So this is supposed to be a syllogism? Identify your middle, predicate and subject terms.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do Realistic Interpretations of NDEs Imply Violation of the Laws of Physics?
- Thread starter Nous
- Start date
Your obviously haven't proven your claim that you" can safely state that 'electrical activity in the brain' can logically account for" Pam Reynolds' ability to accurately describe the surgical saw and tray of interchangeable blades that (according to her doctor) were brought out after she was under general anesthesia and her eyes were taped shut.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
I can't believe you are making me go through this...
Alright...
(1) If the electrical activity in the brain hasn't been proven to be absent during NDE experiences and there is no proven explanation as to what causes NDE experiences, then the electrical activity in the brain might possibly be the cause.
(2) The electrical activity in the brain hasn't been proven to be absent during NDE experiences and there is no proven explanation as to what causes NDE experiences.
(3) Therefore, the electrical activity in the brain might possibly be the cause.
(4) If something 'might possibly be the cause' of something else, then it 'can logically account' for that thing.
(5) Therefore, the electrical activity in the brain can logically account for the NDE experiences.
Wow. Can't make a deduction, eh?
Let's go with this: "The electrical activity in the brain hasn't been proven to be absent during NDE experiences" and your conclusion that you could not deduce from your premises: "Therefore, the electrical activity in the brain can logically account for the NDE experiences." It is certainly true in the case of Pam Reynolds that no one has proven (or claimed) that electrical activity was entirely absent from her brain at the time when she might have observed the surgical saw and tray of interchangeable blades. Let's assume that there was at least some amount of electrical activity in her anesthetized brain when her eyes were taped shut and she observed the saw and the tray of blades (from just above the surgeon's shoulder). How does electrical activity in her anesthetized brain account for her veridical perception when her eyes were taped shut?
You're going to say, "I can't explain it! I can't name or describe a 'mechanism'!!"
But how can you claim that you have deduced that the electrical activity in her brain "logically accounts" for her veridical perception, when you admittedly can't explain how electrical activity in her brain "logically accounts" for her perception?
Obviously on the basis of the mere fact that there was electrical activity in her brain, one cannot deduce that that electrical activity "logically accounts" for her veridical perception.
Would you believe me if I told you that I could close my eyes and see the back of my head? Why not? I have plenty of electricity in my brain.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Have you actually read it thoroughly ?
I didn't conclude that her brain logically accounts for her veridical perception. What I did conclude is that her brain can logically account for her veridical perception. This is the difference between saying that 'her brain is the cause of her veridical perception' and that 'her brain might be the cause of her veridical perception'. There is no impediment, as far as logic goes, for her brain to be the cause. And since that's the case, your position is unsustainable.
Last edited:
Geez! You didn't logically conclude anything; you weren't able to deduce either of the 2 sentences you stuck "therefore" in front of. "Can" is not a copula. You have not been able to cite any fact from which one can deduce either of the sentences you stuck "Therefore" in front of. Right?
If the sentence you labeled (1) were a fact, then you would be able to provide the evidence that it is true:
(1) If the electrical activity in the brain hasn't been proven to be absent during NDE experiences and there is no proven explanation as to what causes NDE experiences, then the electrical activity in the brain might possibly be the cause.
Where is the evidence that people (other than NDErs) whose eyes are taped shut and are under anesthesia can observe objects from an out-of-body perspective, form memories about the object, and later accurately describe the object?
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Modus ponens is a valid form of argumentation.
So, yes, I did logically conclude something. I suggest you read it again if you think otherwise.
Let me stop you right here, and say that regardless of what else you have to say this is incorrect.
Something might be a fact and yet someone might find himself unable to provide evidence that it is true.
That makes it no less of a fact. But, let's continue...
I don't need any. Why would I ?
Do you understand the concept of possible worlds ?
It is logically possible, meaning there is no logical contradiction or impediment, for the actual world to be a world where the electrical activity in the brain is responsible for those experiences. At the first part of (1) I am mentioning the two factors that would create such an impediment. It could also be rephrase as: "If there are no known facts that logically prevent the electrical activity in the brain from being responsible for NDE experiences, then the electrical activity in the brain might possibly be the cause".
Where do you claim you stated a deduction by modus ponens?
