Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Naughtorious]

No, I'm implying that if you research the "Relative State" interpretation of quantum mechanics you might find something interesting.

MWI is a theory that isn't peer-reviewed. QM alone isn't known to be well grounded. QM compared to Science is like playing pool with a rope with a blindfold on. Could you explain to me why you want me to research something that isn't positive?

[Teh]

(Nested quote removed.)


MWI is a theory that isn't peer-reviewed. QM alone isn't known to be well grounded. QM compared to Science is like playing pool with a rope with a blindfold on. Could you explain to me why you want me to research something that isn't positive?

First of all, QM is the deepest, furthest reaching, and most tested theory ever constructed. It has never failed a single test, and has predicted extraordinary things which have turned out to be true. It is the most accurate and precise theory ever made. I have even heard estimates that 1/3 of the US economy is based on QM! Many people believe (and with sound justification) QM to be complete.

Others, however suggest that QM hints at a deeper reality, which you quite rightly spotted is the "MWI". Where you are wrong however, is it's status in the peer-reviewed literature. There are many hundreds of papers concerning MWI, and it is gaining ground - not that I care about that.

There are some deep underlying problems in physics that MWI purports to solve. These are issues of probability, free will, and even epistemology and ethics. I kid you not!

You have a choice. Either our deepest theory is about what really exists (MWI) and we get all this other stuff for free, or it is about what we know.

[Naughtorious]

You have a choice. Either our deepest theory is about what really exists (MWI) and we get all this other stuff for free, or it is about what we know.

So I was misinformed. What exactly is the question you are mainly wanting me to examine?

[Syamsu]

As I keep pointing out, ad nauseum, everyone, in practice, believes in freedom and are incapable of really disbelieving it. What would be the point in believing one thing in practice and another in theory? The theoretical belief in freedom could only be a problem if it was creating negative tendencies in society. I can't see how this is possible. Any functioning society requires that individuals see themselves as free, responsible moral agents. How can we believe in freedom and see it as an illusion at the same time? Might be possible for a subtle thinker, but surely not the average person! If we really believed freedom was an illusion then we would stop praising and blaming others for their actions (which might actually be a good thing!), but we would also cease to feel in the least responsible for our own actions, other than, for example, the way we might think of the snake as responsible for biting the victim (and that would probably be a bad thing!).

Psychological research indicates that disbelief in free will leads to automated modes of behaviour. So the brain has some plasticity to act in an automated way, or in a free way, and disbelief in free will tends towards automation.

Prosocial Benefits of Feeling Free: Disbelief in Free Will Increases Aggression and Reduces Helpfulness http://psp.sagepub.com/content/35/2/260

I think we can go very far in speculating about the societal influence of the ideology of determinism as it comes from science, the influence is very large. And not only is most science aimed against freedom, it is more aimed against subjectivity. So that when a scientist does grudingly acknowledge there is freedom, then they will say that therefore it is random and subjectivity does not apply to the agency of the decision (and it is not even a decision).

So we can speculate that modern science tends to destroy emotions of people, that it generates ideologies where emotions and freedom play a subordinate role, like nazism and communism, that it destroys religion (because it is subjective). Children and youngsters are drilled in school and university to reject subjectivity in reaching a conclusion, and only accept objectivity, instead of having proper domains for both. That works through in their friendships. Subjectivity becomes to play a more subordinate role in how they look at themselves and others, resulting in beauty, and happiness and such, to tend to become more objectified.

etc. etc. etc. this science culture is the main player in intellectual climate of opinion.

[Janus D Strange]

(Nested quote removed.)


First of all, QM is the deepest, furthest reaching, and most tested theory ever constructed. It has never failed a single test, and has predicted extraordinary things which have turned out to be true. It is the most accurate and precise theory ever made. I have even heard estimates that 1/3 of the US economy is based on QM! Many people believe (and with sound justification) QM to be complete.

Others, however suggest that QM hints at a deeper reality, which you quite rightly spotted is the "MWI". Where you are wrong however, is it's status in the peer-reviewed literature. There are many hundreds of papers concerning MWI, and it is gaining ground - not that I care about that.

There are some deep underlying problems in physics that MWI purports to solve. These are issues of probability, free will, and even epistemology and ethics. I kid you not!

You have a choice. Either our deepest theory is about what really exists (MWI) and we get all this other stuff for free, or it is about what we know.

