Dualism or idealist monism as the best model for survival after death data

Funny, I read about Alexander Batthyany on Ian Wardell's blog today. I wonder if any of you are Ian?

I don't think I am, sbu. I'm certainly not tim.

but it is very unclear to me why he believes that AI - programs running on Turing Machine computers - can become conscious.

I didn't know that, Sci. If he definitely does believe that, I'm frankly amazed. 

and I accept there isn't the same level of evidence for Survival as QM,

 No, but I personally find it sufficient.

[Laird]

I didn't know that, Sci. If he definitely does believe that, I'm frankly amazed. 

Yep, he does: with the caveats that they might need to have "senses, embodiment, world models and self models, recurrent processing, global workspace, and unified goals", he thinks (as of 23 August last year) that "it’s a serious possibility that we’ll have conscious LLM+s within a decade".

[Laird]

Funny, I read about Alexander Batthyany on Ian Wardell's blog today. I wonder if any of you are Ian?

This was a disappointingly avoidant response.

The argument being put to you as I understand it is that although the observed brain<->experience correlations are more compatible with physicalism, they are not fatal to interactionist substance dualism[*], whereas phenomena such as terminal lucidity are not just more compatible with interactionist substance dualism[*], but fatal to physicalism, therefore physicalism is false and interactionist substance dualism[*] is true.

I think that the argument is sound. I'm not aware of a compelling takedown of either the argument's validity or premises. The fact that you avoided confronting it directly suggests that neither are you. The reason I wrote that that's disappointing is because you seem like a smart guy, so one would assume that given your confident, bordering-on-snarky dismissals of those who hold to non-physicalist ontologies, you can take down this argument. If you can, then you should do so, otherwise, might I suggest toning down the dismissive approach a little?

[*]Or some other non-physicalist ontology such as idealism.

This was a disappointingly avoidant response.

The argument being put to you as I understand it is that although the observed brain<->experience correlations are more compatible with physicalism, they are not fatal to interactionist substance dualism
[*], whereas phenomena such as terminal lucidity are not just more compatible with interactionist substance dualism
[*], but fatal to physicalism, therefore physicalism is false and interactionist substance dualism
[*]is true.

I think that the argument is sound. I'm not aware of a compelling takedown of either the argument's validity or premises. The fact that you avoided confronting it directly suggests that neither are you. The reason I wrote that that's disappointing is because you seem like a smart guy, so one would assume that given your confident, bordering-on-snarky dismissals of those who hold to non-physicalist ontologies, you can take down this argument. If you can, then you should do so, otherwise, might I suggest toning down the dismissive approach a little?

[*]Or some other non-physicalist ontology such as idealism.

[*]
It was not my intention to dismiss Tim's argument. I didn't think Tim expected me to trying to take down his argument as it's difficult to argue against. I am not aware of any research that involves post-mortem biopsies that could be used to evaluate the extent of brain damage in patients who displayed late-stage lucidity in conditions like dementia. In medicine, nothing is black and white. There are many nuances, and it may turn out that these patients, in reality, suffer from less damage to certain brain areas than those not exhibiting lucidity. I have also noticed that terminal lucidity is mainly reported in dementia and not in many other neurological diseases, such as stroke. This suggests that the phenomenon is closely related to the specific condition of the patient and not to anything paranormal. I think this is one possible alternative explanation. It may or not be correct. 

By the way, I'm not trying to take down any arguments in this forum (maybe except that there are mundane explanations for the cosmological background radiation). The only reason I somehow got involved in this thread was that I was trying to point out that there are prominent philosophers who belives in a different kind of dualism than substance dualism.

Yep, he does:

I just don't 'get it' at all. I don't see how we could ever create an identical copy of something which we do not even know the exact nature of (what it is) or what it is composed of. I feel like he's being dishonest. or pulling a fast one.

[Laird]

By the way, I'm not trying to take down any arguments in this forum (maybe except that there are mundane explanations for the cosmological background radiation). The only reason I somehow got involved in this thread was that I was trying to point out that there are prominent philosophers who belives in a different kind of dualism than substance dualism.

OK, and I'm not in this thread to argue against physicalism or property dualism, so I'll leave those arguments to those who've been making them. I just wanted to make the point I made.

I am not aware of any research that involves post-mortem biopsies that could be used to evaluate the extent of brain damage in patients who displayed late-stage lucidity in conditions like dementia.

Batthyany seemed very clear about this, sbu. They are absolutely certain as can be (they can easily scan the brain) that the brains of these patients are gone. If that wasn't the case then there wouldn't be the same mystery surrounding it, surely. Terminal lucidity also occurs according to him in different diagnosed pathologies, such as catastrophic injury etc. 

Here's one I've posted previously where the brain tissue had been replaced with tumour, apparently.

 But it wasn't David's brain that woke him up to say goodbye that Friday. His brain had already been destroyed. Tumor metastases don't simply occupy space and press on things, leaving a whole brain. The metastases actually replace tissue. Where that gray stuff grows, the brain is just not there.

The Brain: The Power of Hope -- Printout -- TIME

As Laird stated, you are a smart guy. Are you seeking to drop or reconsider your previous convictions or have you just not seen any evidence here that is persuasive enough to make you do so ? 

[Laird]

I just don't 'get it' at all. I don't see how we could ever create an identical copy of something which we do not even know the exact nature of (what it is) or what it is composed of. I feel like he's being dishonest. or pulling a fast one.

I don't suspect him of dishonesty, but I agree that it's a strange position for him in particular to take.

I don't suspect him of dishonesty,

Maybe I should have said 'intellectually dishonest' (that's a more environmentally friendly kind of dishonesty). I mean he obviously has a first class intellect (superior to moi) but that only makes it worse.