If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.
Quote whatever modus ponens deduction you claim you have stated. Then provide the evidence by which to conclude that you P and Q propositions are true statements.
Then prove that your statement labeled (1) is a fact.
Fact:
1.something that actually exists; reality; truth:
Your fears have no basis in fact.
2.something known to exist or to have happened:
Space travel is now a fact.
3.a truth known by actual experience or observation; something knownto be true:
Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4.something said to be true or supposed to have happened:
The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
Your fears have no basis in fact.
2.something known to exist or to have happened:
Space travel is now a fact.
3.a truth known by actual experience or observation; something knownto be true:
Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4.something said to be true or supposed to have happened:
The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
the definition of fact
If you have no problem with premises for which there is no evidence to show that they are true statements, then what problem do you have with the following premise that someone says is true but there is no evidence that it is true
(1) Zeus is a God who sits on Mount Olympus.
?
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
I'll ask the aliens next time they take me.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Is this a joke ?
Modus ponens is:
If P, then Q.
P.
Therefore, Q.
What you have described as modus ponens is actually a fallacy known as affirming the consequent.
Here is a simple example of ( proper ) modus ponens:
(1) If the electrical activity in the brain hasn't been proven to be absent during NDE experiences and there is no proven explanation as to what causes NDE experiences, then the electrical activity in the brain might possibly be the cause.
(2) The electrical activity in the brain hasn't been proven to be absent during NDE experiences and there is no proven explanation as to what causes NDE experiences.
(3) Therefore, the electrical activity in the brain might possibly be the cause.
Let me put it this way:
What do you consider to be the logical impediment for the electrical activity in the brain to be the cause of those experiences ? Do you agree that if there is no logical impediment, the electrical activity in the brain can possibly be the cause of those experiences ?
Sorry about that! That was an honest mistake!
Very good. Now prove that Q is true for Pam Reynolds.
Pam Reynolds' taped eyes were not taking in photons reflected from the surgical saw and tray of blades and transmitting signals caused by such photons through her optic nerve and into her visual cortex and elsewhere.
Your claim that electrical activity in her brain "possibly" accounts for her perception requires that electricity in her brain to be magic.
So you don't have a problem with this fact that I just don't have evidence to show is true?
Koldo
Outstanding Member
I don't understand your request. Please do elaborate. What premise do you want me to substantiate ?
If you think that exhibiting extraordinary capabilities that wouldn't be expected, according to our best knowledge, amounts to nothing less than magic then anything that would be responsible for those events would be, by definition, magic. Those experiences contradict our understanding of how our sight works. They are then, according to your use of the word, magical in themselves. What possible explanation can you suggest that you wouldn't label as 'magic' ? However, even so, in a world where "magic" exists, "magic" is not a logical impediment.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
I don't understand the equivalency you see between that sentence and mine.
False. The fact that your attempt to account for the phenomena of NDEs by asserting that alleged electrical activity in brains behaves magically does not mean any other explanations must be likewise illogical and magical. Moreover, your claim of electrical activity in brains behaving magically doesn't account for the veridical perceptions of people during clinical death whose brains are isoelectric (such as Dr. Rudy's patient).
Your attempt to account for the phenomena of NDEs by claiming magical behavior of some alleged flicker of electrical activity in the brains of people during clinical death only creates a conundrum as to why you, with a fully functioning brain, cannot close your eyes and see the back of your head. If it were true that magical behavior of (alleged) electricity in brains accounts for NDErs' veridical perceptions from an out-of-body perspective, then why can't you, with a fully functioning brain, close your eyes and see the back of your head?
Notice that none of the authors of any of the literature I've quoted here has concluded any illogical or magical behavior of any known phenomenon in an attempt to account for the facts of NDEs. Their conclusions--deduced from facts, unlike your conclusion--have all been negative ones, e.g., “consciousness would not be expected at the time of these experiences, memory formation, logical thought processes and veridical perceptions.”
My conclusions have likewise all been negative--because that is all that one can deduce from the facts. Note that when you began posting on this thread, you claimed that nothing can be concluded from the fact that people have veridical perceptions from an out-of-body perspective other than the fact that “there are cases of veridical perception.” I responded (#64) that “we can conclude that consciousness and perception are not dependent upon a functioning brain.” You replied, “That is not possible to conclude at all.” But, the fact is that my negative conclusion is the only conclusion that one can deduce from the available facts. Your conclusion about electricity in brains having magical abilities cannot be deduced from any fact.