I checked out the Theorem you cited, admittedly only at Wikipedia, and found this:

"Conway and Kochen do not prove that free will does exist. The definition of "free will" used in the proof of this theorem is simply that an outcome is "not determined" by prior conditions, and some philosophers strongly dispute the equivalence of "not determined" with free will. Some critics argue that the theorem only applies to deterministic models.[2] Others have argued that the indeterminism that Conway and Kochen claim to have established was already assumed in the premises of their proof.[3]"

If this is accurate, the theory is hardly uncontroversial, and I'm not sure why you think you are entitled to claim that science has "proved" free will.

[Quotidian]

So we can speculate that modern science tends to destroy emotions of people, that it generates ideologies where emotions and freedom play a subordinate role, like nazism and communism, that it destroys religion (because it is subjective). Children and youngsters are drilled in school and university to reject subjectivity in reaching a conclusion, and only accept objectivity, instead of having proper domains for both. That works through in their friendships. Subjectivity becomes to play a more subordinate role in how they look at themselves and others, resulting in beauty, and happiness and such, to tend to become more objectified.

I agree. Note my signature .

[Janus D Strange]

I think we can go very far in speculating about the societal influence of the ideology of determinism as it comes from science, the influence is very large. And not only is most science aimed against freedom, it is more aimed against subjectivity. So that when a scientist does grudingly acknowledge there is freedom, then they will say that therefore it is random and subjectivity does not apply to the agency of the decision (and it is not even a decision).

So we can speculate that modern science tends to destroy emotions of people, that it generates ideologies where emotions and freedom play a subordinate role, like nazism and communism, that it destroys religion (because it is subjective). Children and youngsters are drilled in school and university to reject subjectivity in reaching a conclusion, and only accept objectivity, instead of having proper domains for both. That works through in their friendships. Subjectivity becomes to play a more subordinate role in how they look at themselves and others, resulting in beauty, and happiness and such, to tend to become more objectified.

etc. etc. etc. this science culture is the main player in intellectual climate of opinion.

There is a trend towards objectification of freedom, beauty, happiness etc., but it is not due to modern science, as such. It is due to the way science has been co-opted by consumer culture and other cultural manifestations of the profit motive.

This situation has resulted in a positivist intellectual culture, which is neurotically demanding ANSWERS. This bespeaks a deep ontological insecurity. It manifests as 'scientism', the belief in science as the saviour. Science may be useful in saving our bodies, and rightly has nothing to say about our souls, but SCIENTISTIC thinking will surely discard our souls as a useless, outmoded illusion.

A deluded belief in the importance of 'accuracy' to some positivist notion of 'reality', in 'metaphysical' matters, is a far less important criterion for determining what we OUGHT to believe than emotional and spiritual well-being. The inverted commas in 'metaphysical' are there because I want to make it clear that we cannot coherently make any claims about the nature of any OBJECTIVE reality. The most we can hope for is to try to determine how we ought to think about ourselves. And while it is not possible to arrive at any completely true or verifiable, in the scientific sense, way of thinking about ourselves, (for very good reasons and thankfully so) it is certainly possible to arrive at an understanding of how we ought NOT to think about ourselves.

Science, as such, does not make such claims, as mentioned above, about objective reality; it deals with the world of phenomena, of human experience of empirical objects and processes. Its rightful domain of activity consists in understanding physical processes, and this understanding is obviously of use in the areas of medicine, health and environment and so on. Science is ethically NEUTRAL, it offers no criteria at all for how we ought to behave in moral matters. Morality itself is predicated on freedom, and any and all attempts to weaken or undermine the principles of freedom and responsibility should be vigorously opposed and exposed for what they are, a kind of intellectual fascism.

For this reason, to repeat once more to the point of tedium, I oppose 'compatibilism', or any (necessarily incoherent) attempt to bring together the concepts of 'freedom' and 'determinism', in relation to the human subject because the two concepts are simply not compatible, and any synthesis inevitably would weaken our conception of freedom. Only Kant's synthesis works: as physical beings we are determined (and only if physicality IS determined, and even that is controversial), as subjects we are free, both in the fullest senses of the words.

[Toadny]

in the case of 'understanding consciousness' we are not different from what we seek to know. And that puts the question in an altogether different category from (for instance) biology or astronomy.

A biologist studying vision might use the eye to study the eye. We can only ever be part of the world looking at the other parts, we can't step outside the universe and see any part of it objectively.

Of course consciousness is in a different category to astronomy, and yes it presents unique difficulties for the understanding, but we are currently making astounding and unprecedented progress in overcoming at least some of those difficulties.

