Mental imagery as non-physical perception pt. 2

[AgnosticBoy]

Critics of scientific realism ask how the inner perception of mental images actually occurs. This is sometimes called the "homunculus problem" (see also the mind's eye). The problem is similar to asking how the images you see on a computer screen exist in the memory of the computer. To scientific materialism, mental images and the perception of them must be brain-states. According to critics, scientific realists cannot explain where the images and their perceiver exist in the brain. To use the analogy of the computer screen, these critics argue that cognitive science and psychology have been unsuccessful in identifying either the component in the brain (i.e., "hardware") or the mental processes that store these images (i.e. "software").

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_image

I presented this argument a few months ago on this forum. I will play more of an information-seeking role here because I was left unsatisfied in the last thread. So again, I pose this challenge to materialists to use empirically-verifiable evidence to explain how or why mental images are physical when we DO NOT perceive them with our senses (hallucinations, dreams, etc).

Here's an easier way to put it:
1. Why aren't scientists able to observe our mental images (our hallucinations, dreams, etc) if they are physical?

2. Since perception involves our senses, then how am I able to perceive mental images without my senses?

I want scientifically verifiable peer-reviewed evidence-based answers to my questions. If you don't know, then just admit it. Don't simply tell me that scientists will figure it out - that's FAITH ... not scientific EVIDENCE.

[William]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #99]

Cherry picking from my words is the misrepresentation.

[AgnosticBoy]

I never offered an explanation or theory. I simply stated what the evidence involved. When someone has their eyes taped shut and yet they report having visual experiences of their external environment, then that is precisely the person being aware without using their brain and senses.

I challenge this claim. How is it that this person became aware if their brain and senses were not actually involved?

I don't know how, but the fact remains that it did happen. There are plenty of things that happen in the world that we can't explain how. This is nothing different.

It also seems that you're asking your question as if it's some big contradiction for someone to be aware without the brain. First show that the brain causes consciousness and that it is the only place for consciousness. A few posts ago, you brought up an article that includes two popular theories for consciousness, and one of them actually makes consciousness in inanimate objects a theoretically possibility.

I will remain unimpressed with such an explanation even though I think it would be really cool for our consciousness to be independent of our brains.

It seems that no one knows what happened with Pam if we are going to be honest.

YOu keep saying that you're not impressed, but I'd be impressed if you were willing to handle evidence in a non-dismissive way. You speak about the issue as if we know nothing, ignoring the independently corroborated information, and then embracing hypotheticals.

Sure, I get that we don't have absolute certainty as to what happened to Pam Reynolds but that doesn't amount to having nothing. Whatever we do have, we can then use to based our knowledge on.

If our consciousness is independent from our brains and Pam is the only example you can provide (when I think there would be tens of thousands of such type events each year) then I will continue to find it wanting in order to justify external consciousness. I remain open to the idea though and actually want it to be true, but we do need more than this one anecdotal case. Surely you agree?

NDEs are not the only reason I don't accept the mainstream materialists view. I also don't accept it because it is not proven nor demonstrated with evidence, and there are alternative explanations, like the brain just being a medium for consciousness.

People have brought up hypothetical explanations and use those to argue that they are more reasonable than the actual non-mainstream explanations. That happens a lot in debates involving the resurrection. THe problem with that though is that an explanation should account for all of the relevant data otherwise you may as well throw in some completely irrelevant explanation and say that's reasonable as well. Your explanations do not account for the data so it's not even a matter that we'd apply occam's razor to. Occam's Razor involves choosing between two explanations, where both explanations account for the data, at the least.

I acknowledge that you reject the provided explanations that would explain Pam's case and note that my words remained unchallenged: "At least there are known, real world explanations for you to reject that could explain the Pam case." (You rejected them as expected).

Yes, you've offered some real world explanations that only have some probability in that we know that they occur. But to apply that to Pam's case, you need to do more than show that they occur in general, and show that they also apply specifically to Pam's case. That takes logic and evidence. Your explanations lacked that which is why I currently reject them.

Otherwise, please elaborate on how your explanations account for Pam's case in light of my responses to you already. For instance, you've brought up anesthesia awareness, and I already addressed how that wouldn't give Pam awareness of the external environment since her eyes were shut and ears were plugged up.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #99]

Cherry picking from my words is the misrepresentation.

mis·rep·re·sen·ta·tion
/ˌmisˌreprəˌzenˈtāSH(ə)n/
noun
the action or offense of giving a false or misleading account of the nature of something.

