Morality By Oxytocin

[BatCreekCrazy]

I've wondered if a pill were developed that gave people "spiritual" feelings, would it be unethical to give it to my kids when we read the scriptures or go to church?

This idea illustrates that in fact how can one claim the spirit is anything but a programmed chemical responses. If chemicals (prozac, oxytocin, etc) can yield positive/moral experiences, if application of electromagnetic fields can imprint ideas into the brain (http://m.sciencemag.org/content/334/6061/1413.abstract) or yield the feeling of spiritual presence (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.11/persinger.html) and if Fasting Ketosis (http://www.moodfoods.com/fasting-mood.html) can yield spiritual euphoria, then spiritual experiences can be programmed to respond with any doctrinal input. Administration of the right chemical, field, or action brings about the "spirit" or "holy ghost" in a controlled fashion, and that means it isn't pointing at truth, it is pointing at programming.

I agree, it is unethical to program and brainwash children with pills. It's also wrong to do it with fasting ketosis, or claims that normal moral elevation through natural oxytocin release is uniquely testifying of any one truth, when it works the same with all religions.

[BatCreekCrazy]

I suppose it could be a special class of emotions, or alien brain probes, or matrix simulations, or temporary rifts in the space/time continuum, or overlaps with alternative universes, or any of a number of indeterminate things. All I know is that with as much as I have experienced spiritual things, they are discernibly different sensations and experiences than what I experience physically--not unlike, metaphorically, the discernible difference to me between what I experience while dreaming and what I experience while I am awake.

The good news is that since at this point in my mortal existence I don't know and perhaps can't know of a certain that I am experiencing spirit reality, what matter to me is whether viewing it as spiritual (in a supernatural sense) works in improving my life and the life of those around me. It does.

You seem to believe you have a high SQ, so I'd like to pick your brain. I had this experience:

As a young missionary in the MTC, deciding I had to get the deep spiritual confirmation if I was going ask investigators to try the spirits, I went on a journey. I fasted and prayed nearly constantly. Two days into my fast, with no food and very very little water, I sat in class while the MTC instructor told us that he felt prompted we would feel the spirit strong that day as he told us about Joe Smith's first vision. I was drained and worn from fasting, but onward I pushed. Not long into it, as I prayed hard, focused intently, I got a very sudden euphoric feeling. It began in my head, moved through my body and caused a feeling of floating, elevation and alertness that was hugely envigorating in contrast to the drained feeling I'd had only minutes before. I felt elation and expansion in my chest, and a desire to go do loving things for others. It was utter evidence to me. It was my rebirth. I drew upon that experience for the next two decades.

Is that the spirit to you?

[BatCreekCrazy]

Boyd K Packer gave a talk where he discussed the difference between emotions and the spirit.

http://lds.org/ensign/1983/01/the-candle-of-the-lord?lang=eng

We Can Be Deceived

" Be ever on guard lest you be deceived by inspiration from an unworthy source. You can be given false spiritual messages. There are counterfeit spirits just as there are counterfeit angels. (See Moro. 7:17.) Be careful lest you be deceived, for the devil may come disguised as an angel of light.

" The spiritual part of us and the emotional part of us are so closely linked that is possible to mistake an emotional impulse for something spiritual. We occasionally find people who receive what they assume to be spiritual promptings from God, when those promptings are either centered in the emotions or are from the adversary.

"

In other words, the most important way to LDS in finding the truth (the spirit) is so easily deceptive, you haven't a freaking chance at finding the truth. It could be God's spirit, or it could be satan, or it could be emotions. And how do you tell the difference? Where is the scripture, the general conference talk or other teaching that clearly defines how to know the difference? Is God really expecting that his eternal truth be found by such a confusing and subtle effect? Are we really supposed to trust by faith that these spiritual experiences--which may be so close to emotional experiences as to confuse us--trust them over scientific facts that clearly contradict revealed word? It is very confusing and alarming.