So, I think there is a deep confusion at work in this attempt to 'understand how the brain works'. It is based on a particular paradigm, that of representative realism. We assume that the mind (or the brain) forms an image of the world, in something like the way a computer stores information. But, if this is true, then our picture of this scenario, is also a representation - a picture of a picture, if you like.

I don't know if I have explained that very well, but it is an idea I am going to keep working on.

You didn't explain it very well. Instead of spending time explaining what is wrong with other people's wrong ideas, maybe it would be better to try to work towards the right ideas?

I'll start. In the most fundamental description of consciousness, the world and the brain, there is no "image". If we are talking about consciousness of a visual experience, there is the light interacting with the brain systems and there is the experience of seeing a flash of light in the darkness. I repeat: no image, and nobody looking at an image.

However, when we look at the brain to see how it works, we see what look very like images. For example, one group of researchers identified areas of activity in the brain associated with seeing written numerals, and areas that "lit up" formed the shape of the numeral the subject was looking at. Another group found an area of the mouse brain that is laid out in the same pattern as the mouse's whiskers.







or whatever it is. And if they cut off some of the baby mouse's whiskers, the "image" of the whiskers in the brain would reflect this.






So with this kind of research, it is difficult not to talk about the brain creating images in different ways and at different levels, even if philosophically we understand that this is only a useful fiction.

Does that seem right?

[Janus D Strange]

(Nested quote removed.)


A biologist studying vision might use the eye to study the eye. We can only ever be part of the world looking at the other parts, we can't step outside the universe and see any part of it objectively.

Of course consciousness is in a different category to astronomy, and yes it presents unique difficulties for the understanding, but we are currently making astounding and unprecedented progress in overcoming at least some of those difficulties.


(Nested quote removed.)


You didn't explain it very well. Instead of spending time explaining what is wrong with other people's wrong ideas, maybe it would be better to try to work towards the right ideas?

I'll start. In the most fundamental description of consciousness, the world and the brain, there is no "image". If we are talking about consciousness of a visual experience, there is the light interacting with the brain systems and there is the experience of seeing a flash of light in the darkness. I repeat: no image, and nobody looking at an image.

However, when we look at the brain to see how it works, we see what look very like images. For example, one group of researchers identified areas of activity in the brain associated with seeing written numerals, and areas that "lit up" formed the shape of the numeral the subject was looking at. Another group found an area of the mouse brain that is laid out in the same pattern as the mouse's whiskers.







or whatever it is. And if they cut off some of the baby mouse's whiskers, the "image" of the whiskers in the brain would reflect this.






So with this kind of research, it is difficult not to talk about the brain creating images in different ways and at different levels, even if philosophically we understand that this is only a useful fiction.

Does that seem right?

No, because you're entirely forgetting that all we 'know' is sensation, emotion and conception, and none of these can be coherently reduced to something 'physical', whatever it is we mean by physical. So attempts to understand consciousness in 'physical' terms are doomed from the start. 'Physical' itself is a concept. The 'physical' can be understood in conceptual terms, the 'conceptual' cannot be understood in physical terms, because our understanding is....you guessed it, conceptual. We have a concept of causality. It seems to be applicable to the 'physical' world. It is not, and can never be applicable to 'something' we can only conceive of as undifferentiated, i.e. consciousness.

You're forgetting that all this thought-experiment you have cooked up is just that a thought-experiment, occurring in your consciousness...Oh, dear!

[Quotidian]

Of course consciousness is in a different category to astronomy, and yes it presents unique difficulties for the understanding, we are currently making astounding and unprecedented progress in overcoming at least some of those difficulties.

Well, I don't agree either. First, 'consciousness' is not an objective phenomenon. It is not something in the world. Behaviourism recognized this in the 1930's and attempted to eliminate it altogether from science. Of course this was a dismal failure, notwithstanding the modest accomplishments of behavourial therapy for particular kinds of problems.

I think your overall view is what I would characterise as 'historicism'. This the view that things that were once understood through the prisms of religious or metaphysical thinking, will now benefit from the objectivity of the 'scientific method', which has provided such spectacular advances with regards to technology, energy, manufacturing, and so on.