Your argument (which I wish I had known from the start so I wouldn't have wasted time replying to you) is that you are conscious.
I acknowledge your argument, agree that you are conscious and wish you had not entered this debate to argue such a thing. Feel free to start a thread stating that you are conscious though.

[Clownboat]

I don't know how, but the fact remains that it did happen. There are plenty of things that happen in the world that we can't explain how. This is nothing different.

To attempt to Steelman your argument.
You are aware of Pam's claim and consider it unexplainable. Therefore, consciousness is independent from our brains?
Please correct me where/if I have gotten your claim incorrect.

It also seems that you're asking your question as if it's some big contradiction for someone to be aware without the brain.

I observe that our ability to be aware of our surroundings takes place in our brains. Do you acknowledge this or take issue with it?

First show that the brain causes consciousness and that it is the only place for consciousness.

Are you being genuine?
Please explain how I would go about showing you that our brains are the only place for consciousness. The best I can do is show you that the brain is all that is required. For all I know, consciousness is independent of our brains. I just haven't seen a good argument for such a thing yet. Can you make an actual argument or is the best you have really just to point to an unexplained single event?

A few posts ago, you brought up an article that includes two popular theories for consciousness, and one of them actually makes consciousness in inanimate objects a theoretically possibility.

Pretty honest and open minded of me, isn't it?

YOu keep saying that you're not impressed, but I'd be impressed if you were willing to handle evidence in a non-dismissive way. You speak about the issue as if we know nothing, ignoring the independently corroborated information, and then embracing hypotheticals.

The Pam case is anecdotal, unexplained and is therefore not impressive on its own. I observe this to be true, therefore your claim that I'm being dismissive is not apt.

Sure, I get that we don't have absolute certainty as to what happened to Pam Reynolds but that doesn't amount to having nothing. Whatever we do have, we can then use to based our knowledge on.

I don't claim that you have nothing. What you have is only a single, anecdotal unexplained claimed event though. Don't pretend that you have more than you do please.

If our consciousness is independent from our brains and Pam is the only example you can provide (when I think there would be tens of thousands of such type events each year) then I will continue to find it wanting in order to justify external consciousness. I remain open to the idea though and actually want it to be true, but we do need more than this one anecdotal case. Surely you agree?

NDEs are not the only reason I don't accept the mainstream materialists view. I also don't accept it because it is not proven nor demonstrated with evidence, and there are alternative explanations, like the brain just being a medium for consciousness.

I asked you if you thought we need more than this one anecdotal case. You failed to answer this, so I assume you understand the weakness of your case (which I acknowledge could be valid, but we are not there yet).

Yes, you've offered some real world explanations that only have some probability in that we know that they occur. But to apply that to Pam's case, you need to do more than show that they occur in general, and show that they also apply specifically to Pam's case. That takes logic and evidence. Your explanations lacked that which is why I currently reject them.

I acknowledge that you reject the explanations that I took the time to research and provide to you as potentially valid explanations for the anecdotal and unexplained Pam case. I acknowledge that you consider them to be lacking in logic and evidence. On this we do not agree.

Otherwise, please elaborate on how your explanations account for Pam's case in light of my responses to you already. For instance, you've brought up anesthesia awareness, and I already addressed how that wouldn't give Pam awareness of the external environment since her eyes were shut and ears were plugged up.

If all you have is Pam, then all you have is a one time anecdotal event that we cannot explain. I acknowledge that you reject the statement from the anesthesiologist. You will forgive me wont you if I take the anesthesiologist word over yours?
Copy/paste:
"An anesthesiologist who examined the case offered anesthesia awareness as a more prosaic and conventional explanation for such claims."

Are flying sauces real, because of Bob Lazar?
If not, please reflect on why.

[AgnosticBoy]

I don't know how, but the fact remains that it did happen. There are plenty of things that happen in the world that we can't explain how. This is nothing different.

To attempt to Steelman your argument.
You are aware of Pam's claim and consider it unexplainable. Therefore, consciousness is independent from our brains?
Please correct me where/if I have gotten your claim incorrect.

