Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge

[LadyForCamus]

I intend to be clear, not annoying (this time).

Jackson’s thought problem tacitly appeals to Leibnitz’s law, “The Identity of Indiscernables.” Basically, if someone can say something about one thing that cannot be said about the other, then those two things are not identical. Everything true of Clemens is also true of Twain, hence they are identical. If brain and mind are identical then every true statement about the physical system of the brain is true about the mental experiences and vice versa. (Brain is a Clemens. Mind is a Twain.)

Thank you for taking the time to reform your response for me. You could have just as easily said "if she's too thick to figure it out, then forget it." I appreciate it. [emoji41]

I understand -why- you are trying to apply the "identity of indiscernibles" to the brain and mind, and to the hypothesis of Mary's Room, but I think your application here is contrived in that you are arbitrarily separating the human brain from its biological function (of generating consciousness) for the purpose of being able to hold them up next to each other and say, "look! They are different! The brain is not the same as the mind! There must be a metaphysical explanation!"

But we could do this with -any- organ in the human body. Let's take the human pancreas, and the insulin it produces as its biological function. All the true statements we can say about the human pancreas are not all true statements we can say about insulin, and vise versa. ...So...what? What's the point exactly? That insulin and the pancreas are two distinct things? Well, of course they are. This is not revelatory in any way. Maybe scientists haven't yet mapped out every detail about how the brain generates consciousness, but to declare it "metaphysical" on that count is an argument from ignorance. I don't understand why you think sensory/sensual experience is NOT a physical process, or how you could ever possibly justify that point of view.

A physical reduction would mean that a complete description of something’s material composition and observable changes would exhaust all possible knowledge about that thing. Jackson’s initial claim was that conscious experiences are not identical to physical facts because a complete knowledge of the physical facts associated with consciousness does not include knowledge of what it is like to experience consciousness. To me, it shows that mental properties are not identical to brain states. This not to say that mental properties and physical brain states can exist independently, only that the existence of each should be considered distinct.

Sure, and a human kidney is distinct from the urine it produces, but it's not magic, it's biology. And by the way, Jackson later reneged on his conclusions regarding the non-physical knowledge Mary supposedly learned, and declared the set up of his thought experiment flawed.

[LadyForCamus]

 It isn't at all clear to me that god claims are empirical in nature.

Probably because they are not all empirical. I took issue with the idea that only a posteriori, empirically verifiable truths count as knowledge. Double-blind lab experiments are not required to justify the a priori first principles of philosophy like the Principle of Non-Contradition and Law of Identity, likewise the discoveries of mathematics.

May not, but we can USE these models of logic and mathematics in the real world and they will consistently, and predictably work the same way every time. You can perform math equations on paper and -demonstrate- how you worked them out.

[LadyForCamus]

In concept, some functions could be realized in multiple ways (keywords “multiple realizability”). People can use a word processor on a Mac or a PC. The function performed does not appear to depend on any particular physical composition.

Entirely and laughably untrue.  The function performed does not appear to depend on any particular -brand- such as mac or pc.  It definitely depends upon a particular physical composition..unless you've been using a word processor from your toaster or toilet bowl of late. The underlaying architecture of pc's and macs has been identical for a -long- time, they buy from the same suppliers. Back when there -was- a marginal difference it was a difference in the architecture of commensurate systmes that worked using the same principles in each and every example.

Perhaps you should stick with the type of stuff you know, spirit stuff? I was worried that you'd try to mix the two somehow and fuck one or the other up in the process, wasn't I?

And even if Chad -were- correct in his PC/Mac analogy, I've YET to see someone using a word processor in the absence of any computer at all...similarly, Chad has yet to demonstrate any mind existing independently of its brain.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Ms Camus, I never once advocated the notion that an immaterial anything can exist in a disembodied state. I've been very clear on this point.

Rhythm, you're not even trying. You just like to hear yourself argue.

[LadyForCamus]

Ms Camus, I never once advocated the notion that an immaterial anything can exist in a disembodied state. I've been very clear on this point.

Rhythm, you're not even trying. You just like to hear yourself argue.

Okay...then can you please explain to me your reasons for drawing your line -there- in particular? I mean, since metaphysical, supernatural phenomena are not out of your own personal realm of possibilities.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Rhythm, you're not even trying. You just like to hear yourself argue.

