This is the third part of my series of posts about a fictional dialogue between a materialist and a survivalist.
Survivalist: In our last discussion, you mentioned that you have a good deal of powerful objections against the survivalist position.
Materialist: Yeah.
Survivalist: Ok show me one of them.
Materialist: A powerful objection against your position is that it's, argueably, unfalsifiable and, therefore, unscientific.
Survivalist: I disagree. You have argued that mind-body (ontological) dependence undermine or refutes (or make impossible) survival of consciousness. So, according to your own position, the survival hypothesis can be refuted. Therefore, it's falsifiable according your own standards.
Materialist: The problem is that you survivalists don't formulate your own position in a testable way; in fact, the evidence that I take as a refutation of your position is interpreted by you as a confirmation of your position too.
Survivalist: This is false. I can't speak by other survivalists, but I can speak by myself.
I've argued that the evidence that you mention (drugs, Alzheimer, etc.) is consistent with both the production hypothesis AND the transmission hypothesis, because both hypotheses entail mind-body dependence manifested as concomitant variation between mental states and brain states.
The issue at stake is if the kind of dependence (productive, transmissive/permissive. etc.). In other words, the issue at stake is the proper interpretation of that evidence.
Materialist: But if the evidence in favor of production is consistent with your position too, then how could that evidence count against your position? It's what makes your position unfalsifiable.
Survivalist: I think you're committing a non-sequitur fallacy here. The fact that the evidence supporting production is, also, consistent with the survival hypothesis doesn't imply that the latter is not refutable. Other relevant evidence could refute it.
Materialist: Which ones?
Survivalist: Evidence showing that all the best afterlife data is false or fraudulent is consistent the production hypothesis, and empirically inconsistent with the survival hypothesis.
In other words, if the production hypothesis is true, then survival doesn't exist (and the survival hypothesis would be false). And if it's the case, by logical implication, evidence in favor of afterlife (e.g. cases of mediumship, reincarnation, etc.) have to be false or wrong.
But if afterlife is true, and the brain is only a transmiter of consciousness (but not necessarily the only one), then we'd expect that consciousness would continue to exist and, possibly, could express itself under certain conditions and without a brain. If it's correct, then the afterlife data makes sense (as actual data, and not as fraud or delusion). As consequence, if afterlife data is true, the production hypothesis is false, and the the transmission hypothesis would probably true (in that scenario, what's absolutely true is survival as a fact; but the hypotheses that explain the mind-body connection between a soul that survives and a biological brain cannot be absolutely proven, because no hypothesis is entailed by the data alone).
Materialist: You're wrong. Evidence showing that afterlife data is false or fraudulent doesn't imply that survival (as a fact) doesn't exist. Survival could exist even if all the mediums are fraudulent. Therefore, this evidence doesn't refute your position (because it's unfalsifiable)
Survivalist: You're conflating many concepts and things here.
It's true that survival as a fact could exist even if all the afterlife data is false or fraudulent. But we're not talking about the LOGICAL POSSIBILITY of survival alone, but about its empirical possibility too. And if all the empirical survival data is false or fraudulent, then survival would be only an logical possibility, not an empirical one.
And, given that the production hypothesis is both a logical possibility and an empirical possibility, we'd prefer (in that scenario) the production hypothesis over the survival hypothesis. Thus, empirical evidence actually could COUNT against the survival hypothesis.
Also, given that the production hypothesis implies extinction, and if (for the above reasons) we have preferred the production hypothesis over the survival one, then we would be forced to conclude that the latter is false.
Note that empirical evidence (proving the falsity of the best afterlife data) and the balance favoring production over transmission, enable us to argue that the latter is false. And this refutes your claim that the survival hypothesis is unfalsifiable and unscientific.
You claim that mind-body dependence (as understood by you, i.e. as existential dependence) undermines and refutes the survival hypothesis suffices to contradict your own claim that the latter is unfalsifiable.
You problem is that you want to force evidence of neuroscience in your favor (when actually it's consistent with both hypotheses) instead of focusing yourself in refuting the best evidence supporting the afterlife (data that, if true, it's inconsistent your position; but if false, is consistent with your position and would undercut the empirical foundation of mine).