That's actually a big strawman version of my view. The precise reason I claim that Pam's awareness occurred independent of the brain and senses is because of the evidence, which is in the form of independent corroboration and her ears and eyes being closed off from the external environment via anesthesia, tape, and ear buds. That basically means that she didn't use her senses to become aware of the event, which would then rule out her brain because the brain did not receive information from her senses. With me, it's always been about the evidence.

I observe that our ability to be aware of our surroundings takes place in our brains. Do you acknowledge this or take issue with it?

Consciousness works through the brain and body (our sensory organs) to become aware of things, but that doesn't mean it's the only place or medium for consciousness. This is the key point you keep missing.

I acknowledge that there is a huge amount of evidence that the brain is a medium for consciousness, but that alone doesn't answer the question nor prove either way that other things can't be consciousness. You can say all day that I've only observed white sheep, but without evidence and a theory explain why there would only be white sheep, which is the type of theory that's missing for consciousness, then you can't say that there are no black sheep. Your observations could easily just be limited being based on what you see at that point in time, while future observations may show consciousness existing elsewhere. Now when you put that together with all of the good reasons and positive evidence that actually show consciousness being non-physical and operating independent of the brain or during impaired brain function, then that just gives a reasonable person more reason to not jump to the conclusion that consciousness is limited to the brain.

First show that the brain causes consciousness and that it is the only place for consciousness.

Are you being genuine?
Please explain how I would go about showing you that our brains are the only place for consciousness. The best I can do is show you that the brain is all that is required.

For starters, address the evidence and reasons that show otherwise. Then also offer a verifiable theory that confirms your view - showing how and why brain causes consciousness, leading to subjective experience, and all of the other associated experiences.

For all I know, consciousness is independent of our brains. I just haven't seen a good argument for such a thing yet. Can you make an actual argument or is the best you have really just to point to an unexplained single event?

I point to Pam's case because it is one of the best since it occurred in a controlled setting and has some independent corroboration for her experience. Most other NDEs lack this independent corroboration, BUT they do show awareness functioning fully during a time when it should not given that the brain is dying or even impaired. We have to remember that it's not just any type of brain activity that allows for conscious experience as if just having one neuron firing allows for vivid experience.

A few posts ago, you brought up an article that includes two popular theories for consciousness, and one of them actually makes consciousness in inanimate objects a theoretically possibility.

Pretty honest and open minded of me, isn't it?

Depends. I was the one to bring it up in the midst of you questioning consciousness existing in other mediums besides the brain.

YOu keep saying that you're not impressed, but I'd be impressed if you were willing to handle evidence in a non-dismissive way. You speak about the issue as if we know nothing, ignoring the independently corroborated information, and then embracing hypotheticals.

The Pam case is anecdotal, unexplained and is therefore not impressive on its own. I observe this to be true, therefore your claim that I'm being dismissive is not apt.

It is unexplained using the brain. Again, you're acting as if there is no evidence, and that we can't possibly rule some things out.

Sure, I get that we don't have absolute certainty as to what happened to Pam Reynolds but that doesn't amount to having nothing. Whatever we do have, we can then use to based our knowledge on.

I don't claim that you have nothing. What you have is only a single, anecdotal unexplained claimed event though. Don't pretend that you have more than you do please.

There are many NDE cases. All of them are evidence of varying strengths. At bare minimum, they also challenge the view that decreased brain function would lead to impaired awareness. Clearly there are some exceptions, like the times when consciousness can separate from the brain and body and even in times when there's no separation involved (patient's in a vegetative state).

Otherwise, please elaborate on how your explanations account for Pam's case in light of my responses to you already. For instance, you've brought up anesthesia awareness, and I already addressed how that wouldn't give Pam awareness of the external environment since her eyes were shut and ears were plugged up.

If all you have is Pam, then all you have is a one time anecdotal event that we cannot explain. I acknowledge that you reject the statement from the anesthesiologist. You will forgive me wont you if I take the anesthesiologist word over yours?
Copy/paste:
"An anesthesiologist who examined the case offered anesthesia awareness as a more prosaic and conventional explanation for such claims."

Are flying sauces real, because of Bob Lazar?
If not, please reflect on why.

We'd need independent corroboration. We have that in Pam Reynold's case and there were some controls in place.

[William]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #105]

That's actually a big strawman version of my view.

