How to determine the reality of mystical experiences?

In my view, an individual is an ordered pair, so to speak. It is the Cartesian pair of body and mind where each component resides in a separate "world". So when we talk about two humans communicating, we have to be clear about which of the four components are involved.

But in order for the bodies to report on that communication here in the physical world, then the bodies must also be involved.

As you suggested with your teen-ager scenario, it may be easier to achieve telepathy if the mind can withdraw from the preoccupation with the body, for example while the body is meditating or sleeping. I suspect that such communication goes on during sleep, but the communication is not encoded into English and not stored in the brain

In order to be seen as telepathic communication between humans it would have to be the rover to rover case. If there is communication strictly between the minds, then that would be the JPL scientist to JPL scientist case but it would not be reportable by the rovers (humans).

In any case, I think the prospects for eternity are good, especially if the physicalists are wrong.

There will be a few obstinate daring scientists who will doggedly pursue what they believe to be a new paradigm in spite of being disqualified, shunned, unfunded, or derided. The eventual success of plate tectonic theory, and the eventual acceptance of the bacterial cause for ulcers, are prime examples of how this can happen.

I think the overwhelming influence on the public to accepting the scientific position is the undeniable success of science in solving so many real human problems.

So when we say "I believe", who is the "I" making the claim? Is it the mind or the body?

I take exception to this exception. It sounds too materialistic to me.

I would say that Seth has taken over Jane's body in order to use it as part of the communication link to report in the physical world some ideas Seth has in the other world. Jane's personality needs to get out of the way in order for this to work

I have noticed a strange phenomenon when I wake up in the morning; I don't know if it applies to me only, I believe everyone is the same. Many times I wake up thinking exactly the same thought I had when I went to bed, but my mood can be completely different.

This raises an interesting question for me: what is the relationship between the self and the subconscious mind? Can we become conscious of what is now within the subconscious? If we can, can we describe what we find using ordinary language?

If it's not stored in the brain, is it stored at all?

If history serves as a guide, you are certainly right. Still, I cannot imagine such a turn of events in the near future. A scientific proof of the immaterial nature of consciousness would do as much damage to materialism as evolution theory did to religion; it would shake the foundations of modern society. I am not sure what could possibly follow; I suspect it would mean the end of the war between science and religion, and religion would have won. Which is why I don't think it will happen anytime soon.

If that is the case, why do we still have fundamentalists around? Fundamentalists are witness to those successes as much as anyone else, yet they seem unmoved by them.

I'd be inclined to believe language resides in the brain, but in that case what is there to an idea beyond its expression in language?

The real problem with all this stuff is to keep our feet on the ground.

For personal reasons I am a bit scared of this "talking to spirits" thing

Have you thought about this possibility: Could it be that you (the conscious, thinking part of you) are waking up in a different body than the one you were in when you went to sleep?

If the mind is non-physical, I think it's not the scientists who will prove that but the mathematicians. The other alternatives are philosophers and mystics, but the former are too sloppy in their definitions and the latter are not trustworthy.

Here is how I see the non-physical nature of the mind could be approached from a mathematical perspective:

We'd have to start with a clear mathematical definition of "physical".

I'm not a mathematician, but as far as I know such a definition does not yet exist.

I don't think it should be difficult though; we do not necessarily have to know exactly what "physical" is, all we have to do is come up with a definition that is consistent with everything we know.

I would venture that a mathematical definition of "physical" would imply that nothing physical can have infinite or zero magnitude.

Then the next step would be to assert that one or more features of consciousness cannot be physical by that definition.

Now the interesting thing is that mathematics is a feature of consciousness

and mathematics has a particularly interesting feature: it does not happen in time.

The real problem is, exactly where is "a = b + 1" instantaneous? From a platonist perspective the answer would be "in abstract reality". If we can mathematically prove that platonism is the best description of reality (and the success of physics does seem to point that way), then we would have basically come up with a proof that the mind is not physical.

Well, as I said philosophers are sloppy, and amateur ones much more so. I just wanted to point out that the solution to the problem we are discussing may be best achieved by mathematics rather than science.

I'd be interested in your thoughts.

With my background being what it is, …

I am convinced that he has discovered a new theorem of mathematics.

The theorem roughly says that consistency implies the laws of physics.

Since numbers are mental concepts, that "something" must be a conscious mind, just as Gregory Bateson suspected. And if we posit that a mental capability was primordial, … that a combination of both types are at work.

Now didn’t you get a masters in mathematics some forty years ago?

Paul, with that theorem idea of yours in mind, I composed a presentation which I last updated a short time ago. If you would look at that and tell me what is difficult to understand, we might be able to create something clear.

I personally wouldn’t put it that way.

Why not just start with the simple fact that you are aware you can think and call it a Great Original Dilemma. That perhaps the conscious aspect (what one might call the soul) is the primary element of reality (that Great Original Dilemma) and that what everyone calls real is a fabrication of the soul designed to explain the experiences of the soul? Paul, does that sort of fit your picture of the situation? Grapple with that for a while and give me your conclusions.