Materialist: I don't have to refute any piece of evidence suppossedly supporting your position.
Survivalist: But you should examine it at least. If you're ignorant of the evidence, how do you know if my position has empirical support or not? And how do you know the that empirical evidence support better the production hypothesis over transmission, or viceversa?
Materialist: I only need to know the indisputable evidence from neuroscience. The "evidence" supporting your position is, at most, controversial.
Survivalist: First, what is in stake is the interpretation of the evidence, not the evidence itself. And no interpretation in science is indisputable, because it's revisable when new evidence surfices or when new theoretical model are developed.
Second, the evidence of parapsychology and afterlife is not disputed by the scholars working in that field. What's disputed is their proper interpretation.
Regaridng parapsychology, even professional skeptic Richard Wiseman has conceded that, according to the commonly accepted standards of science, a parapsychological phenomena like Remote Viewing is actually "proven".
The evidence is disputed mainly by materialists and mainstream scientific community, which is strongly materialist.
Materialist: Even if remote viewing is proven, it doesn't support the survival hypothesis. No parapsychologist defends survival based on RV.
Survivalist: I agree that RV doesn't support directly the survival hypothesis; but (in my opinion) RV refutes materialism and support dualism. Therefore, by implication, it support at least indirectly the possibility of an afterlife. And this is inconsistent with the production hypothesis which, if true, denies the possibility of an afterlife.
In other words, the implications of the production hypothesis are argueably inconsistent with phenomenon like RV.
Materialist: I disagree. Even if RV exists (and I don't think it does), the brain could still be necessary to paranormal phenomena to exist or be manifested in living organisms.
Survivalist: But it's only a logical possibility. I think dualism is more consistent with RV than materialism or the production hypothesis, because RV is not what we'd if the latter are true.
And the fact that materialists and "skeptics" (like Wiseman) have assumed the task to debunk that kind of research strongly suggest that, explicitly or implicitly, they see some inconsistence between paranormal phenomena and the materialistic worldview. It's not the kind of phenomena that we'd to be true if materialism is true.
This mainstream materialism explains too the scientific (by mainstream science) hostility against parapsychology.
Materialist: You're interpreting the facts in a reverse way. The scientific mainstream is materialist because the evidence supporting mind-body dependence is overwhelming and the evidence contrary to materialism is false, weak or non-existent at all.
Survivalist: You're very ill-informed and you have a very naive view of the mainstrem scientific and philosophical community. As has been conceded by many materialist thinkers and philosophers, materialism has not been assumed to be true because the evidence for it is good or "overwhleming" and contrary evidence is weak or non-existing.
For example, materialist philosopher William Lycan has conceded: "Being a philosopher, of course I would like to think that my stance is rational, held not just instinctively and scientistically and in the mainstream but because the arguments do indeed favor materialism over dualism. But I do not think that, though I used to. My position may be rational, broadly speaking, but not because the arguments favor it: Though the arguments for dualism do (indeed) fail, so do the arguments for materialism."
If the arguments for materialism and for dualism both fail, why the hell mainstream intellectual community favors materialism over dualism?
The answer has been suggested by other materialist philosophers. For example, first-rate materialist thinker Thomas Nagel wrote: "I believe that this is one manifestation of a fear of religion which has large and often pernicious consequences for modern intellectual life.
In speaking of the fear of religion, I don’t mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper—namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and wellinformed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.
My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind. Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning, and design as fundamental features of the world"
Dualism and other spiritualistic positions has been part of many religions. Thus, a "fear of God and religion" would explain the rejection of religious or quasi-religious ideas like dualism and the existence of "spirits", and a dogmatic acceptation of materialism even when the arguments for it fail (Lycan).
Thus, your naive, almost romantic, view of intellectual community is argueably false. If you want to understand the hostilty to parapsychology and afterlife research, you have to realize that it's not a matter of evidence alone, but of the interpretation of it. And that interpretation is colored by many factors, including emotional and ideological ones like the "fear of religion" and similar.
