My Response To Keith Augustine's View That The Production Th

[leo100]

This is my response to a naturalist who fully support the view that mind is produced by the brain.


Keith,

Who ever said the better the brain, the better the filter?. If you assume that the main source of consciousness and mind is a medium but not the brain. Your saying that from outside observation that what we observe is damage brain equals damage mind and consciousness. But evidence coming from near death experiences and out of body experiences show that the inner subjective consciousness along with mind[information] is not damaged or destroyed, rather restricted by the brain.



Their is another argument for dualism which i have come across from this site

http://www.afterlifedebate.com/for.html

The argument from geometry, this is based on two premises

1. Additional dimensions besides our own
2. A Additional dimension of space and an additional dimension of time would affect our experience, and this conception seems to correlate with dream experience


More about the argument from geometry can
be found here

http://www.afterlifedebate.com/bookshop.html


Keith it depends on what you view mind and consciousness

Mind- Dreams, Thoughts, Memories,
Consciousness- Personality, Inner Subjective experience.



I seen you mentioned Phineas Gage before where he had a spike go through his
head. You probably see this case as supportive of the production hypothesis. Here is why it isn't consistent with the production hypothesis.

- The uncertainty of Harlow's sources for the changes he describes in Gage, combined with the fact that he waited almost twenty years (between his first and second papers) to communicate those changes, constitute one of the central puzzles of the case.


Current Research

- Recently, an advertisement for a previously-unknown public appearance by Gage has been discovered, as have a report of his behavior during his time in Chile and a description of what may have been his daily work routine there as a long-distance SPAM BLOCK driver. This new information suggests that the seriously maladapted Gage described by Harlow may have existed for only a limited time after the accident—that Phineas eventually "figured out how to live"[39] despite his injury, and was in later life far more functional, and socially far better adapted, than has been thought.

If this is so then (along with theoretical implications) it "would add to current evidence that rehabilitation can be effective even in difficult and long-standing cases," according to Macmillan. To better understand the question, Macmillan and collaborators are actively seeking additional evidence on Gage's life and behavior.[40]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage

The case above is usually presented to be one of the best cases if not the best evidence that materialists have used based on.

-Harlow's observation which is very questionable based on him taking almost 20 years to communicate changes he saw in Phineas Gage, between his first and second papers. Possible embellishment, could be. However, materialists insists on taking Harlow's account as a trustworthy source. Now with new evidence which i posted above it's even more likely that the personality changes that Harlow's said occur weren't as dramatic as he said they were.

This case based on these facts show that this case is consistent with the filter or transmission theory. It also shows that the mind brain close link to eachother is not as close as what is assumed.

Another piece of evidence which appears to be consistent with the production hypothesis is the split brain experiments, HOWEVER, it appears that two conscious streams of consciousness didn't happen at all.

Due to its inherent private character, an actual co-consciousness is impossible to prove conclusively, and one self with only temporary functional dissociation is even the best explanation as split-brain patients normally show a remarkable psychological and motoric unity that can hardly be reconciled with the somatogenic creation of a new nonphysical subject by commisurectomy.

More here about split brain experiments

http://www.geocities.com/athanasiafound ... mlives.htm

[Scepcop]

[Franc28]

I never had an NDE, and I assume you haven't either, and pretty much everyone else who talks about them. So why bring it up either way? It's a non-issue.

Perhaps this is a more fundamental epistemic dispute that I should talk about on another thread, but my basic position is that there's no point in debating issues of personal experience. What is true for you is true for you. I don't expect (or want, for that matter) anyone else to believe or want to comprehend things that happen only to me.

[Scepcop]

[Franc28]

[Scepcop]

Yes I've never had an NDE so I'm relying on others experiences. However, I am a good judge of character, and so are many NDE researchers, and I can obviously tell that the experiencers are honest genuine people. There is no reason to doubt what they say. Like I said, it's something to consider. Why deny it?

I don't understand your point.

Most of what people tell me check out when I try to verify it.

Trying to induce an NDE is dangerous of course. Why do you even suggest that? Do you want to come near death? One can have an OBE as well, which would validate it.

[Franc28]

"Yes I've never had an NDE so I'm relying on others experiences. However, I am a good judge of character, and so are many NDE researchers, and I can obviously tell that the experiencers are honest genuine people. There is no reason to doubt what they say. Like I said, it's something to consider. Why deny it?"

You aren't reading what I said very carefully, or you're still stuck in "I'm debating skeptics" mode. I'm not saying their experiences aren't valid. That's not my point at all. My point is that you have no means whatsoever of evaluating their experiences, because they are personal. What you are evaluating is a second-hand account of an experience which you cannot possibly relate to unless you yourself had an NDE. It can only be evidence if you yourself had an NDE and thus had some way to compare their conceptual retelling to your direct experience.


"Trying to induce an NDE is dangerous of course. Why do you even suggest that? Do you want to come near death?"

I have no interest in assessing the truth about NDEs, so no.

[Scepcop]

Of course I don't have first-hand experience with NDE's. That's not the point. The point is that I don't consider anecdotal evidence to be invalid. Testimonials, if they are real, are valid evidence to me. If they weren't, then if I got lost on the road, I could never ask directions, because all directions given to me would be invalid, thus I'd be lost on the road forever. These dumb skeptical axioms don't even work in simple everyday situations. If the supermarket manager told me that the bread was on aisle 11, would that be zero evidence that the bread was on aisle 11? I don't think so...

[Franc28]

[Scepcop]

Franc28,
I never said that the skeptical arguments I was bashing had anything to do with YOU. You seem to be misreading a lot of what I say and taking things personally. My post was about THEIR arguments, NOT YOURS.

I see your point about personal experiences. My point was that testimonials, as long as their are genuine and come from honest credible people, are evidence. But like I wrote in my articles, it all depends on the circumstances and factors of the situation.

Did you read my points here?

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/anecdotal.php

I was not trying to say that you were wrong or attributing those fallacies to you. I don't know how you interpreted it that way.

[Franc28]

All right, I apologize for that. I must have misread something.

[leo100]

I agree with Skepcop here