[KevinG]

The gifts of the Spirit are much more than a "feeling". It is a shame BatCreekCrazy didn't continue to pray, fast and study and continually seek the influence of the Holy Spirit. Depending on a singular experience that could be emotional or from the Spirit is not a good foundation for learning of God.

If you take the time to build upon your experiences with God and develop a long term relationship you can learn more. As you learn more and live according to what has been given you are increased in knowledge and truth.

The gifts of the Spirit are many and include:

• “To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world” (D&C 46:13)
  

• “To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful” (D&C 46:14)
  

• “To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know the differences of administration, as it will be pleasing unto the same Lord, according as the Lord will, suiting his mercies according to the conditions of the children of men” (D&C 46:15)
  

• “To some to know the diversities of operations, whether they be of God, that the manifestations of the Spirit may be given to every man to profit withal” (D&C 46:16)
  

• “To some is given, by the Spirit of God, the word of wisdom” (D&C 46:17; 1 Cor 12:
  

• “To one is given by the Spirit of God, that he may teach the word of wisdom” (Moroni 10:9)
  

• “To another is given the word of knowledge, that all may be taught to be wise and to have knowledge” (D&C 46:18; 1 Cor 12:
  

• “To another, that he may teach the word of knowledge by the same Spirit” (Moroni 10:10)
  

• “To some it is given to have faith to be healed” (D&C 46:19; 1 Cor 12:9)
  

• To some “the gift of faith” (Moroni 10:11)
  

• “To others it is given to have faith to heal” (D&C 46:20; 1 Cor 12:9; Moroni 10:11)
  

• “To some is given the working of miracles” (D&C 46:21; 1 Cor 12:10; Moroni 10:12)
  

• “To others it is given to prophesy” (D&C 46:22; 1 Cor 12:10; Moroni 10:13)
  

• “To others the discerning of spirits” (D&C 46:23; 1 Cor 12:10; Moroni 10:14)
  

• “To some to speak with tongues” (D&C 46:24; 1 Cor 12:10; Moroni 10:15)
  

• “To another is given the interpretation of tongues” (D&C 46:25; 1 Cor 12:10; Moroni 10:16)
  

• The gift of translation (D&C 5:4)
  

Please don't insult our intelligence by claiming a witness of the Holy Spirit is just a feeling that can be created through brain chemistry. That confuses the thing acting with the thing being acted upon. For example: My pleasure centers can be activated through a variety of natural and artificial means. That doesn't mean the natural means don't really exist.

[CV75]

This idea illustrates that in fact how can one claim the spirit is anything but a programmed chemical responses. If chemicals (prozac, oxytocin, etc) can yield positive/moral experiences, if application of electromagnetic fields can imprint ideas into the brain (http://m.sciencemag....1/1413.abstract) or yield the feeling of spiritual presence (http://www.wired.com.../persinger.html) and if Fasting Ketosis (http://www.moodfoods...sting-mood.html) can yield spiritual euphoria, then spiritual experiences can be programmed to respond with any doctrinal input. Administration of the right chemical, field, or action brings about the "spirit" or "holy ghost" in a controlled fashion, and that means it isn't pointing at truth, it is pointing at programming.

I agree, it is unethical to program and brainwash children with pills. It's also wrong to do it with fasting ketosis, or claims that normal moral elevation through natural oxytocin release is uniquely testifying of any one truth, when it works the same with all religions.

I think it is not the feeling alone (regardless of the source) that makes something spiritual. It is what we do with the feeling, the meaning we attach to its related deeds and their outcomes, and the enhanced effects and outcomes that go beyond what one would normally or reasonably expect.

Fasting as a religious principle puts a person into a particular condition where his thoughts and actions are directed in a certain manner that effects changes in him, in his environment and by extension changes for others. Sometimes these actions receive grace or divine assistance that enhances their effect—kind of like the difference between self-control and rebirth.

