quote:
Originally posted by Xodarap
quote:
And man will never fly.
No, I'm afraid you misunderstood me. <snip> you get my point? 
I understood what you were saying, I'm just not locked into the premise. Your analogies are good, but there is a chance, however slight, that they do not apply. That was my point. I agree that mind is almost certainly immaterial, and that by current standards, using material tools, we cannot wrap a bottle around it any more than we can wrap a bottle around a rainbow, but I am not willing to close the book on future tools which may become available.
quote:
If one time -- only once -- a bottle fails to fall when it should by all physical reason, then gravity is *certainly* untrue.
Or something else happened. My key certainly unlocks the door, unless the door is already unlocked. I know what you are saying and I agree, I just don't like falling into the mindset of some others on this board who know what they know and won't examine other ideas.
quote:
quote:
there are many other more concrete facts which indicate that the mind can store more than the brain can hold.
I'm willing to state categorically that there are not. As a well-versed philosopher of mind, I assume (maybe hastily) that such would have been brought to the attention of the academic community, and can say with certainty that it has not.
Either you misunderstood me or you missed out on such things as people who are having brain surgury, get touched in a certain place and see their long dead mother's favorite dress. I know you may believe that they are reconstructing this from a less information dense stimulus, but my personal experience argues against that, and that is all we have to go by in the long run.
quote:
the data COULD be there, despite the fact that the hypnosis created COINCIDENTALLY identical data with a causally disconnected means.
or hypnotism works... If you start with the premise that hypnotism can't work, you can certainly find evidence to support your premise. You have to build speculative structures and connect previously unconnected facts, which Occam is just standing around waiting for a chance to get at, but it can be done.
quote:
quote:
Good to see I haven't changed your mind. 8-) We both have to go on our subjective experience in the absence of factual evidence.
I don't base my argument on subjective experience;
Except the part where you only think you are a person talking to other people on the internet.
Your blue goose
may be as material as all the geese I pass by on the way to the lake. I don't believe so, but there is a chance.
If there is room in the brain for everything hypnosis cannot possibly find
, and
if those things are just chemicals sloshing around, then when we think/feel/imagine/remember things, we are just sensing the chemicals with another straightforward part of our sensoria. There would be actually something there, which is not blue, and not a goose, but which we can wrap a bottle around, and your experience of it is just other chemicals we can cork up. I know neither of us believe this, but it is infinitesimally possible.
Putting aside hypnosis as a matter for later discussion, I still contend that there is not enough structure in the brain to explain either consciousness, mind or spirit. That famous and mythical "unused" portion notwithstanding. We seem to agree on that, and will be vilified for our thoughts by those who want to be nothing more than chemicals. If we can prove it they will ignore the proof and call us stupid. That's always funny so let's do it!8-)
