White Cat Experiment

[Filip Sandor]

Ok everyone, I've decided to revive my old debate, by presenting to you all my findings on the metaphysical (or immaterial).

This is kind of a "thought experiment" previously presented by me in the JREF Philosophy forums a couple years ago.. unforunately those few, very long threads are lost, but the fact remains, the non-physical is real and I am going to prove it (to the best of my ability) and maybe some people will see what I am about to show you. Either way at least we can have a good, normal debate here for those of you who are tired of trying to knock sense into the more far fetched 'theories' out there.

First I have to define what I mean by non-physical or immaterial - these two terms may be used interchangeably.
:

Definition of non-physical phenomena: any phenomena that is known to exist for sure, for which no physical evidence has ever been observed and no valid, physical theory has ever been invented or observed.

A note: The transition of this "thought experiment" into a proof of non-physical phenomena requires, by it's nature, that all the individuals exchanging thoughts in this thread tell the truth when asked any question pertaining to the context of the (for now)theory and present only rational arguements for or against it.. of course this includes myself as well, I'm not singling anyone out here!

Ok here we go...

Imagine a white cat in your mind.. a 'mental picture' if you will. Feel free to use your imagination.. your cat doesn't have to be white, it can be black or red, any color and breed you like, you can even picture your own cat if you have one. Do this for just a few seconds (closing your eyes may help)....

Did everyone see a mental picture?

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Did everyone see a mental picture?

No.

But I'll elaborate, what I imagine is not the same experience I have when I see a white cat.

Hmm and the original threads do go back a long time, some thoughts from a while ago (about January 2002 to be more precise.)

<snip>

However, Win's proof that mind is not supervenient on brain strikes me as naive. I cannot imagine a world of p-zombies any more than I can imagine a world in which adding 2 to 2 produces anything but 4, so I do not find his concieved world to be compelling.

This is interesting as I think it illustrates something I have real problems understanding.

There where some earlier threads when the question “where is the white cat in my brain when I "imagine" a white cat".

Now when I use my imagination to "create" a white cat in my mind I am also 100% aware that it is very different experience to what I experience when I see (in the real world) a white cat.

The "conceivability" proof seems to me a version of the same argument as the white cat in the real mind v imagined white cat experiences.

I don't believe when people say they can "conceive" of something they are creating the fully realized experience of the real world. The purely mentally conceived item is truly a chimera caused by the brain “filling” in what would be huge gaps in the real world equivalent.

(Edited for words formatting speling misteaks and the kitchen sink.)

 

[CFLarsen]

Definition of non-physical phenomena: any phenomena that is known to exist for sure, for which no physical evidence has ever been observed and no valid, physical theory has ever been invented or observed.

Name one such phenomenon.

Ok here we go...

Imagine a white cat in your mind.. a 'mental picture' if you will. Feel free to use your imagination.. your cat doesn't have to be white, it can be black or red, any color and breed you like, you can even picture your own cat if you have one. Do this for just a few seconds (closing your eyes may help)....

Did everyone see a mental picture?

I can imagine many things. So?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Yes, I see a mental picture of a white cat.

And my definition of a mental picture: A recollection of the way a cat looks, possibly modified by imagination to make it white (since I am not shure I ever saw a totally white cat in real life).

I am also able to make a mental picture of a green cat, btw .


(Uh ohh, I can see where this is leading )

Hans

 

[Filip Sandor]

Re: Re: White Cat Experiment

Now when I use my imagination to "create" a white cat in my mind I am also 100% aware that it is very different experience to what I experience when I see (in the real world) a white cat.

The "conceivability" proof seems to me a version of the same argument as the white cat in the real mind v imagined white cat experiences.

Darat,

Darat,

The question is not whether you can tell your experience of a "mental cat" apart from the your experience of a "real cat."

Did you perceive a mental picture?

 

[Filip Sandor]

Re: Re: White Cat Experiment

Name one such phenomenon.

My mental image of a white cat is one such phenomenon. I have no physical evidence of it and I have never invented or observed any valid, physical theory that implies it exists... still I am 100% sure it exists because I am aware of it.

 

[El Greco]

All mental imagery and thoughts are the result of electrochemical brain activity, much like the screen output of a computer program is the result of moving electrons. Physical evidence of that imagery is present in the form of recorded brain activity. The fact that we can't yet completely decipher or capture that activity does not mean that there is no physical evidence of mental imagery, exactly like the absence of knowledge about the inner workings of a computer program does not indicate that a white cat dispalyed by that program on the screen is "immaterial".

Anything new ?

 

[Darat]

Re: Re: Re: White Cat Experiment

Darat,

Darat,

The question is not whether you can tell your experience of a "mental cat" apart from the your experience of a "real cat."

Did you perceive a mental picture? [/B]

The answer is still "no". (By "mental picture" I am assuming you mean that I somehow "see" a cat in my "mind's eye"? That is not how the process of trying to image a white cat works for me. I don't see anything that relates to the image I see when I see a white cat external to myself.) The best way I can describe it is that I have a sense of a white cat, something more akin to a concept of a white cat.

 

[Filip Sandor]

Yes, I see a mental picture of a white cat.

And my definition of a mental picture: A recollection of the way a cat looks, possibly modified by imagination to make it white (since I am not shure I ever saw a totally white cat in real life).