[CV75]

In other words, the most important way to LDS in finding the truth (the spirit) is so easily deceptive, you haven't a freaking chance at finding the truth. It could be God's spirit, or it could be satan, or it could be emotions. And how do you tell the difference? Where is the scripture, the general conference talk or other teaching that clearly defines how to know the difference? Is God really expecting that his eternal truth be found by such a confusing and subtle effect? Are we really supposed to trust by faith that these spiritual experiences--which may be so close to emotional experiences as to confuse us--trust them over scientific facts that clearly contradict revealed word? It is very confusing and alarming.

Elder Packer doesn’t say it is easy to be deceived or that we are bound to be deceived, only that it is possible if we are not on guard or careful. I think his talk promotes an optimistic view that we can avoid deception, counterfeits, unworthiness, mistakes, assumptions, apostasy, etc.

“Be ever on guard lest you be deceived by inspiration from an unworthy source. You can be given false spiritual messages. There are counterfeit spirits just as there are counterfeit angels. (See Moro. 7:17.) Be careful lest you be deceived, for the devil may come disguised as an angel of light.

The spiritual part of us and the emotional part of us are so closely linked that is possible to mistake an emotional impulse for something spiritual. We occasionally find people who receive what they assume to be spiritual promptings from God, when those promptings are either centered in the emotions or are from the adversary.

Avoid like a plague those who claim that some great spiritual experience authorizes them to challenge the constituted priesthood authority in the Church. Do not be unsettled if you cannot explain every insinuation of the apostate or every challenge from the enemies who attack the Lord’s church. And we now face a tidal wave of that. In due time you will be able to confound the wicked and inspire the honest in heart.”

[wenglund]

You seem to believe you have a high SQ, so I'd like to pick your brain. I had this experience:

As a young missionary in the MTC, deciding I had to get the deep spiritual confirmation if I was going ask investigators to try the spirits, I went on a journey. I fasted and prayed nearly constantly. Two days into my fast, with no food and very very little water, I sat in class while the MTC instructor told us that he felt prompted we would feel the spirit strong that day as he told us about Joe Smith's first vision. I was drained and worn from fasting, but onward I pushed. Not long into it, as I prayed hard, focused intently, I got a very sudden euphoric feeling. It began in my head, moved through my body and caused a feeling of floating, elevation and alertness that was hugely envigorating in contrast to the drained feeling I'd had only minutes before. I felt elation and expansion in my chest, and a desire to go do loving things for others. It was utter evidence to me. It was my rebirth. I drew upon that experience for the next two decades.

Is that the spirit to you?

Since I didn't experience what you experienced, I would have no way of knowing for sure. However, some of what you described (movement through the body and floating) doesn't sound like anything I have experienced spiritually. And, the absence of other spiritual aspects (like streams of consciousness and revelatory enlightenment) have me wondering as well.

Nevertheless, I have felt those kinds of things at certain times when my blood-sugar levels were low or when I have come down from a carb rush.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Minos]

Joe Smith's

You are on a Mormon board. It isn't asking much to expect posters to use a proper name of a leader you criticize. I've lost track of how many times you have been warned about your lack of civility and respect for this board you want to be a part of. You are suspended for a week.

[wenglund]

In other words, the most important way to LDS in finding the truth (the spirit) is so easily deceptive, you haven't a freaking chance at finding the truth.

I hate to break it to you but there isn't any aspect of human existence (five senses, cognition, emotions) that aren't vulnerable to deception or misunderstanding. We are, by nature, fallible. Yet, somehow we humans manage to progress in "knowledge". The same is true for the spiritual aspects of our lives. For many of us, the vulnerability to deception and error isn't sufficient cause to surrender ourselves to abject ignorance, whether in spiritual or temporal matters. In fact, often for us our greatest stides in wisdom and understanding may come while we are most vulnerability to error and deception--like when we are as little children.

