quote:
You will never find that place -- ever. Because it doesn't can't exist!
quote:
And man will never fly.
No, I'm afraid you misunderstood me. Being unable to find the place that CAN'T exist is more like "man will never discover the squirrel that is fatter than itself." No, never, not in an infinite number of parallel universes or an infinite amount of time, an infinite number of squirrels and an infinite number of people.
"Finding" an
immaterial place is akin to: discovering the last digit of pi, drawing a round square, making a stone too heavy for God to lift, pitching a no-hitter to a batter that can't miss, discovering the real number that is the closest to (but less than) 2... you get my point?
quote:
Also, hypnosis has been SO thoroughly debunked OVER and OVER again in the most thorough and solid ways possible!
quote:
I see that you believe this very strongly. I respect that. But for it to be certainly true would require both proving a negative and solving an infinitely regressable series.
I'm afraid not. If one time -- only once -- a bottle fails to fall when it should by all physical reason, then gravity is *certainly* untrue. Certainty almost NEVER requires solving an infinite regress. For one thing, infinite regresses (if they are genuine) DON'T resolve (see above: finding the last digit of pi or the real number that is closest to 2). All this would require, in this case, is to show that either psychologically or physically (or either if they are indeed the same thing), the concept of hypnosis is impossible -- or rather, that it cannot (by consistent cause and effect) obtain its goal. This has been done.
quote:
I will go by my experience and the decades of respected research. Even if hypnosis is totally bogus, 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. Otherwise, you are looking at speculations, which, though intuitively forceful, are NOT "concrete facts."
quote:
What you SHOULD be marvelling at is the power of the mind to create, not the capacity of the mind to store.
quote:
I can't do both? Of course the mind is creative (read my posts about "pattern recognition") but adding data to a stream does not mean the stream doesn't exist without the addition. If some debunker finds a subject who recalls invented data under hypnosis, that does not mean the actual data was not there. You can't prove the data is not there by finding something else - that would be proving a negative - you can't prove I don't have a nickle in my pocket by the fact that I also have a dime.
Oh, you certainly CAN do both -- you would be misled, though.
You are right: the data COULD be there, despite the fact that the hypnosis created COINCIDENTALLY identical data with a causally disconnected means. The problem is two-fold, then: (1) the odds are staggeringly low (and against you); and (2) then you are on no better footing than you are without reference to hypnosis, which is just as good as debunking it with certainty!
quote:
Either way, I STILL agree with you that the MIND is NOT identical to the BRAIN!
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; I base it on deductive reasoning:
(1) I am imagining a blue goose.
(2) Therefore, something is blue and goose-like.
(3) The thing which is blue and goose-like must be either:
(a) My brain (or part thereof),
(b) An external object sensed by me, or
(c) An illusion
(4) Not (a)
(5) Not (b)
(6) Hence, the thing which is blue and goose-like must be an illusion.
(7) If something is an illusion, then it is not material (i.e. immaterial)
(
I have direct access to my imaginings
(9) The only things I have direct access to are mental objects (e.g. ideas)
(10) Mental objects inhere in minds
(11) Immaterial only inhere in immaterial objects
(12) Therefore, my mind is immaterial.
Only one subjective experience, but NOT the kind about which I can be mistaken! The "seeming" qualities of my ideas are infallible (just like I can't be wrong about thinking I'm happy -- if I think I'm happy, then I am!). Deductive logic is also infallible. Of course, one of my premises besides (1) and (2) (infallible) could be wrong, but I'm convinced. Not subjectively
