection to physicalism.

We have irreducible particles, such as electrons and quarks, each has a set of properties, such as mass, charge, etc. These properties determine how these particles behave. Their behavior, however, is lawful. These particles do not experience anything at all. That is all about physicalism. According to its believers, experience is something extra to physicalism, emerging only under certain conditions, such as when a living brain is present.

I have to say that NDEs are a serious anomaly in physicalism — MoK

:confused:

According to its believers, experience is something extra to physicalism ... — MoK

:monkey:

My point here is that if we take the mind/body interaction problem seriously, we don't just shrug our shoulders and claim that ghosts exist as a seperate substance in a mysterious way, but we say instead that ghosts must be physical as well. Once you start observing and measuring, you're a physicist, and you need to categorize your discoveries scientifically. That is, it is impossible to physically prove the non-physical. — Hanover

:100:

@Sam26

You're trying to make an apple pie with strawberries.

@Hanover gamely pointed out that people can't see without using their eyes, and all of the reports you rely on are of people seeing without their eyes and hearing without their ears. — Srap Tasmaner

:100:

This whole project of treating these stories as testimonial evidence is doomed from the start. — Srap Tasmaner

What other kinds of evidence could there be? The issue is about first-person reports of near-death experiences. The only third-person corroboration that is possible consists of trying to compare what the subject says, with things that other subjects in the environment saw (instruments, clothing, the positions of the furniture and so on.) It's not possible to corroborate it in any other way, as by its very nature, the material in question is experiential, undergone by a subject. So if they are not a source of real data, then ought all such testimonial evidence to have been disallowed from the outset, and no notice taken of it? It's not even a real subject?

My point here is that if we take the mind/body interaction problem seriously, we don't just shrug our shoulders and claim that ghosts exist as a seperate substance in a mysterious way, but we say instead that ghosts must be physical as well. — Hanover

Why must they? Only if you start with the axiom that the only kind of substance in the universe is physical do you arrive at that conclusion. But that’s not a demonstration, it’s a metaphysical presupposition. Even science admits that most of the universe is made of something “dark” we cannot observe directly. The real issue is whether physicalism should be granted by fiat, or whether phenomena themselves should be allowed to test its limits. Otherwise it’s like a prospector with a metal detector declaring that only metal exists, because metal is all she ever finds.

A philosophical challenge, as distinct from evidentiary matters, is what kind of worldview could accomodate near-death reports? Obviously, if you start with the premise that humans are solely physical, and that the mind is solely the activity of the physical brain, then the question is a non-starter. But then, cultures the world over have reported such experiences, along with narratives of other planes of existence, re-birth (and there is substantial corroborated evidence of children with past-life recall) and so on. Might it be that the physicalist worldview is deficient in some respect.

... cultures the world over have reported [FLAT Earth] experiences, along with narratives of other planes of existence, re-birth (and there is substantial corroborated evidence of children with past-life recall) and so on. Might it be that the [ROUND Earth] worldview is deficient in some respect. — Wayfarer

:meh:

(argumentum ad populum)

Might it be that the physicalist worldview is deficient in some respect. — Wayfarer

I've not argued a physicalist worldview. I've only argued that paranormal experience doesn't offer proof of substance dualism. My basis isn't just that physical monism offers a possible explanation, but it's that it's contradictory to use physical evidence to prove the non-physical.

That is, you can claim souls, gods, and ghosts exist, but you can't show me pictures of anything other than their physical attributes. If I can see it, it's physical.

Empirical proof for the existence of the non physical simply makes no sense.

If I can see [experience] it, it's physical. — Hanover

it's contradictory to use physical evidence to prove the non-physical. — Hanover

You’re right that “empirical proof of the non-physical” makes no sense - if by proof we mean showing a physical photograph. But philosophy has long understood that the human condition is metaxy — “in-between” the physical and the intelligible, the mortal and the divine. Plato, for example, describes the soul as dwelling in this in-betweenness.

So the question isn’t whether the non-physical can be photographed, but whether our lived condition points to realities that are not exhaustible by physical descriptions. To reduce everything to “what can be photographed” is already to close off the very dimension that metaxy points towards. But on the other hand, these first-person reports may correspond to insights that are owed to this condition of 'liminality'.

I've only argued that paranormal experience doesn't offer proof of substance dualism. — Hanover

I take “substance dualism” to be implicitly Cartesian — res cogitans as a second kind of stuff. But I think that model is flawed, and Descartes himself could never explain how such purported substances interact. The deeper issue is how to conceive the non-physical at all. What if it isn’t another substance, nor any kind of objective “thing.” Maybe if there is a non-physical, it is a dimension of subject-hood which manifests only in, for and through subjects.

These particles do not experience anything at all. That is all about physicalism. According to its believers, experience is something extra to physicalism, emerging only under certain conditions, such as when a living brain is present. — MoK

We don't know if particles have feeling or not. There is no evidence that they do, but there's no evidence that they lack it either.

Well, the point ought to be simple, show me an example of someone or something thinking or experiencing anything without a brain. If that can be done, then the "non-physical" proposal can be taken seriously.