Nothing unusual in that.

he precise reason I claim that Pam's awareness occurred independent of the brain and senses is because of the evidence, which is in the form of independent corroboration and her ears and eyes being closed off from the external environment via anesthesia, tape, and ear buds. That basically means that she didn't use her senses to become aware of the event, which would then rule out her brain because the brain did not receive information from her senses. With me, it's always been about the evidence.

Perhaps the problem is that many are so convinced they are their brain, that they simply cannot comprehend consciousness being able to operate without said senses being involved, no matter the evidence...or even if they too had such type experiences...

There have been many NDE reports of "areas" (often referred to as "hospitals") where individuals who have passed on to the next level are incapable of integrating their new reality and requiring assistance in that.

Consciousness works through the brain and body (our sensory organs) to become aware of things, but that doesn't mean it's the only place or medium for consciousness. This is the key point you keep missing.

Avoiding, since the skipping of the information is purposeful as it keeps happening. Strawmanning and cherry picking and misrepresenting are the signs to look for in this type of tactic.

I acknowledge that there is a huge amount of evidence that the brain is a medium for consciousness, but that alone doesn't answer the question nor prove either way that other things can't be consciousness.

You mentioned trees a few posts back. I think trees are not only animate but also aware and thus conscious and networked. This because, observation and recognition that intelligence is involved, which requires consciousness yet clearly doesn't require brains - at least in the sense that brains are usually understood.
For example, the interactions between Mycelium, Acromyrmex and Trees are well documented, and only one of those three is known to have a brain, yet all three are working together with obvious intelligence.

For starters, address the evidence and reasons that show otherwise. Then also offer a verifiable theory that confirms your view - showing how and why brain causes consciousness, leading to subjective experience, and all of the other associated experiences.

Good luck with that. I have asked the same (numerous times) and this has been skipped too. Clearly there is no answer to provide, and the silence is deafening...

There are many NDE cases. All of them are evidence of varying strengths. At bare minimum, they also challenge the view that decreased brain function would lead to impaired awareness. Clearly there are some exceptions, like the times when consciousness can separate from the brain and body and even in times when there's no separation involved (patient's in a vegetative state).

Again, this is skipped...mainstream obviously leans heavily in its support of things which support the cognitive bias, and like I mentioned earlier, even the inevitable death of those things relied heavily on, do not automatically assist with changing those types of beliefs without the "hospitals" caring for and bringing such personalities up to speed... eventually.

[AgnosticBoy]

The precise reason I claim that Pam's awareness occurred independent of the brain and senses is because of the evidence, which is in the form of independent corroboration and her ears and eyes being closed off from the external environment via anesthesia, tape, and ear buds. That basically means that she didn't use her senses to become aware of the event, which would then rule out her brain because the brain did not receive information from her senses. With me, it's always been about the evidence.

Perhaps the problem is that many are so convinced they are their brain, that they simply cannot comprehend consciousness being able to operate without said senses being involved, no matter the evidence...or even if they too had such type experiences...

Agreed. In a lot of cases, the issue is really that many non-believers, mainly atheists, believe that materialism can explain everything. That is the ideological lens that they view everything through in the same that the Bible is used by Christians. The agnostic tends to be free of ideological lenses or they don't hold on to them in some unquestionable way. This is one reason why agnostics are respected by both sides.

There have been many NDE reports of "areas" (often referred to as "hospitals") where individuals who have passed on to the next level are incapable of integrating their new reality and requiring assistance in that.

Yes, agreed. When Clownboat asks why aren't more people reporting these experiences, I think of all the people that have died and couldn't be brought back. These billions upon billions of people may not have any way of coming back to let us know that they still exist in some way, shape, or form.

You mentioned trees a few posts back. I think trees are not only animate but also aware and thus conscious and networked. This because, observation and recognition that intelligence is involved, which requires consciousness yet clearly doesn't require brains - at least in the sense that brains are usually understood.
For example, the interactions between Mycelium, Acromyrmex and Trees are well documented, and only one of those three is known to have a brain, yet all three are working together with obvious intelligence.

That is a good theory, something worth exploring and I think scientists will get there. Theories like yours are one reason why I wouldn't want to draw some overly restrictive conclusion. There is plenty of evidence that consciousness interacts with brain, but instead of concluding that consciousness is caused and limited to brain, why not instead say that the brain is just a medium for consciousness? Why not opt for a conclusion like the latter that fits the evidence just as well AND leaves room for us to find answers in more areas, including William's view?