A question regarding proof

[StatCrux]

So, on the one hand we have observations, and indeed experiments that show how changes to the brain produce changes in the mind or self, and on the other hand we have the great unknown. I'm not sure I'd call it a leap.

Can you give more information on how the changes in the mind are determined, other than by asking for someones subjective experience? Or are you now saying that someones subjective experience is valid as a tool for determining scientific facts?

[The Grand Nudger]

We cant observe the effects of a lobotomy by collecting data pre/post? We have to ask the patient if he feels different? A friend of my wife, for example, had surgery for a brain tumor, there is no one among us who can say that he is the same person. Not just how we percieve him, but even the way in which he signs his name has changed. Now, my one example would be insufficient to draw a conclusion. Fortunately we have many such examples, and this has of course been a productive area of nueroscience. We've even had an example of such experiments recently discussed on this forum of how changes in environment, (even without physically jacking with the brain) can cause changes in self (measured by observations of behaviour and activity) in the case of monkeys, rape benches, and the "pit of despair". That there is a direct relationship between the material and the mind is documented extremely well. Examples of the "mind" altering material reality are not so well demonstrated. In fact, given what we know of our universe, it is highly unlikely that such a mechanism could even exist. Again, we could be wrong, and all that would be required to suggest so would be evidence.

[StatCrux]

We cant observe the effects of a lobotomy by collecting data pre/post? We have to ask the patient if he feels different? A friend of my wife, for example, had surgery for a brain tumor, there is no one among us who can say that he is the same person. Not just how we percieve him, but even the way in which he signs his name has changed. Now, my one example would be insufficient to draw a conclusion. Fortunately we have many such examples, and this has of course been a productive area of nueroscience. We've even had an example of such experiments recently discussed on this forum of how changes in environment, even without changes in the brain) can cause changes in self (measured by observations of behaviour and activity) in the case of monkeys, rape benches, and the "pit of despair".

All very emotional instances, but the problem still remains, observation of mind is not possible, only observation of behavior, physical activity and subjective experience. A very simple analogy is a broken radio, if you can't hear the radio station is it correct to assume it is no longer there?

[Faith No More]

All very emotional instances, but the problem still remains, observation of mind is not possible, only observation of behavior, physical activity and subjective experience. A very simple analogy is a broken radio, if you can't hear the radio station is it correct to assume it is no longer there?

When the brain itself is the transmitter, yes.

[The Grand Nudger]

It would be incorrect to state that you have knowledge of what is playing, at the very least. But lets go with this. You have a broken radio, and so you cannot translate what is coming acrossed the air. Is there no way in which you could detect waves of energy without a radio? Lets call radio waves the immaterial for a moment. Our radio is broken, so we can't get totality of knowledge (the contents of the transmission) without a radio. I'm not demanding the you translate that radio wave to me, I'm asking for evidence that there are waves of energy (contents notwithstanding) before I'm willing to say "Yep, that exists". I don't think that we're actually disagreeing about the same thing here. I'm simply repeating over and over that to claim knowledge of something (even knowledge of existence) one must provide something of substance. I'm not arguing that such things certainly do not exist because we haven't measured them. I'm arguing that the person who claims that they do exist has a burden to meet. It is not my responsibility to prove that the immaterial does not exist. One cannot be expected to be taken seriously when they claim that it exists simply because no one has proven that it does not. In this case, any claim that has within it a justification of why it can never be known is a fairly useless claim isn't it? Moreso if that claim conflicts with anything that can be known and has been repeatedly demonstrated.

I've said this in another one of Freds threads (hell, might have been this one). It may be that faeries make cars move, but combustion is an explanation that addresses why engines operate, and even if there were no fairies, we have no reason to assume that combustion would not work. Now, if someone was arguing for fairies over combustion, how would you treat that argument?