But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 29, 2011 by wenglund

[CV75]

The gifts of the Spirit are many

Related to this train of thought, I think oxytocin and any other brain chemical is a gift of God just like the rest of the human body, food, shelter, health, bounty, plenty, the earth and everything in it, the sun and everything else in space that benefits us, etc. All things come from God, and He governs the mechanics of how we obtain, use and enjoy them (D&C 88:13), and all things are ultimately spiritual (D&C 29:34); after all, the gifts of the Spirit, all of which testify of Christ, are manifest in many temporal ways (administration, conditions of men, operations, health, miracles, speech, translation, etc.).

[mfbukowski]

One cannot separate the physical from the spiritual. That is part of our doctrine. "Spirit is matter more refined" To imagine that if a phenomenon is "physical" it cannot be "spiritual" is just a misunderstanding.

On the other hand, one cannot reduce a description of a spiritual experience to a description of some physical "cause" any more than we can look into someone's brain and see what he is thinking. It's like trying to describe the proverbial taste of salt or the color red, or knowing if someone sees the same "red" that we do. The point is that they are not logically equivalent.

Another way of saying this is that propositions in the first person (which typically start with the pronoun "I" or "we") cannot be reduced to third person propositions (observations about what "he, she or it" did.)

"I feel euphoric" is not, nor ever will be logically equivalent to some description of my brain state, even if we term one the "cause" of the other.

This is reflected in my siggy- the quote from Nagel's famous essay "What is it like to be a bat?"

[Tarski]

I've wondered if a pill were developed that gave people "spiritual" feelings, would it be unethical to give it to my kids when we read the scriptures or go to church?

There certainly exist such pills.

And yes it would be unethical.

[lachrymolotov]

Religious experiences are widely variable in some regards. A pentecostal religious experience of speaking in tongues is fairly different from the average LDS experience, which is different from a transcendental experience of a meditating monk. This is merely on the surface, though. The funny thing about the human brain is that a person can experience the same brain state and interpret it two different ways, depending on context. The fight or flight response is a good example, since two different situations can result in two different behaviors from the same exact process. How is one to know if they have a genuine religious experience?

A number of studies have been done to show what is going on in people's brains during a religious experiences and it turns out that they are all quite similar, varying mostly by degrees on the physiological level. So, to say that we cannot see what is going on in someone's brain and understanding what they are thinking is not quite true. Observing from the outside in allows for insights into the workings of the brain that are impossible to an individual solely based on self-reflection.

Everyone knows what salty tastes like because everyone shares the same biology. Everyone knows what red is, because it is the where the wavelength is between 600 and 700 nanometers. Even if it appears different to one individual, we have an objective way in which to measure light. Those have always been horrible analogies. Even if there is a variance within our species, it is within a certain, measurable threshold. If someone were to be blind to that portion of light, or that aspect of taste, we could still judge something to be salty or red easily enough. In general, most people know what you are talking about when you say something is salty or red. It is the same with religious experiences. We share the same biology, which means, for the most part, people know what you are talking about when you describe having one.

The doctrine that spirit is just more refined is the deal-breaker for the Mormon religion. It is where it squarely puts itself at odds with science. If spirit is really a material substance, then where does it interact with our biology? How much smaller can a sub-atomic particle get and still have mass? More importantly, how would this material interact with our biology to produce thoughts or intelligence? No explanations exist. It might as well be a fairy tale.

Edited January 3, 2012 by lachrymolotov

[Nofear]

The doctrine that spirit is just more refined is the deal-breaker for the Mormon religion. It is where it squarely puts itself at odds with science. If spirit is really a material substance, then where does it interact with our biology? How much smaller can a sub-atomic particle get and still have mass? More importantly, how would this material interact with our biology to produce thoughts or intelligence? No explanations exist. It might as well be a fairy tale.