The above also explain why almost in each discussion about survival, materialists invariably mention examples and analogies referring to God and creationism. It's almost impossible to discuss these topics with a materialist who, eventually, won't mention God. It's like an obsession for them (though I have to admit that you have not fall in that temptation... yet, so maybe you're the exception to the rule).
This seem to confirm Nagel's view mentioned above.
Materialist: I don't have interest in all the above phraseology. If irrational factors are at play in this debate, it's irrelevant. It doesn't make your position true.
Survivalist: But I'm NOT mentioning the above factors as evidence in favor of my position, but to refute your naive view of the factors in play in the mainstream community and its implications to the evaluation of the actual merits parapsychology.
If you're intellectually honest, you can't simply say that the evidence of parapsychology is "controversial" without considering the underlaying philosophical factors (conceded explicitly by materialists) which, a priori, are hostile to psi evidence and, therefore, explain at least part the "controversy"around it.
Even when the phenomenon is "proven" by the normal standards of sciences, the evidence will be considered weak or non-existent by materialists, because it challenges the materialistic pressumption that such phenomena don't happen or, if exist, are "extraordinary". As has argued writer Michael Prescott: "In a world where consciousness is restricted to the brain, remote viewing would indeed be extraordinary and outlandish. But in a world where consciousness can operate independent of the brain, remote viewing is exactly the kind of thing we would expect to see. We would also expect to see reports of out-of-body experiences, near-death experiences, telepathy, precognition, apparitions, and after-death communication. And we do! In fact, such things have been reported for thousands of years all over the world and are taken for granted by billions of people today, just as they were by most of our ancestors.
So there may be nothing extraordinary or outlandish at all about any of these phenomena. They only appear that way to those who start with the assumption that such things just don't happen"
In any case, I agree that we should continue with this debate, omitting the above references. I'd like to hear your other arguments, but it'll be in another moment. I have other things to do.
Materialist: Fine.
TO BE CONTINUED
-Part 1 of this dialogue.
-Part 2 of this dialogue.
Survivalist: In our last discussion, you mentioned that you have a good deal of powerful objections against the survivalist position.
Materialist: Yeah.
Survivalist: Ok show me one of them.
Materialist: A powerful objection against your position is that it's, argueably, unfalsifiable and, therefore, unscientific.
Survivalist: I disagree. You have argued that mind-body (ontological) dependence undermine or refutes (or make impossible) survival of consciousness. So, according to your own position, the survival hypothesis can be refuted. Therefore, it's falsifiable according your own standards.
Materialist: The problem is that you survivalists don't formulate your own position in a testable way; in fact, the evidence that I take as a refutation of your position is interpreted by you as a confirmation of your position too.
Survivalist: This is false. I can't speak by other survivalists, but I can speak by myself.
I've argued that the evidence that you mention (drugs, Alzheimer, etc.) is consistent with both the production hypothesis AND the transmission hypothesis, because both hypotheses entail mind-body dependence manifested as concomitant variation between mental states and brain states.
The issue at stake is if the kind of dependence (productive, transmissive/permissive. etc.). In other words, the issue at stake is the proper interpretation of that evidence.
Materialist: But if the evidence in favor of production is consistent with your position too, then how could that evidence count against your position? It's what makes your position unfalsifiable.
Survivalist: I think you're committing a non-sequitur fallacy here. The fact that the evidence supporting production is, also, consistent with the survival hypothesis doesn't imply that the latter is not refutable. Other relevant evidence could refute it.
Materialist: Which ones?
Survivalist: Evidence showing that all the best afterlife data is false or fraudulent is consistent the production hypothesis, and empirically inconsistent with the survival hypothesis.
In other words, if the production hypothesis is true, then survival doesn't exist (and the survival hypothesis would be false). And if it's the case, by logical implication, evidence in favor of afterlife (e.g. cases of mediumship, reincarnation, etc.) have to be false or wrong.