Again, you need to notice the difference between a conclusion that can be deduced from a fact and one (such as yours) that is not premised on any empirical fact. Unlike your claims of (alleged) electricity in brains behaving magically, van Lommel's, Parnia's, et al's, negative conclusions and assertions that the facts of NDEs present a "paradox" given certain assumptions about consciousness are not logically problematic; they are simply deduced from the facts of NDE phenomena.
I challenged you to substantiate that your "Q" proposition ("the electrical activity in the brain might possibly be the cause") is true for Pam Reynolds' perception of the surgical saw and tray of interchangeable blades while she was anesthetized and her eyes taped shut. Obviously it is a challenge that you cannot fulfill. Electrical activity in her brain does not account for her (or any other NDEr's) veridical perceptions from an out-of-body perspective. That's why you are proposing magic.
I challenged you to prove that your "(1)" premise above ("If the electrical activity in the brain hasn't been proven to be absent during NDE experiences and there is no proven explanation as to what causes NDE experiences, then the electrical activity in the brain might possibly be the cause") is true. You replied, "Something might be a fact and yet someone might find himself unable to provide evidence that it is true." The same can be said about the premise, "Zeus is a God who sits on Mount Olympus." It might a fact; I merely can't provide any evidence to prove it.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
I will reiterate: I am not proposing the brain is responsible for those events. What I am proposing is that it might be responsible.
But concerning the part I have emphasized: Give me an example. An example of an explanation that wouldn't be magical by the standards you have employed so far.
That I am unable to do something right now doesn't entail that I am unable to do it at any given circumstance.
I agree with that statement.
Do realize it does not contradict what I have said so far. My conclusion is likewise based around facts.
And I have shown your deduction is incorrect. You insist on refusing to admit you can't rule the brain as being responsible for those experiences though.
I still don't understand what you are asking of me. If you accept (1) and (2), then you must accept (3). So, what substantiates (3) is (1) and (2). This means you reject either (1) or (2), but which is it ?
That's what illogical about your proposal. An anesthetized brain on a table with its eyes taped shut does not and cannot provide any logical explanation for the perception of a surgical saw and tray of interchangeable blades. That's why you have been unable to argue that a dead brain does or can provide a logical explanation for such veridical perceptions.
What I and the authors of the literature I've quoted here have deduced from the facts are negative propositions--e.g., that the phenomena of NDEs are not and can not be accounted for as a product of the severely impaired or utterly non-functioning brains of people at the time of these experiences and perceptions.
What explains your inability to close your eyes and see the back of your head is the fact that the electricity in your brain does not act magically in that way.
You haven't been able to show that your premise about electrical activity in a brain "might possibly" being able to account for veridical perceptions while the anesthetized perceiver's eyes are taped shut is true. Your premise isn't a fact, and you haven't deduced your premise from any fact.
You showed my statement that from the fact of veridical perceptions from an out-of-body perspective, “we can conclude that consciousness and perception are not dependent upon a functioning brain,” is incorrect? When, where, how did you show that conclusion to be incorrect?
Geez! I challenged you to prove that your "Q" proposition ("the electrical activity in the brain might possibly be the cause") is true for Pam Reynolds' perception of the surgical saw and tray of interchangeable blades while she was anesthetized and her eyes taped shut. I don't know how to be any clearer about that. It means for you to begin with a fact, then deduce that it is true that "electrical activity in the brain might possibly be the cause" of Pam Reynolds' veridical perception.
Obviously in order to prove that "electrical activity in the brain might possibly be the cause" of Pam Reynolds' veridical perception, you must be able to provide the fact from which to deduce that "electrical activity in the brain" can cause such veridical perception. As noted earlier, the mere fact that someone has electrical activity in his/her brain (as you and I presumably do now) does not give one the ability to see things when our eyes are taped shut. Thus, you obviously need an additional fact other than the mere existence of electrical activity in Pam Reynolds' brain in order to account for her veridical perception when her eyes were taped shut.