. . . Dick has discovered a mathematical way to prove that the behavior of any universe which can be described as a set of numbers can be modeled by his differential equation and therefore must obey the laws of physics. This means that the universe, or at least its phenomenal behavior, could have arisen by something producing a set of numbers. . . .

. . . Instead of "the simple fact that you are aware you can think" I call it "the ability to know". It's exactly the same thing.

You guys seem to agree that truth can be had by reason alone

So what you in an earlier post call "proof" can hardly be that unless you are willing to stipulate that all you mean is your math has obeyed all math rules. It proves absolutely nothing about reality.

The first real progress in philosophy since the Greeks was the empiricists IMO, and that was due to recognizing that making sense doesn't necessarily mean what's been reason will conform to reality.

The only way to know if what we've reasoned corresponds to reality is to set up situation where we can observe what's been hypothesized.

If you were to say that all you and Dick are doing is theoretical modeling, then I would be fine with that.

It can be fun to follow a model and see how it pans out.

But you used the word "proof," and in discussions with Dick in the past he clearly indicated he thinks he "knows" by reason alone, so it seems now you are agreeing with him (if I've misinterpreted your meaning, I apologize).

Right there the principles of science have been violated. For science, there is no proof without observation, pure and simple, so I don't know why you or anyone with a Ph.D in science would think otherwise.

...Why not just start with the simple fact that you are aware you can think and call it a Great Original Dilemma. That perhaps the conscious aspect (what one might call the soul) is the primary element of reality (that Great Original Dilemma) and that what everyone calls real is a fabrication of the soul designed to explain the experiences of the soul?

You guys seem to agree that truth can be had by reason alone, but that is disputed by the fact that philosophers had it that way for centuries and produced virtually no knowledge.

'If. . . . , then . . . ,' this only I assert;
And my successes are but pretty chains
Linking twin doubts, for it is vain to ask
If what I postulate be justified,
Or what I prove possess the stamp of fact.
... by Louis Brand

As William James so simply put it, “To know is one thing, and to know for certain that we know is another.”

It proves absolutely nothing about reality.

If you were to say that all you and Dick are doing is theoretical modeling, then I would be fine with that.

It can be fun to follow a model and see how it pans out.

For science, there is no proof without observation, pure and simple, so I don't know why you or anyone with a Ph.D in science would think otherwise.

Are we starting with the simple fact of "you" or "aware" in this argument of yours ?

I don't think otherwise, and I don't think Dick does either. That kind of proof is different from the mathematical proof we have been talking about. And scientists themselves rarely if ever claim that they have proved anything. Instead they only claim to have produced evidence that tends to support an hypothesis.

Originally Posted by Doctordick The proof is a true statement about reality only if the ellipses following that “If” constitute a true statement about reality. If indeed that is the case, then the statement represented by the ellipses following the “then” will also constitute a true statement about reality. And, as he says, the “successes are but pretty chains Linking twin doubts, for it is vain to ask if what I postulate be justified”.

Doctordick seems ambiguous

Is it strictly a mathemathmatical proof without claims that reality must conform?

In his response I quoted it seems he believes reality necessarily must conform to pure logic if one's "then" statement is correctly linked logically to an observed "if" statement. That is rationalism, not science.

Because logic and math are used in science doesn't mean they can ever be allowed to constitute the whole of a scientific proof.

So I still am of the opinion that while you seem clear about the difference between a scientific and math/logic proof, Doctordick doesn't seem to want to make a clear distinction between the two.

Are we starting with the simple fact of "you" or "aware" in this argument of yours ?

You guys seem to agree that truth can be had by reason alone, but that is disputed by the fact that philosophers had it that way for centuries and produced virtually no knowledge.

As William James so simply put it, “To know is one thing, and to know for certain that we know is another.”

Because you can make sense logically or mathematically doesn't mean anything more than the logic and math have been applied according to their own internal rules; it doesn't mean that reality conforms to your perfect logic or math.

For science, there is no proof without observation, pure and simple, so I don't know why you or anyone with a Ph.D in science would think otherwise.

If, by 'rationalism' you mean 'mathematics', then yes, Dicks development is rationalism and not science.

But just as the Pythagorean Theorem is rationalism (mathematics) it nonetheless is useful in developing the predictive theories of science.

. . . the conformance is not to "pure logic" but in some sort of analogic or isomorphic way there must be a conformance between the explanation and something real, about which we know nothing.

Instead, in Dick's Theorem the "if" is a statement about the consistency of some explanation, and the "then" is the assertion that a particular way of interpreting that explanation must exist, viz. one which obeys the laws of physics. No claim of anything about reality is express, and it is only implied if the "explanation" is claimed to have something to do with reality, and such claim does not bear on Dick's result.