But if afterlife is true, and the brain is only a transmiter of consciousness (but not necessarily the only one), then we'd expect that consciousness would continue to exist and, possibly, could express itself under certain conditions and without a brain. If it's correct, then the afterlife data makes sense (as actual data, and not as fraud or delusion). As consequence, if afterlife data is true, the production hypothesis is false, and the the transmission hypothesis would probably true (in that scenario, what's absolutely true is survival as a fact; but the hypotheses that explain the mind-body connection between a soul that survives and a biological brain cannot be absolutely proven, because no hypothesis is entailed by the data alone).
Materialist: You're wrong. Evidence showing that afterlife data is false or fraudulent doesn't imply that survival (as a fact) doesn't exist. Survival could exist even if all the mediums are fraudulent. Therefore, this evidence doesn't refute your position (because it's unfalsifiable)
Survivalist: You're conflating many concepts and things here.
It's true that survival as a fact could exist even if all the afterlife data is false or fraudulent. But we're not talking about the LOGICAL POSSIBILITY of survival alone, but about its empirical possibility too. And if all the empirical survival data is false or fraudulent, then survival would be only an logical possibility, not an empirical one.
And, given that the production hypothesis is both a logical possibility and an empirical possibility, we'd prefer (in that scenario) the production hypothesis over the survival hypothesis. Thus, empirical evidence actually could COUNT against the survival hypothesis.
Also, given that the production hypothesis implies extinction, and if (for the above reasons) we have preferred the production hypothesis over the survival one, then we would be forced to conclude that the latter is false.
Note that empirical evidence (proving the falsity of the best afterlife data) and the balance favoring production over transmission, enable us to argue that the latter is false. And this refutes your claim that the survival hypothesis is unfalsifiable and unscientific.
You claim that mind-body dependence (as understood by you, i.e. as existential dependence) undermines and refutes the survival hypothesis suffices to contradict your own claim that the latter is unfalsifiable.
You problem is that you want to force evidence of neuroscience in your favor (when actually it's consistent with both hypotheses) instead of focusing yourself in refuting the best evidence supporting the afterlife (data that, if true, it's inconsistent your position; but if false, is consistent with your position and would undercut the empirical foundation of mine).
Materialist: I don't have to refute any piece of evidence suppossedly supporting your position.
Survivalist: But you should examine it at least. If you're ignorant of the evidence, how do you know if my position has empirical support or not? And how do you know the that empirical evidence support better the production hypothesis over transmission, or viceversa?
Materialist: I only need to know the indisputable evidence from neuroscience. The "evidence" supporting your position is, at most, controversial.
Survivalist: First, what is in stake is the interpretation of the evidence, not the evidence itself. And no interpretation in science is indisputable, because it's revisable when new evidence surfices or when new theoretical model are developed.
Second, the evidence of parapsychology and afterlife is not disputed by the scholars working in that field. What's disputed is their proper interpretation.
Regaridng parapsychology, even professional skeptic Richard Wiseman has conceded that, according to the commonly accepted standards of science, a parapsychological phenomena like Remote Viewing is actually "proven".
The evidence is disputed mainly by materialists and mainstream scientific community, which is strongly materialist.
Materialist: Even if remote viewing is proven, it doesn't support the survival hypothesis. No parapsychologist defends survival based on RV.
Survivalist: I agree that RV doesn't support directly the survival hypothesis; but (in my opinion) RV refutes materialism and support dualism. Therefore, by implication, it support at least indirectly the possibility of an afterlife. And this is inconsistent with the production hypothesis which, if true, denies the possibility of an afterlife.
In other words, the implications of the production hypothesis are argueably inconsistent with phenomenon like RV.
Materialist: I disagree. Even if RV exists (and I don't think it does), the brain could still be necessary to paranormal phenomena to exist or be manifested in living organisms.
Survivalist: But it's only a logical possibility. I think dualism is more consistent with RV than materialism or the production hypothesis, because RV is not what we'd if the latter are true.
And the fact that materialists and "skeptics" (like Wiseman) have assumed the task to debunk that kind of research strongly suggest that, explicitly or implicitly, they see some inconsistence between paranormal phenomena and the materialistic worldview. It's not the kind of phenomena that we'd to be true if materialism is true.