But this inevitably ends up treating humans as objects rather than subjects. There are a number of people here who are already pointing that out, so I won't re-state their objections.

when we look at the brain to see how it works, we see what look very like images. For example, one group of researchers identified areas of activity in the brain associated with seeing written numerals, and areas that "lit up" formed the shape of the numeral the subject was looking at

Not so. 'The image in the brain' is exactly that: an image. An image might 'represent' something, but it is not the thing that it represents, clearly. So for you to infer that 'the image is the thing that it represents' is an inference. You are inferring equivalence here, on the basis of a rational conjecture. I don't think you can demonstrate how a rational conjecture can be portrayed as a material object of any kind. No kind of image, pattern, or activity, is a rational conjecture. It might represent a rational conjecture, but in order to establish that, you need to engage in rational conjecture. And, I say, this act of rationalizing is epistemically prior to empirical analysis. It is innate to the perceiving consciousness.

This is a controversial point, in a controversial topic, and there will be plenty who disagree with it, but it needs to be stated.

[Toadny]

No, because you're entirely forgetting that all we 'know' is sensation, emotion and conception, and none of these can be coherently reduced to something 'physical', whatever it is we mean by physical.

Did I say I wanted to reduce everything to something physical?

So attempts to understand consciousness in 'physical' terms are doomed from the start. 'Physical' itself is a concept. The 'physical' can be understood in conceptual terms, the 'conceptual' cannot be understood in physical terms, because our understanding is....you guessed it, conceptual. We have a concept of causality. It seems to be applicable to the 'physical' world. It is not, and can never be applicable to 'something' we can only conceive of as undifferentiated, i.e. consciousness.

You're forgetting that all this thought-experiment you have cooked up is just that a thought-experiment, occurring in your consciousness...Oh, dear!

None of this seems relevant to my ideas about the world. Do you have any ideas of your own to put forward?

[Gene16180]

Murderous rage is my natural emotional response to whomever doesn't acknowledge my human spirit subjectively, regardless if it is a scientist or any other.

This is a philosophy forum, not a support group. If you can’t handle criticisms of your beliefs than why do you post them here? My opinions aren’t exactly celebrated either and encounter a good deal of criticism, except I don’t respond with harebrained diatribe. In fact I enjoy having my opinions challenged as should anyone who appreciates the philosophical tradition.

Well what is a reasonable emotional response then when all your emotions are directly attacked in a deliberate, open and intellectually sophisticated way by a very large group of people with much influence in your life?

An unfavorable critique of your views is not synonymous with an attack on your person, and your kvetching over criticism in general has become rather vexing. Who, btw, is this “very large group” with such strong influence on your life?

Psychological research indicates that disbelief in free will leads to automated modes of behaviour. So the brain has some plasticity to act in an automated way, or in a free way, and disbelief in free will tends towards automation.

In a different thread on psychology (http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... ead#unread), you provided a rather fatuous caricature of its methods and credentials concluding that it wasn’t a real science. Here you’re using psychological research to support your views… which is it?



Quotidian,

I see no contradictions in either statement. The goal of pure science is to understand the world. Advancements – moral, philosophical or technological, may or may not ensue as bi-products (though in my opinion they do).

What sorts of discoveries have 'profound implications for classical philosophy?

For example, what happens to our traditional notion of the unified “self” when we encounter a split-brain patient whose hemispheres now perceive the world independently of one-another? This is just one example, there are myriad others for those who want to look. Like it or not, scientists are now beginning to study everything from spirituality to aesthetics.

But I am suspicious about any neurological analysis as amounting to a statement about philosophy of mind, because it is implicitly materialist. The philosophical quest for insight, self-knowledge, and ethical purification is not dependent on brain science.

Are you implying that the way in which our brains process information, perceive the world and create our subjective experience of reality has nothing to do with the above mentioned quest? If the answer for you is “no” then don’t expect any “philosophical advancement” from neuroscience.

That is rather patronizing to religious philosophers, isn't it? I can't help but notice you reflexively categorize religion with 'magic and superstition and the rest of the brood'.

Historically speaking, most religion for most people has been dogmatic, superstitious and characterized by magical thinking. Even today, go into any place of worship and ask how many people believe in a god who might excise the occasional tumor or send an earthquake to keep the sinners in check. What I mostly criticize is the prototypical version of religion which has generally been in the spotlight, exerted its dominance on society and seeks to continue doing so. I don’t think it’s possible to deny that this exists. What you can do, and seem to be doing, is to deny that such religion has any merit, or that it’s not a legitimate form of religion. That’s fine by me, but keep in mind that by doing so you causally dismiss the god and religious experience of billions of people worldwide. So be careful calling other people condescending… at least my criticisms are clear and forthright.

‘Hatred’ might be a bit strong, but ‘intense distrust’ would not be far off the mark, would it?