Do you have any physical evidence of the mental image you perceived or a valid, physical theory that implies it's existence?

 

[Darat]

Re: Re: Re: White Cat Experiment

My mental image of a white cat is one such phenomenon. I have no physical evidence of it and I have never invented or observed any valid, physical theory that implies it exists... still I am 100% sure it exists because I am aware of it. [/B]

You don’t think then the fact that if you stimulate certain areas of the brain with an electrode a person will say "I just saw a white cat" or "I just smelt hay" and so on is at all relevant?

 

[Filip Sandor]

The fact that we can't yet completely decipher or capture that activity does not mean that there is no physical evidence of mental imagery, exactly like the absence of knowledge about the inner workings of a computer program does not indicate that a white cat dispalyed by that program on the screen is "immaterial".

El Greco,

If you have no physical evidence for it, why do you believe it exists?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Do you have any physical evidence of the mental image you perceived

No.

or a valid, physical theory that implies it's existence?

Yes.

The mental image is my brain calling up the stored image of a cat, from memory. I can make a computer do exactly the same.

Hans

 

[Filip Sandor]

Re: Re: Re: Re: White Cat Experiment

You don’t think then the fact that if you stimulate certain areas of the brain with an electrode a person will say "I just saw a white cat" or "I just smelt hay" and so on is at all relevant?

It may be relevant for certain kinds of neorological or psychological research, but not extremely relevant to this case.

A better question to ask here would be, how do you know for sure that the person who's brain we 'stimulated' is actually perceiving the mental phenomena they claim? Are you simply going by faith?

 

[Filip Sandor]

The mental image is my brain calling up the stored image of a cat, from memory. I can make a computer do exactly the same.

Hans

Does that mean the mental image you perceived is the physical activity in your brain?

 

[El Greco]

El Greco,

If you have no physical evidence for it, why do you believe it exists?

What I just said is that *WE HAVE* physical evidence: Recorded brain activity. These days we also have preeliminary devices that can be controlled by thought. Their technology is based exactly on what you call "absence of physical evidence". Do you understand that, or you are determined to "prove the immaterial" no matter what ?

 

[Filip Sandor]

Re: Re: Re: Re: White Cat Experiment

The answer is still "no". (By "mental picture" I am assuming you mean that I somehow "see" a cat in my "mind's eye"? That is not how the process of trying to image a white cat works for me. I don't see anything that relates to the image I see when I see a white cat external to myself.) The best way I can describe it is that I have a sense of a white cat, something more akin to a concept of a white cat.

Ok let's work with that. You perceived a concept of a whit cat - to make it even more simple let's say you simply perceived a 'concept'. Do you have any physical evidence of it or a valid, physical theory that proves it exists?

 

[Filip Sandor]

What I just said is that *WE HAVE* physical evidence: Recorded brain activity. These days we also have preeliminary devices that can be controlled by thought. Their technology is based exactly on what you call "absence of physical evidence". Do you understand that, or you are determined to "prove the immaterial" no matter what ?

I don't understand how brain activity implies the existence of a mental image. Can you give me some clarification on that?

 

[Darat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: White Cat Experiment

It may be relevant for certain kinds of neorological or psychological research, but not extremely relevant to this case.

A better question to ask here would be, how do you know for sure that the person who's brain we 'stimulated' is actually perceiving the mental phenomena they claim? Are you simply going by faith?

Yep of course I am going on faith; my whole world view is based on faith (or assumptions) if you like.

To move away from solipsism (which itself even contains assumptions) I have to make assumptions, which are for me in very simple terms "I exist" and "there are other things that exist independent from me".

Given those assumptions or faith or as I’ve called them before “leaps of faith” I can construct a worldview that seems consistent and coherent. And in that worldview I don’t see any problem with your “white cat”.

Consider this, we now have cochlear implants that can help deaf people to hear again, we build these by having a “practical” understanding that when you stimulate certain nerves people say they “hear” something, now we don’t know if they all ”hear” the same things and so on but we do know that if fitted properly everyone says they “hear” something. This hints that our perceptions are a result of “physical” (in the meaning of things that interact with one another and are detectable) processes.

We could theoretically do blind testing on whether we all report the same “experience” when our brains are stimulated in the same way (and indeed we don’t need access to the brain or electrodes to do this). In an experiment I press button A and you say “white cat”, button B and you say “I smelt hay”, once the experiment is “unblinded” we can then see if you did indeed report “white cat” when the “white cat” stimulus was applied and so on.


(Edited for blending and words.)

 

[Darat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: White Cat Experiment

Ok let's work with that. You perceived a concept of a whit cat - to make it even more simple let's say you simply perceived a 'concept'. Do you have any physical evidence of it or a valid, physical theory that proves it exists?

Apparently we do since my brain can be scanned and every time I'm told to think of something my brain reacts in a (roughly) similar way, so we see a physical process that always seem to occur when this "mental" process is happening. Again I'm not saying this is definite proof but it certainly to me hints that there are physical processes happening when I have "mental" experiences.

 

[El Greco]

I don't understand how brain activity implies the existence of a mental image. Can you give me some clarification on that?

I presented the analogy of a computer program: We can measure the electricity and the program displays a white cat on your screen. Electricity is electrochemical brain activity and "computer monitor" is "mental imagery". The white cat in your thoughts exists as much as the one on my screen.