This mainstream materialism explains too the scientific (by mainstream science) hostility against parapsychology.
Materialist: You're interpreting the facts in a reverse way. The scientific mainstream is materialist because the evidence supporting mind-body dependence is overwhelming and the evidence contrary to materialism is false, weak or non-existent at all.
Survivalist: You're very ill-informed and you have a very naive view of the mainstrem scientific and philosophical community. As has been conceded by many materialist thinkers and philosophers, materialism has not been assumed to be true because the evidence for it is good or "overwhleming" and contrary evidence is weak or non-existing.
For example, materialist philosopher William Lycan has conceded: "Being a philosopher, of course I would like to think that my stance is rational, held not just instinctively and scientistically and in the mainstream but because the arguments do indeed favor materialism over dualism. But I do not think that, though I used to. My position may be rational, broadly speaking, but not because the arguments favor it: Though the arguments for dualism do (indeed) fail, so do the arguments for materialism."
If the arguments for materialism and for dualism both fail, why the hell mainstream intellectual community favors materialism over dualism?
The answer has been suggested by other materialist philosophers. For example, first-rate materialist thinker Thomas Nagel wrote: "I believe that this is one manifestation of a fear of religion which has large and often pernicious consequences for modern intellectual life.
In speaking of the fear of religion, I don’t mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper—namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and wellinformed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.
My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind. Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning, and design as fundamental features of the world"
Dualism and other spiritualistic positions has been part of many religions. Thus, a "fear of God and religion" would explain the rejection of religious or quasi-religious ideas like dualism and the existence of "spirits", and a dogmatic acceptation of materialism even when the arguments for it fail (Lycan).
Thus, your naive, almost romantic, view of intellectual community is argueably false. If you want to understand the hostilty to parapsychology and afterlife research, you have to realize that it's not a matter of evidence alone, but of the interpretation of it. And that interpretation is colored by many factors, including emotional and ideological ones like the "fear of religion" and similar.
The above also explain why almost in each discussion about survival, materialists invariably mention examples and analogies referring to God and creationism. It's almost impossible to discuss these topics with a materialist who, eventually, won't mention God. It's like an obsession for them (though I have to admit that you have not fall in that temptation... yet, so maybe you're the exception to the rule).
This seem to confirm Nagel's view mentioned above.
Materialist: I don't have interest in all the above phraseology. If irrational factors are at play in this debate, it's irrelevant. It doesn't make your position true.
Survivalist: But I'm NOT mentioning the above factors as evidence in favor of my position, but to refute your naive view of the factors in play in the mainstream community and its implications to the evaluation of the actual merits parapsychology.
If you're intellectually honest, you can't simply say that the evidence of parapsychology is "controversial" without considering the underlaying philosophical factors (conceded explicitly by materialists) which, a priori, are hostile to psi evidence and, therefore, explain at least part the "controversy"around it.
Even when the phenomenon is "proven" by the normal standards of sciences, the evidence will be considered weak or non-existent by materialists, because it challenges the materialistic pressumption that such phenomena don't happen or, if exist, are "extraordinary". As has argued writer Michael Prescott: "In a world where consciousness is restricted to the brain, remote viewing would indeed be extraordinary and outlandish. But in a world where consciousness can operate independent of the brain, remote viewing is exactly the kind of thing we would expect to see. We would also expect to see reports of out-of-body experiences, near-death experiences, telepathy, precognition, apparitions, and after-death communication. And we do! In fact, such things have been reported for thousands of years all over the world and are taken for granted by billions of people today, just as they were by most of our ancestors.
So there may be nothing extraordinary or outlandish at all about any of these phenomena. They only appear that way to those who start with the assumption that such things just don't happen"
In any case, I agree that we should continue with this debate, omitting the above references. I'd like to hear your other arguments, but it'll be in another moment. I have other things to do.
Materialist: Fine.
TO BE CONTINUED
-Part 1 of this dialogue.
-Part 2 of this dialogue.