No, it wouldn’t. Science does generally have ‘intense distrust’ towards revelation, doctrine or tradition as explanations of how the world operates. Is it wrong to do so? In fact, it has an ‘intense distrust’ towards all truth claims, including those of fellow scientists… this is called ‘skepticism’ and without it science would become worthless.

Science out-modes religious explanations

Everything we understand scientifically was once explained by religion. So yes, it does tend to do that.

By defining ‘nature’ so as to exclude what we understand as ‘supernatural’, we have already adopted a stance as to what to consider and what to exclude.

Now this is interesting. Perhaps you can elaborate on who is this “we” that “understands” the supernatural, and of this enlightened subset, who has the authority to say what should or shouldn’t be deemed a natural phenomenon?

So ideas that ‘sound mystical’ might be excluded on that basis, rather than on their merits.

An absolute falsehood. Some of the most ‘mystical’ ideas I’ve ever encountered have come from science. Who in their right mind would possibly believe the voodoo of quantum physics were it not for the surgically accurate predictions it successfully makes? Black holes, the Big Bang, curved space, the idea that time isn’t absolute… we’re becoming accustomed to these concepts and yet they still strike me as incredibly mysterious, esoteric and “mystical”, if you like. Imagine how they must’ve sounded when first proposed. I would actually be very open to the idea that consciousness could somehow dissociate from the brain, as the OP suggests, if sufficient evidence existed. There is none. What exists in plentitude are the hopes, fears and desires of people who desperately want such beliefs to be true.


Janus,

If someone wants to argue that they will not believe in the reality of anything 'indeterminate', then I woud say "Fine, good luck with that, you have just announced your intention to cancel your membership in the club of humanity'!

I don’t think anyone is denying the existence of what you might call “the indeterminate”. A few points. First, an indeterminate answer is not the same thing as a nonexistent answer, we may simply be limited by our tools or intellectual capacities. What is indeterminate to us may be fully determinate to some hypothetical advanced race. An extension on this point is – that which may be indeterminate today may not be so tomorrow. History is rife with examples.

The problems arise when it arrogates to itself the right to pronounce on other intellectual disciplines, such as philosophy, and propound substantialist metaphysical theories about reality, when it should rightly stick to its limited function of describing and understanding physical processes.

Excuse me, but who are you to tell science that it cannot address certain topics? It’s true that philosophy (and religion) were first on the scene, and historically speaking, may questions were designated to these disciplines. But I’m sorry, philosophy does not own any question or field of inquiry. There is indeed a growing overlap between the topics addressed by philosophy, theology and science. In every epoch, people have tried to delineate the limits of science, often for personal or strategic reasons, and yet how many times has science broken through? Perhaps the dead-end is right around the corner, but I cannot take seriously anyone who claims to know this for sure.

Unfortunately neuroscience hasn't hit a dead end; it hasn't even started down the road. That is, it has started down a road, towards a description and understanding of the determinate, physical processes of the brain. But it hasn't made even the first step down the road, towards a description and understanding of the determinate, physical processes of consciousness, because consciousness is not observable. Does this make consciousness NOTHING? Who knows even what that might mean? But it does make it NO-THING, and consequently entirely outside the domain of THINGS, which are all that science is, in principle, equipped to deal with.

First of all, all sorts of things which are unobservable can be measured, or at least inferred. But I digress. I have nothing against people who are skeptical, so long as their skepticism is fair and unbiased. If it’s your belief that the quest for consciousness is ultimately futile, that there are no facts or correct solutions - that’s fine by me. I personally may not agree with you but can certainly understand this position. However, if this is the case, then I expect you to be equally skeptical towards all truth claims on the matter, whether they come from philosophy, theology or any other discipline. If, on the other hand, you believe that there may be a solution, or some facts to be known, or at least objective progress and clarification to be made, then excluding science before it has even begun is imo biased and myopic.



Logicus,

I know, Gene, that this will appear absurd to you. You, like all of us, were raised in a culture where the scientific mode of thought is the underlying metaphysic of our lives. It is difficult to think in any other terms. Trust me, my ideas are not as radical as some here, but I do harbor some different notions. Take them or leave them, but you might give it some thought.

No, it doesn’t necessarily appear absurd. But first let me deal with the tacit accusation that I’ve had my ideology prepackaged by society and should try “thinking for myself”. I am not sure what culture you were raised in but mine was dominated by dualism and religiosity, not any “scientific mode”. In fact, my opinions often placed me into a vilified and poorly understood minority. Not until graduate school did I really begin encountering people whose views on these matters resembled my own. Your ideas are not all that radical as most people in most societies throughout the world subscribe to one form of dualism or another. Thus, I can easily turn the same accusations back onto you and probably make a much stronger case of it.