[StatCrux]

It would be incorrect to state that you have knowledge of what is playing, at the very least. But lets go with this. You have a broken radio, and so you cannot translate what is coming acrossed the air. Is there no way in which you could detect waves of energy without a radio? Lets call radio waves the immaterial for a moment. Our radio is broken, so we can't get totality of knowledge (the contents of the transmission) without a radio. I'm not demanding the you translate that radio wave to me, I'm asking for evidence that there are waves of energy (contents notwithstanding) before I'm willing to say "Yep, that exists". I don't think that we're actually disagreeing about the same thing here. I'm simply repeating over and over that to claim knowledge of something (even knowledge of existence) one must provide something of substance. I'm not arguing that such things certainly do not exist because we haven't measured them. I'm arguing that the person who claims that they do exist has a burden to meet. It is not my responsibility to prove that the immaterial does not exist. One cannot be expected to be taken seriously when they claim that it exists simply because no one has proven that it does not.

Ok, I understand your position, my argument is that the nature of thoses "waves" are not detectable with our current understanding, and are of another nature than material. We already have the perfect equipment for detecting thses "waves" our brains. Some individuals have honed their skills to be more "in tune" than the majority of people and try to explain how others can achieve this (mystics). The problem is that until materialism is finally jettisoned most people become closed to the type of "tuning" required as it contradicts their material world view. Until we can create and observe something that is on a par with the human brain we're pretty much in the experiment for yourself zone, which is what buddhists generally say," Don't believe what I say, try and see for youself".

[little_monkey]

---

Fred, you are missing two rather important issues.

Heh. Holy shit, Ryft. Where the fuck have you been? Oh, hell, never mind that. I'm just damn glad you showed up because a Logic Enforcement Officer is just who I have been looking for.

First, whether or not Rhythm has objective evidence of your dream pony is entirely irrelevant to the existence of your dream pony.

Certainly. I was playing Rhythm's advocate back there with my insistence that there was no evidence. I left out the "objective" qualifier on purpose, because it's a given in some circles that the two are synonymous when they aren't.

One is an epistemological issue regarding Rhythm, the other is a metaphysical issue regarding your dream pony—and throughout this thread (and consistently everywhere in these forums) these two issues are being conflated.

Ok, metaphysical is one of those terms that has been stretched all out of shape, so to be clear about my take on it for this discussion, let's use this:

"Metaphysical studies generally seek to explain inherent or universal elements of reality which are not easily discovered or experienced in our everyday life. As such, it is concerned with explaining the features of reality that exist beyond the physical world and our immediate senses."

I'm all good with that, but as you can see, translated into quick and dirty materialist terms, that amounts to "concerned with explaining what doesn't even even exist." That, I'm not at all onboard with, so you can see that it's problematic terrain.

For whatever it is worth, that is one of the most ironic things about metaphysical naturalists: they never hesitate to abandon the metaphysical question as quickly as possible.

Yup. That's a huge part of my point. It's best used as a club to beat off challenges, but it's put away quickly when it comes to navigating actual experience.

Whether or not your dream pony exists (metaphysics) is distinct from whether or not there is evidence for the existence of your dream pony (epistemology). Even if we were to suppose that there is zero evidence for it (as we seem to have done), what has that to do with the existence of it?

Uh, depends on who you ask. Me, I don't think the fact that there is no objective evidence has any bearing, since I find the notion that only objective evidence is real is one that has no merit whatsoever beyond being a pacifier for those who need it.

Again, to be clear, I believe there is ample evidence, but it's not objective evidence and cannot be by it's very nature.

"Without that evidence, I have no reason to believe him," says John Q Materialist. Not to put too fine a point on it, but so what?

Heh. Well, there's that aspect, yes.

Second, while people have been making noise about the causal relationship between the neurological activity of your brain and the dream pony of your mind, have you noticed there has been zero evidence provided to substantiate that causal relationship?

