A thought experiment...

[davidsmith73]

Originally Posted by Arouet

And how would we judge based solely on the NDE experiments? That's my point: even accepting mind =/ brain we have precious little reliable information.

Reliable information about what?

[Arouet]

Originally Posted by davidsmith73

Reliable information about what?

About how we should use that information to modify our behaviour.

[fls]

Originally Posted by EthanT

Where is there a religious component? Right after that when they report floating out of the room, flittering into some spiritual realm, and seeing God. It just seems really silly to say that the NDE experiences do not have spiritual overtones to them.

Anyhow, in our thought experiment, we are saying the AWARE study has shown that, during an NDE, consciousness has had an experience outside and separate/independent of the body and our test validates that as a legitimate, real experience. Somehow consciousness has seen the hidden visual cue, or picture.

Then, are we going to deny the further elements of NDEs and what patients report seeing (God, dead relatives, etc) immediately after that? Why? And, on what basis? Why would the NDE go from having valid, real experiences (seeing a cue card) to suddenly having experiences that are invalid?

Yeah, I think that confirms what I mentioned earlier. If you are already inclined to accept the whole package, then you have already accepted the idea of survival. If you are already inclined to confine yourself only to what can be drawn from the evidence, then you will accept that seeing the picture doesn't validate any of the religious stuff.

Linda

[davidsmith73]

Originally Posted by Arouet

About how we should use that information to modify our behaviour.

That's up to the individual surely. For example, if you were to realise that death is not the end of your existence, you might be tempted to end your life on this earth prematurely, in search of a new start so to speak. On the other hand, you might be scared of what lies ahead and want to stay here as long as possible.

To go back to my previous question, I would be interested in what you think 'reliability' means in the current context?

[davidsmith73]

Originally Posted by fls

Yeah, I think that confirms what I mentioned earlier. If you are already inclined to accept the whole package, then you have already accepted the idea of survival. If you are already inclined to confine yourself only to what can be drawn from the evidence, then you will accept that seeing the picture doesn't validate any of the religious stuff.

Linda

Hang on, I thought the point of this thought experiment was to start with the assumption that we have somehow demonstrated mind-body independence beyond reasonable doubt. Whether that is possible with the AWARE study is a different issue. Independent functioning of the mind would logically imply survival wouldn't it?

[fls]

Originally Posted by davidsmith73

Hang on, I thought the point of this thought experiment was to start with the assumption that we have somehow demonstrated mind-body independence beyond reasonable doubt. Whether that is possible with the AWARE study is a different issue. Independent functioning of the mind would logically imply survival wouldn't it?

No. Why would it?

Seeing the picture in the AWARE study tells us something about consciousness and perception. But it doesn't tell us that any other perceptions are valid except those like the one which was validated. And it doesn't tell us what happens to those perceptions once the body they are associated with is irrevocably dead.

Linda

[davidsmith73]

Originally Posted by fls

No. Why would it?

Because we have accepted (for the purposes of the thought experiment) that the mind functions independently of the body. Therefore, when the body dies the mind continues or survives. We're trying to discuss the implications of that. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the point of the OP?

Seeing the picture in the AWARE study tells us something about consciousness and perception. But it doesn't tell us that any other perceptions are valid except those like the one which was validated. And it doesn't tell us anything about what happens to those perceptions once the body they are associated with is irrevocably dead.

Linda

It looks like you are arguing only from the premise that the AWARE study provides positive results. I realise that was one of the "let's assume" point in the OP, but I think docpoco was intending to explore what it would mean for society, as a whole, if we were to conclude that mind is independent from the body.

I would also be interested in your view about what the terms "reliable" and "valid" mean in the present context.

[fls]

Originally Posted by davidsmith73

Because we have accepted (for the purposes of the thought experiment) that the mind functions independently of the body. Therefore, when the body dies the mind continues or survives. We're trying to discuss the implications of that. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the point of the OP?

Maybe. The OP specified that the thought experiment was about some people seeing the pictures in the AWARE study.

It looks like you are arguing only from the premise that the AWARE study provides positive results. I realise that was one of the "let's assume" point in the OP, but I think docpoco was intending to explore what it would mean for society, as a whole, if we were to conclude that mind is independent from the body.

Well, then you are talking about speculating far beyond what the evidence reliably and validly supports. And we already do that, so predicating it on the results of the AWARE study would be redundant.

I would also be interested in your view about what the terms "reliable" and "valid" mean in the present context.

As they are used in scientific research.

Reliable - a consistent result under similar or identical conditions.

Valid - the result reflects what it claims to represent.

Linda

[really]

Originally Posted by davidsmith73

That's up to the individual surely. For example, if you were to realise that death is not the end of your existence, you might be tempted to end your life on this earth prematurely, in search of a new start so to speak. On the other hand, you might be scared of what lies ahead and want to stay here as long as possible.

That actually happened when the Catholic church was expanding into and converting people of western Europe. After the collapse of the Roman Empire life was horrible, really really horrible. Anyway, many believed there awaited a lovely place called heaven so they committed suicide to get there sooner than later. The church realized it was losing converts, so they came up with the devilish idea to make suicide a mortal sin

[davidsmith73]

Originally Posted by fls

Well, then you are talking about speculating far beyond what the evidence reliably and validly supports. And we already do that, so predicating it on the results of the AWARE study would be redundant.

I agree, and if I'm interpreting corretly, the OP could simply have been "let's assume that mind-body independence was universally accepted - what would happen to science and society?".

It appears to me that science would have a huge problem. Assuming mind-body independence, let's say Jack perceives X. As science currently operates, the only way we can know that Jack perceived X would be if his body provides us with a physical representation (e.g., a verbal report or physiological activity). However, if the mind can function independently of the body, it is not necessary that Jack's perception of X be accompanied by a physical representation that we could observe from a third person perspective. How would science establish the reliability and validity of those perceptions?