But back to the topic – I’m actually quite open to the possibility of dualism, at least in theory. If science has taught me anything it’s that reality is much stranger than whatever we can imagine and one should be ready to restructure their views if the evidence calls for it. I have given thought to what you said. Now what? Your claims are neither testable nor falsifiable. The world is filled with such explanations, they’re not particularly difficult to come up with and imo so far from being right that they’re not even wrong. On what grounds then should I believe you and not the guy who thinks we are computer programs being run by some superior alien species? At least the OP has tried to provide some evidence, albeit not very good. But let’s take NDEs. Some believe they may be worth exploring and have proposed to put random number generators in operating rooms so that they could only be visible from the ceiling. Suppose this is carried out by a team of reputable researchers and over time we begin to amass a substantial database of people who’ve correctly reported the numbers following an NDE. I would be the first to admit that this poses a very serious challenge to my position and that we should begin studying this further. My mind can easily be changed and has been changed before, however, the evidence in this case is simply not forthcoming. But enough about me - what would it take to change your mind?

On the other hand, we have a long history of research which documents the effects of the brain on behavior and phenomenology. The annals of neuropsychology and neurology are a tragic testament to the importance of the brain over any other organ. Damage can result in the loss of very specific abilities i.e seeing faces, perceiving motion, recognizing animals. Or, higher cognitive functions – storing memories, understanding metaphors, experiencing emotions, engaging in philosophical discussions. So even if you believe that consciousness is separate, you have no choice but to admit that it’s rather hopelessly entrenched in the physical brain. There isn’t a single ability in the arsenal of the human mind which cannot be perturbed or destroyed through the brain and this is precisely what we would expect to find if the mind was contingent upon and a creation of the evolved central nervous system.

[Quotidian]

Historically speaking, most religion for most people has been dogmatic, superstitious and characterized by magical thinking. Even today, go into any place of worship and ask how many people believe in a god who might excise the occasional tumor or send an earthquake to keep the sinners in check. What I mostly criticize is the prototypical version of religion which has generally been in the spotlight, exerted its dominance on society and seeks to continue doing so. I don’t think it’s possible to deny that this exists. What you can do, and seem to be doing, is to deny that such religion has any merit, or that it’s not a legitimate form of religion. That’s fine by me, but keep in mind that by doing so you causally dismiss the god and religious experience of billions of people worldwide. So be careful calling other people condescending… at least my criticisms are clear and forthright.

What I'm doing is analysing such questions as those we are considering, from the viewpoint of philosophy of religion, and a well-informed hermeneutic framework. You consistently adopt the 'lowest common denominator' approach, like the 'new atheists', whereby the most extreme, least intelligent, and most intolerant representatives of religion are taken as typical. Then, if anyone responds from a more informed perspective, they are told that they are 'not representing real religion' and that they are therefore 'intolerant'. I think the bottom line here is that you simply believe that religion is a delusion. That's the way you come across, anyway:

Everything we understand scientifically was once explained by religion.

There is some truth in this, but it is also a tremendous over-simplification. 'Religion' incorporates so many different kinds of ideas, practices, attitudes, that to regard as being an homogenous set of ideas in this way, is what I am referring to here and elsewhere as 'historical positivism'.

Indeed there were elements of 'religion', like 'thunder is the anger of the Gods', and so on, which of course ought to be replaced by rational explanations. But there are entire other levels of meaning in the major religions, which deal with much deeper questions, about which science has nothing meaningful to say (and of which you show little awareness, I might add).

For example, what happens to our traditional notion of the unified “self” when we encounter a split-brain patient whose hemispheres now perceive the world independently of one-another?

Subjectively, they are never able to be aware of that, as I understand it. I regard it as axiomatic that consciousness is only ever experienced in the singular.

Are you implying that the way in which our brains process information, perceive the world and create our subjective experience of reality has nothing to do with the above mentioned quest?

I am of the view that it is not necessary to understand the physical workings of the brain, in order to reach the goals of philosophy, as distinct from neuroscience. The field of philosophy, the primary datum, if you like, is the raw material of experience. I approach this through contemplative discipline, and the perspectives of Western philosophy. This isn't to deny the utility of neuroscience in its own right and for its own purposes. But recall the first dictum of philosophy: know yourself. I don't think this needs to be mediated by electronic devices. I don't think we learn to understand profound existential truths by examining FMRi data. Do you?