It is a bit off topic but as to your objection of spirit matter -- yes, we don't have any good model of spirit matter. While some Mormons posit that spirit matter is a subset of the Standard Model and exists within in, it is an assumption and an entirely unecessary one. I personally reject the assumption. So why don't we observe it? If spirit matter is something other than physical matter, it is a truth that the Standard Model cannot "observe" spirit matter. We can only observe that which the theory allows us to observe. The best we can see are anomolies in the theory's predictions based on influences exterior to the theory. You ask, where does it interact with our biology? We don't know -- we don't have a model of spirit matter--physical matter interaction and so we could we be staring the interaction in the face and not see it. That is to say, we don't "see" it as we humans either interpret the observation as an unexplained anomaly or explain it within the context of our physical models.

Anyway, as this is off-topic I shan't pursue the discussion here, though if you felt inclined to start a thread I'd probably contribute.

[mfbukowski]

Religious experiences are widely variable in some regards. A pentecostal religious experience of speaking in tongues is fairly different from the average LDS experience, which is different from a transcendental experience of a meditating monk. This is merely on the surface, though. The funny thing about the human brain is that a person can experience the same brain state and interpret it two different ways, depending on context. The fight or flight response is a good example, since two different situations can result in two different behaviors from the same exact process. How is one to know if they have a genuine religious experience?

A number of studies have been done to show what is going on in people's brains during a religious experiences and it turns out that they are all quite similar, varying mostly by degrees on the physiological level. So, to say that we cannot see what is going on in someone's brain and understanding what they are thinking is not quite true. Observing from the outside in allows for insights into the workings of the brain that are impossible to an individual solely based on self-reflection.

Everyone knows what salty tastes like because everyone shares the same biology. Everyone knows what red is, because it is the where the wavelength is between 600 and 700 nanometers. Even if it appears different to one individual, we have an objective way in which to measure light. Those have always been horrible analogies. Even if there is a variance within our species, it is within a certain, measurable threshold. If someone were to be blind to that portion of light, or that aspect of taste, we could still judge something to be salty or red easily enough. In general, most people know what you are talking about when you say something is salty or red. It is the same with religious experiences. We share the same biology, which means, for the most part, people know what you are talking about when you describe having one.

The doctrine that spirit is just more refined is the deal-breaker for the Mormon religion. It is where it squarely puts itself at odds with science. If spirit is really a material substance, then where does it interact with our biology? How much smaller can a sub-atomic particle get and still have mass? More importantly, how would this material interact with our biology to produce thoughts or intelligence? No explanations exist. It might as well be a fairy tale.

You really need to get better informed about different theories about what science can and cannot do if you want any credibility at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-realism#Anti-realism_in_science

[wenglund]

Religious experiences are widely variable in some regards. A pentecostal religious experience of speaking in tongues is fairly different from the average LDS experience, which is different from a transcendental experience of a meditating monk. This is merely on the surface, though. The funny thing about the human brain is that a person can experience the same brain state and interpret it two different ways, depending on context. The fight or flight response is a good example, since two different situations can result in two different behaviors from the same exact process. How is one to know if they have a genuine religious experience?

Secular experiences can also be different in some respects. What a Tibetan may experience when reaching the summit of Mt. Everest is not the same as what a woman in Idaho may experience during the funeral of a dear friend.

Yet, even with all these secular differences we humans manage to figure out which secular experiences are genuine from those that aren't.

The same is true for religious experiences. Differences don't necessitate spiritual ignorance or uncertainty.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 4, 2012 by wenglund

[mfbukowski]

The funny thing about the human brain is that a person can experience the same brain state and interpret it two different ways, depending on context. The fight or flight response is a good example, since two different situations can result in two different behaviors from the same exact process.

What is funny is that you don't see this fact as demonstrative that experiences have nothing to do with brain states, as per my siggy. It is so obvious!

[Tarski]

What is funny is that you don't see this fact as demonstrative that experiences have nothing to do with brain states, as per my siggy. It is so obvious!

What???

Neither Nagal nor Searle (despite being rather confused) would ever go so far as to say that experiences have nothing to do with brain states. Of course they do.

[mfbukowski]

What???

Neither Nagal nor Searle (despite being rather confused) would ever go so far as to say that experiences have nothing to do with brain states. Of course they do.