Emphasis by me.

Somebody needs to get himself a mirror, and take a good, long hard look into it.

[The Grand Nudger]

I do like a good argument.  It's how we refine our thoughts, lol.  

Look, you don't know anything about macs or pcs.  You apparently think that comp functions don't depend on particular physical compositions.....which is knowledge that would be a surprise to computer engineers I think (go collect your nobel while you're at it).  You can bitch and moan and call me a dick for pointing out your abject ignorance, or you can refine your thoughts.

Wait, was this some of that category b knowledge?  We did discuss the idea of disclaimers, right?

[LadyForCamus]

If I tell you I know that I had chicken for lunch yesterday, is that really scientific knowledge? Or not knowledge?

Can it be verified? Witnesses, deli receipts, biological data? If not, then in it's experience without evidence.

Yes, Hanky! That is exactly what I mean.

Experience by its self cannot equal knowledge. It is an incomplete set of data. It is only one facet, one step toward obtaining actual knowledge about anything in reality.

Okay...hypothetical situation as an example. It's a bit absurd, so try to suspend your disbelief just for the sake of my argument:

I have a red rose. I went to the flower shop, picked out the first red rose I saw, and bought it. I look at my red rose. I am enjoying the visual, sensory experience of seeing my red rose. I know that I have a RED rose, because I am looking at it, and experiencing it as red.

I think my red rose is so pretty, I decide to take it to the streets of NYC and see if other people think so too. So, I ask 100 people what they think of the color of my rose. Out of 100 people, 100 of them tell me that my rose is BLUE. They say things like, "Oh, my god! That is the most beautiful color of blue I've ever seen in a rose!" Or, "wow, what a spectacular blue rose!" Or, "I just love blue roses! They are my favorite!" In addition to these 100 people, others are occasionally stopping me to comment on how they have never seen a rose quite that shade of blue before. I even pass another flower shop, and the owner steps out to ask me which shop I got my blue rose from. I then check my receipt from the flower shop which states that I purchased one rose, color - BLUE, for $5.99.

Do I really KNOW at this point that I have a red rose? Can I still be confident in my "knowledge" in the face of quantifiable, repeatable evidence which suggests otherwise? Granted, my "experiment" is really just a survey; far from scientifically infallible, but it should at the very least raise more questions than it answers, and prompt me (If I am a reasonable person) to further investigation.

Personally, by the time the tenth person told me my rose was blue, I'd start to seriously question whether my internal visual experience is accurately reflecting reality. I have utterly failed to demonstrate to anyone that my rose is red. I would probably wonder if some type of pathology is affecting my sensory perception, and check my self into the nearest hospital to seek answers. In other words, I would follow the evidence.

What I would NOT do, is insist to anyone who will listen that the damn rose is red! It would be an unjustified belief at that point, and NOT a rational pathway to the truth. Or, at least as close to the truth as possible.

Sorry for the rambling...[emoji15]

[LadyForCamus]

Ms Camus, I never once advocated the notion that an immaterial anything can exist in a disembodied state. I've been very clear on this point.

Rhythm, you're not even trying. You just like to hear yourself argue.

And actually, I'm starting to think that you are not being honest in this discussion. It was just a few pages back that you described yourself as a student of Swedenborg; a man who claimed to have regularly visited heaven and spoken with angels. In fact, you stated that you take him at his word regarding those particular supernatural accounts. So, I find it very hard to believe that you are NOT advocating in some way for the existence immaterial things in disembodied states. Specifically, consciousness existing independent from the brain.

[LadyForCamus]

Ms Camus, I never once advocated the notion that an immaterial anything can exist in a disembodied state. I've been very clear on this point.

Rhythm, you're not even trying. You just like to hear yourself argue.

And actually, I'm starting to think that you are not being honest in this discussion. It was just a few pages back that you described yourself as a student of Swedenborg; a man who claimed to have regularly visited heaven and spoken with angels. In fact, you stated that you take him at his word regarding those particular supernatural accounts. So, I find it very hard to believe that you are NOT advocating in some way for the existence immaterial things in disembodied states. Specifically, consciousness existing independent from the brain.