Hell, yes. Have you ever wondered why that doesn't seem to have any effect on their stance? Just wave the "it's merely" magic wand over it, and--poof--the whole problem disappears just like that. Like the wag said, Dennet's book would have been far more accurately titled as Consciousness Explained Away.

There is evidence of your neurological activity on the one hand, and your testimony about dreaming of a pony on the other, and a causal relationship between the former and the latter is concluded based on... err, wait, how do we know there is a causal relationship?

We don't know, sir. That's the part that gets left out when the "it's just an artifact of brain activity" chorus starts singing. No matter how beautiful the sound or their harmonies, if you look at the libretto closely you will see that for all that's there, the only thing missing is the damn pony. It's the ghost in their machine they cannot account for, but that doesn't seem to bother them, so they just keep on singing.

Perhaps you might pursue that issue.

Officer, I'm trying as hard as I can, but I'm getting drowned out by the choir. Can I lodge a noise complaint, because if they would just pipe down for a bit, maybe we could continue this discussion under more reasonable conditions. Flash your badge, sir.

(P.S. It also seemed a little ironic that you were asking whether objective evidence could exist for a subjective object.)

Heh. A little ironic? Uh, I can swing with that in the sense that Hurricane Irene was a little bit of moisture. Nobody even challenged that simple point, yet it's a hole big enough to drive a bus through.

---

You can have evidence of a dream, but you don't have evidence of its content.

Yes, there is no evidence of its content, at least if you mean objective evidence. As to the evidence for the dream itself, we have objective evidence that brain activity is taking place, but that's all. That that evidence is connected with the actual dream itself, has not been nailed down by objective evidence.

By that I do not mean that it's not true, but that the acceptance of it being true was not reached solely by the means of objective evidence. It's not a small point, no matter how much some folks want to jump over it.

The only reason anyone at all knows what a dream pony is springs from their subjective experience of dreams and ponies. That this knowing has been supported by the objective evidence that brain activity corresponding to dreaming takes place may be true, but the knowledge of the dream pony that every one here readily attests to being possible was not obtained via objective evidence.

Take away that subjective knowledge, and nothing in the objective evidence of brain activity can demonstrate that a dream pony exists.

The fact that we all have no difficulty whatsoever in accepting the possibility of dream ponies is a given, but it was the subjective evidence that provided that acceptance, not the objective evidence.

---

I can't fault with anything you've said. But I must add that in future technology, we could very well trigger a thought in the brain, the kind that, given an electric impulse to neurons ABC,PQR, XYZ, etc. and presto, you see yourself flying to Alpha Centauri. My guess is that a lot of people would pay good money to experience that. Are we that far from such technology? Who knows, but the point is that the possibility of relating brain activity with its content might be just one step away from us.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ok, I understand your position, my argument is that the nature of thoses "waves" are not detectable with our current understanding, and are of another nature than material.

How could you know this? On what basis do you postulate their "nature"?

[StatCrux]

I've said this in another one of Freds threads (hell, might have been this one). It may be that faeries make cars move, but combustion is an explanation that addresses why engines operate, and even if there were no fairies, we have no reason to assume that combustion would not work. Now, if someone was arguing for fairies over combustion, how would you treat that argument?

I'm beginning to understand Freds frustration now, the combustion engine is an entirely different proposition, we understand how it functions and it generates motion. Human beings do not simply exist and function, we have our existance in concepts, ideas, abstractions etc indeed all of the things that make life worthwhile are of this order, music, poetry, art, love..without these we are not human. Perhaps these are the "fairies" you speak about? Combustion works just fine without these, humans don't. Humans could exist purely on a functional level, only interested in food, warmth, reproduction etc but what makes us truly fully human are those "faeries" of love, art, poetry, music without which we are merely machines.

[The Grand Nudger]

And yet all evidence seems to suggest that we are machines. Wonderful, fantastic, incredibly sophisticated...but in the end, machines.
(amusingly I was seeking a major in mechanical engineering)