By defining ‘nature’ so as to exclude what we understand as ‘supernatural’, we have already adopted a stance as to what to consider and what to exclude.

Now this is interesting. Perhaps you can elaborate on who is this “we” that “understands” the supernatural, and of this enlightened subset, who has the authority to say what should or shouldn’t be deemed a natural phenomenon?

This is being discussed in numerous threads, in regards to the limits of naturalism. But, I will give two examples. One is the fact that the 'many-worlds' and also 'multiple universes' theories are being advanced, specifically so as to avoid the implications of the requirement of the conscious observer, in regards to 'the measurement problem', and the argument from the 'Antrhopic Principle', on the other.

For instance, this New Scientist article, The Genesis Problem, gives details of how Hawkings wishes to avoid the idea that 'the Universe had a beginning'. And why? Because the implication seems to support ID theories. Hawking, is, as we know, very influential in such questions. So it would not be at all fitting for a vocal supporter of atheism to support any such idea. So, various alternatives will be canvassed....

There's another similar example from an article on multiverses in Scientific American:

A remarkable fact about our universe is that physical constants have just the right values needed to allow for complex structures, including living things. Steven Weinberg, Martin Rees, Leonard Susskind and others contend that an exotic multiverse provides a tidy explanation for this apparent coincidence: if all possible values occur in a large enough collection of universes, then viable ones for life will surely be found somewhere. This reasoning has been applied, in particular, to explaining the density of the dark energy that is speeding up the expansion of the universe today. I agree that the multiverse is a possible valid explanation for the value of this density; arguably, it is the only scientifically based option we have right now. But we have no hope of testing it observationally. Additionally, most analyses of the issue assume the basic equations of physics are the same everywhere, with only the constants differing--but if one takes the multiverse seriously, this need not be so [see "Looking for Life in the Multiverse," by Alejandro Jenkins and Gilad Perez; SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, January 2010].

So, despite the vast extravagances of 'multiple universes', these provide a 'tidy explanation' for the fact that we live in a so-called 'Goldilocks Universe'.

There are thousands of such examples.

I would actually be very open to the idea that consciousness could somehow dissociate from the brain, as the OP suggests, if sufficient evidence existed. There is none.

What would such 'evidence' consist of? And how do you know 'there is none'?

[Gene16180]

What I'm doing is analysing such questions as those we are considering, from the viewpoint of philosophy of religion, and a well-informed hermeneutic framework. You consistently adopt the 'lowest common denominator' approach, like the 'new atheists', whereby the most extreme, least intelligent, and most intolerant representatives of religion are taken as typical. Then, if anyone responds from a more informed perspective, they are told that they are 'not representing real religion' and that they are therefore 'intolerant'.

First of all, I never said that religious philosophy was entirely vacuous, just like I don’t think Greek mythology is vacuous or devoid of philosophical insight despite a strong foundation in the supernatural. I understand that historically many important conversations occurred in a religious context. However, I think any myth or fairy tale can actually be imbued with philosophical depth, and we can certainly appreciate the latter without believing the former, as is already the case with all the religions which are now extinct and uncontroversially referred to as mythology.

The enlightened theologians you keep referring to are a minority and I have no problem acknowledging and discussing their views as well. What I criticize is precisely what is typical, and powerful, and influential amongst religion in society. Just read the myriad surveys concerning what the average person believes about their faith and its specific truth claims. The stats speak for themselves and I really don’t think it’s a valid move to keep implying that my criticisms refer to some crazy fringe and not the majority.

There is some truth in this, but it is also a tremendous over-simplification. 'Religion' incorporates so many different kinds of ideas, practices, attitudes, that to regard as being an homogenous set of ideas in this way, is what I am referring to here and elsewhere as 'historical positivism'.

Indeed there were elements of 'religion', like 'thunder is the anger of the Gods', and so on, which of course ought to be replaced by rational explanations. But there are entire other levels of meaning in the major religions, which deal with much deeper questions, about which science has nothing meaningful to say (and of which you show little awareness, I might add).

You specifically referred to explanations and that’s what I addressed. I said everything explained by science was once explained by religion, not that science has replaced every service that religion provides. There are other domains of religion – a sense of community, a sense of identity, tradition, psychological comfort, inspiration and even a sense of purpose. Notice that every religion, including cults, is capable of providing these services and the degree to which it succeeds cannot be used to cash out any of its truth claims or explanations of reality – this is what I was addressing. The problem is that for the practioner to experience these benefits, they usually have to believe that their religions are not merely fabrications or social constructs, but rather they represent the Absolute Truth; and that often includes their explanations of reality as well.