The phenomenology is irrelevant to the physical state- see my siggy; Please read the full article by Nagel- notice it is "e-l" not "a-l".

I will be glad to discuss the article with you if you read it.

[Tarski]

The phenomenology is irrelevant to the physical state- see my siggy

That's not what your siggy says at all.

Be that as it may, I think Nagel is just conceptually trapped.

subjective phenomenon is essentially connected with a single point of view

Is it surprising? A particular brain necessarily encounters itself differently than it does other brains since it is connected to itself physically in a way that it is not connected to other brains. This is physical fact.

One could say the same thing about computers but it is not normative or conventional to think of computers as having subjectives states but the reason for this has nothing to do with computers being purely physical.

By the way, I realize intition agrees with you and Nagel (at least to the questionable degree to which such talk about subjectivity is even clear in the first place). But so much the worse for intuition. Intuition also tells us that an amoeba is only able to move around in a lifelike way by virtue of some non-mechanistic elan vital. But we know for sure that isn't true by now. It is indeed molecular machinery after all.

I know you are thinking "well, that's different.." but that's is only because our inchoate and primative intutions about consciousness are more ingrained. But being incorrigable about something does not make one right about that thing.

Basically Nagel just appeals to our intuitions as if to say "well, look, it is just obvious...".

That's not good philosophy.

So don't think for a minute that I am failing to grasp the intuition. I spent half my life "arguing" along the same lines as Nagel.

[Xander]

Tarski, this is hardly the first time he has misunderstood Nagel:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/55013-moroni-7-and-the-argument-from-personal-experience/page__st__260__p__1209031877

[wenglund]

Tarski, this is hardly the first time he has misunderstood Nagel:

http://www.mormondia...__p__1209031877

What makes you think you are in a better position than him to judge who understood Nagel and who didn't?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

That's not what your siggy says at all.

Be that as it may, I think Nagel is just conceptually trapped.

Is it surprising? A particular brain necessarily encounters itself differently than it does other brains since it is connected to itself physically in a way that it is not connected to other brains. This is physical fact.

One could say the same thing about computers but it is not normative or conventional to think of computers as having subjectives states but the reason for this has nothing to do with computers being purely physical.

By the way, I realize intition agrees with you and Nagel (at least to the questionable degree to which such talk about subjectivity is even clear in the first place). But so much the worse for intuition. Intuition also tells us that an amoeba is only able to move around in a lifelike way by virtue of some non-mechanistic elan vital. But we know for sure that isn't true by now. It is indeed molecular machinery after all.

I know you are thinking "well, that's different.." but that's is only because our inchoate and primative intutions about consciousness are more ingrained. But being incorrigable about something does not make one right about that thing.

Basically Nagel just appeals to our intuitions as if to say "well, look, it is just obvious...".

That's not good philosophy.

So don't think for a minute that I am failing to grasp the intuition. I spent half my life "arguing" along the same lines as Nagel.

Wonderful.

I suggest you publish your theory in the same journal Nagel did. You will single handedly revolutionize philosophy of mind.

Then we will have something to talk about.

[mfbukowski]

What makes you think you are in a better position than him to judge who understood Nagel and who didn't?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

All you have to do is read the article. It's not that hard. It says what it says, there is not much to "misunderstand". It's funny that all the commentators on the article also see what it says. Pick any source you like.

For those who don't have the time to read the article or learn about Nagel, there is always wonderful wikipedia.

Philosophy of mind

Nagel is probably most widely known within the field of philosophy of mind as an advocate of the idea that consciousness and subjective experience cannot, at least with the contemporary understanding of physicalism, be satisfactorily explained using the current concepts of physics. This position was primarily discussed by Nagel in one of his most famous articles: "What is it Like to Be a Bat?" (1974). The article's title question, though often attributed to Nagel, was originally posed by Timothy L.S. Sprigge. The article was originally published in 1974 in The Philosophical Review. However, the essay has been reprinted in several books that are concerned with consciousness and the mind, such as The Mind's I (edited by Daniel Dennett and Douglas Hofstadter), Readings in the Philosophy of Psychology (edited by Ned Block), Nagel's Mortal Questions (1979), The Nature of Mind (edited by David M. Rosenthal), and Philosophy of Mind: Classical and Contemporary Readings (edited by David J. Chalmers).