We don't know if particles have feeling or not. There is no evidence that they do, but there's no evidence that they lack it either. — Manuel

If particles experience, then we are not dealing with physicalism.

Well, the point ought to be simple, show me an example of someone or something thinking or experiencing anything without a brain. If that can be done, then the "non-physical" proposal can be taken seriously. — Manuel

I don't know about thinking, but there are examples of NDEs that refer to experiencing certain things which is impossible, given the circumstances, including that there is no brain activity.

What is our brain made of? Literal ideas? That doesn't make sense.

Ah, well, ok, if you are talking about NDE's, then just say you are a dualist. That's fine.

What is our brain made of? Literal ideas? That doesn't make sense. — Manuel

Ideas are another anomaly in physicalism. How could they be created by the brain? How could we talk about them? etc.

Ideas are another anomaly in physicalism. How could they be created by the brain? How could we talk about them? etc. — MoK

How does ChatGPT do it?

What other kinds of evidence could there be? — Wayfarer

Take a step back and consider what we're talking about here.

I don't keep up with this stuff, but Wikipedia seems to believe there is still no evidence for extra-sensory perception that is broadly accepted among scientists. So I haven't missed anything.

That's the state of research when you have a definitely living subject in the lab.

So now we're asked to accept that there have been thousands if not millions of cases of indisputable and objectively verified cases of extra-sensory perception, where the perceiver is dead. And on the basis of that evidence, we prove that the perceiver is non-physical.

If anything does, that qualifies as "huge, if true."

There are a great number of interesting issues raised by eyewitness testimony. We've talked about some of them in this thread on and off over the last eight years.

But let's put all that to the side. Why don't you tell me why it turned out to be so much easier to prove there is such a thing as extra-sensory perception when the subject of the perception is dead.

I don't keep up with this stuff, but Wikipedia seems to believe there is still no evidence for extra-sensory perception that is broadly accepted among scientists. — Srap Tasmaner

I suggest Wikipedia may not be a reilable source for matters of this kind. There is a group known as Guerilla Sceptics, who methodically edit or redact anything pertaining to PSI or paranormal phenomena on Wikipedia. Case in point was a story about ten years ago concerning a controversial TED talk given by Rupert Sheldrake, which was subsequently removed from the archives of past TED lectures, due to his criticism of scientific materialism (about which he had published a book, The Science Delusion.) There were 'editing wars' over Sheldrake's Wikipedia entry for months or years after that, with various partisan editors trying to either restore or delete material in favour or critical of Sheldrake.

As to general evidence for psi or esp - it's not a battle I want to get involved in as it often is subject of considerable animus. Dean Radin seems the go-to for acfual scientific research but the only book I've read of his seems to spend huge amounts of time on what can be considered statistically significant, based on meta-data research. The result is that there's always enough margin for the believers to believe, and the sceptics to doubt.

But this being a philosophy forum, and not the National Enquirer, I think the significant philosophical question is, why the controversy? I think the suggestion that there might be states beyond physical death re-opens questions that most would rather leave closed. A quote from a review of one of Carl Sagan's books:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

So PSI, NDE, and past-life recall all appear to open that door a crack.

I'll concede that I'm more in favour of a kind of 'naturalistic supernaturalism', as it were, which considers the possibility that as life and mind may not be explainable solely in terms of physical laws and forces, that there might be some sense in which they accomodate these kinds of research. At the very least, I'm open to the possibility, in the way that those committed to the physicalist view can't be.

//ps// although I will add that I don't believe all the cases that Sam has presented can simply be written off as hallucinations or deceptions. There's too much data.//

How does ChatGPT do it? — wonderer1

Ideas are mental events that only conscious things can perceive. Ideas, therefore, are not shared by AI. So, AI cannot create ideas.

Ideas are mental events that only conscious things can perceive. Ideas, therefore, are not shared by AI. So, AI cannot create ideas. — MoK

I note that you backpeddled away from saying talking about ideas is not possible on physicalism since I think few informed people would claim that ChatGPT is incapable of talking about ideas.

So that leaves creating ideas. Why think that ChatGPT or other modern AIs can't create ideas? Do you have more than the bare assertion that AIs can't create ideas?

AI is not conscious, for sure, so it cannot experience ideas. AI's output has no meaning to AI as well. Ideas, meaning, thoughts, etc., are conscious things, and they are shared among conscious things. You can try it yourself: Define the idea as a mental event to AI and ask it if it can create a new idea.

Now you've shifted the goal post, from creating new ideas, to being conscious of new ideas.

Why think consciousness of an idea is necessary for an idea to be created? Consider the experience of having an epiphany, where one becomes conscious of a new idea which developed subconsciously.

You need more than stipulations and bare assertions.

Now you've shifted the goal post, from creating new ideas, to being conscious of new ideas. — wonderer1

I didn't shift anything, considering my first reply and second reply to you.

Why think consciousness of an idea is necessary for an idea to be created? — wonderer1

That is true, given the definition of an idea as a mental event.

Consider the experience of having an epiphany, where one becomes conscious of a new idea which developed subconsciously. — wonderer1

Both the conscious and subconscious minds can create a new idea.