Subjectively, they are never able to be aware of that, as I understand it. I regard it as axiomatic that consciousness is only ever experienced in the singular.

Subjectively, they are no longer a single harmonious entity, but rather two entities perceiving the world differently. Do philosophers really find no relevance in this? How sad…

I am of the view that it is not necessary to understand the physical workings of the brain, in order to reach the goals of philosophy, as distinct from neuroscience. The field of philosophy, the primary datum, if you like, is the raw material of experience. I approach this through contemplative discipline, and the perspectives of Western philosophy. This isn't to deny the utility of neuroscience in its own right and for its own purposes. But recall the first dictum of philosophy: know yourself. I don't think this needs to be mediated by electronic devices. I don't think we learn to understand profound existential truths by examining FMRi data. Do you?

Back to the above example. What if your corpus collosum is removed and “know yourself” becomes “know yourselves”? Our existential truths may very well be a product of how our brains perceive and think about the world. I think this is very relevant. Do you? Imagine meeting an intelligent alien species very different from ourselves. Now, suppose they have something comparable to what we call philosophy, yet their version is profoundly different than ours, to the point of being unintelligible. Do you really think that these differences would have nothing to do with the way we perceive the world, to the workings of our sensory organs, to the evolution of our brains?

This is being discussed in numerous threads, in regards to the limits of naturalism…..

You haven’t really answered my question.

By defining ‘nature’ so as to exclude what we understand as ‘supernatural’…

This isn’t about scientific limits but rather a certain “we” that claims to understand what is or isn’t supernatural. Who are these sages and by what right do they confer upon themselves the authority to make such grandiose claims? I have no problem with people speculating that we may never learn Everything about the world or that science may have limits. In fact, if I was a betting man I might be tempted to agree. In the same way that my dog will never learn calculus, there may be things about the universe that our brains are simply incapable of understanding (though this would not necessarily render them supernatural). Imagine having this conversation 2000 years ago. What would your counterpart in this debate be saying about the supernatural and limits of science? Just like people of the past may have been unable to imagine what we know today, how can we possibly speculate on the state of knowledge and science 2000 years from now? Again, I have no problem about people speculating that our knowledge may have limits, or that possibly something supernatural may somewhere exist. However, to borrow your phrase, I have a very ‘intense distrust’ towards anybody claiming to know in advance what those limits are or where the border between natural and supernatural must be drawn.

What would such 'evidence' consist of?

Read my reply to Logicus in post # 57.

And how do you know 'there is none'?

Do you know something I don’t?

[Quotidian]

..let’s take NDEs. Some believe they may be worth exploring and have proposed to put random number generators in operating rooms so that they could only be visible from the ceiling. Suppose this is carried out by a team of reputable researchers and over time we begin to amass a substantial database of people who’ve correctly reported the numbers following an NDE.

The prospect of asking mortally ill patients to be involved as subjects in a scientific test presents some ethical problems, don't you think? You might instead consider some of the already-published literature, such as Consciousness Beyond Life: The Science of the Near-Death Experience by Pim von Lommel

As a cardiologist, Pim van Lommel was struck by the number of his patients who claimed to have near-death experiences as a result of their heart attacks. As a scientist, this was difficult for him to accept: Wouldn't it be scientifically irresponsible of him to ignore the evidence of these stories? Faced with this dilemma, van Lommel decided to design a research study to investigate the phenomenon under the controlled environment of a cluster of hospitals with a medically trained staff.

For more than twenty years van Lommel systematically studied such near-death experiences in a wide variety of hospital patients who survived a cardiac arrest. In 2001, he and his fellow researchers published his study on near-death experiences in the renowned medical journal The Lancet. The article caused an international sensation as it was the first scientifically rigorous study of this phenomenon.

Van Lommel provides scientific evidence that the near-death phenomenon is an authentic experience that cannot be attributed to imagination, psychosis, or oxygen deprivation. He further reveals that after such a profound experience, most patients' personalities undergo a permanent change. In van Lommel's opinion, the current views on the relationship between the brain and consciousness held by most physicians, philosophers, and psychologists are too narrow for a proper understanding of the phenomenon. In Consciousness Beyond Life, van Lommel shows that our consciousness does not always coincide with brain functions and that, remarkably and significantly, consciousness can even be experienced separate from the body.

What if your corpus collosum is removed and “know yourself” becomes “know yourselves”? Our existential truths may very well be a product of how our brains perceive and think about the world. I think this is very relevant. Do you?

No.