In "What is it Like to Be a Bat?", Nagel argues that consciousness has essential to it a subjective character, a what it is like aspect. He states that "an organism has conscious mental states if and only if there is something that it is like to be that organism—something it is like for the organism."^[7] His critics have objected strongly to what they see as a misguided attempt to argue from a perfectly true fact about how one represents the world (trivially, one can only do so from his own point of view) to a false claim about the world, that it somehow has first personal perspectives built into it. On that understanding, Nagel is a conventional dualist about the physical and the mental. This is, however, a misunderstanding: Nagel's point is that there is a constraint on what it is to possess the concept of a mental state, namely, that one be directly acquainted with it. Concepts of mental states are only made available to a thinker who can be acquainted with his/her own states; clearly, the possession and use of physical concepts has no corresponding constraint.

Part of the puzzlement here is because of the limitations of imagination: influenced by his Princeton colleague, Saul Kripke, Nagel believes that any type identity statement that identified a physical state type with a mental state type would be, if true, necessarily true. But Kripke argued that one can easily imagine a situation where, for example, one's C-fibres are stimulated but one is not in pain and so refute any such psychophysical identity from the armchair. (A parallel argument does not hold for genuine theoretical identities.) This argument that there will always be an explanatory gap between an identification of a state in mental and physical terms is compounded, Nagel argues, by the fact that imagination operates in two distinct ways. When asked to imagine sensorily, one imagines C-fibres being stimulated; if asked to imagine sympathetically, one puts oneself in a conscious state resembling pain. These two ways of imagining the two terms of the identity statement are so different it will always seem that there is an explanatory gap whether there is or not. (Some philosophers of mind have taken these arguments as helpful for physicalism on the grounds that it exposes a limitation that makes the existence of an explanatory gap seem compelling, while others have argued that this makes the case for physicalism even more impossible as it cannot be defended even in principle.)

Nagel is not a physicalist because he does not believe that an internal understanding of mental concepts shows them to have the kind of hidden essence that underpins a scientific identity in, say, chemistry. But his skepticism is about current physics: he envisages in his most recent work that people may be close to a scientific breakthrough in identifying an underlying essence that is neither physical (as people currently think of the physical), nor functional, nor mental, but such that it necessitates all three of these ways in which the mind "appears" to us. The difference between the kind of explanation he rejects and those that he accepts depends on his understanding of transparency: from his earliest paper to the most recent Nagel has always insisted that a prior context is required to make identity statements plausible, intelligible and transparent.

[mfbukowski]

Tarski, this is hardly the first time he has misunderstood Nagel:

http://www.mormondia...__p__1209031877

Uh huh.

Here's a good and simple summary for you:

http://www.consciousentities.com/bats.htm

Nagel's classic "What is it like to be a bat?"must be one of the most influential papers on consciousness of the last century, and it's still very relevant.

Nagel's aim is to launch a kind of counter-attack against physicalist arguments, which would reduce the mental to the merely physical, and which were evidently getting into the ascendant in 1974 when the paper was published. Tempting as it may be to fall back on the familiar kind of reductionist approach which has worked so well in other areas, Nagel argues, phenomenal, subjective experience is a special case. Reductive arguments always seek to give an explanation in objective terms, but the essential point about conscious experiences is that they are subjective. The whole idea of an objective account therefore makes no sense - no more sense than asking what my inward experiences are really like, as opposed to how they seem to me. How they seem to me is all there is to them. Any neutral, objective, third-person explanation has to leave out the essence of the experience. The point about conscious experience is that there is something it is like to see x, or hear y, or feel z.