Talk:Floating man

Intro
I'll leave others edit the article to add the main rational behind the experiment: (I have not added according to Avicenna for each arguments, but just to make clear, that I just reworded his stuff in todays language)

If material processes cause awareness, so replicating the processes will replicate awareness. Since those processes are replicated in others it is wrong to claim that only your processes cause your awareness (or consciousness). Particularly when you are not isolated in your own environment! It is also wrong to use sleep and other states of unconsciousness as argument for the permanent cessation of awareness after death. Because they’re not permanent state, they still require a body (yours) processes to cause the said unconscious state.

The inner reality (consciousness or Batin (Islam)), since it is a epiphenomena, the processes (be it material or not) causing it can be about anywhere (because all those processes are recreated in others) while Zahir (Islam) (body) is in a singular location because it can be located by the senses (eyes, touch etc.)

Those arguments were raised indirectly by Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason, that’s behind the paradox which was observed by Kant. The inner reality (which controls family dynamics) and outer reality (controls social roles) are different and follow different rules (spiritual-God vs physical-Devil).

Note that all the arguments about the soul provided by Avicenna were at the base of all religions concept of the soul. And all arguments to invalidate the soul (like Avicenna note) are projections and concepts of social roles (professionals) which are regulated by different rules. That’s the paradox which only exist from the point of view of the Zahir (Islam). European stories about vampires not having a reflection on the mirror because they don’t have souls; the person behind is not in front of the mirror (similar with most animals not having consciousness or souls inside their body and can therefor not recognize their reflection). What Avicenna provided is simply irrefutable (OK, that’s my POV :) ), because it uses materialism (physical process cause consciousness) to show that the conclusion would be the same.

Memory of the soul and memory of the body differences
His concept of the memory of the soul:

That the persons body alone could not be the only causing his own awareness (see above) means:

The inner experience of remembering and emitting thoughts and your outer social body (Zahir) reactions to them aren't the same. What he seems to mean is that, it is not because a thought is in your mind that it means that your brain (in todays language) is aware of it. Because this thought can come from someone else body processes (and yet not interact with your brain). He emitted that it can be only demonstrated that your body is aware of, when an observer (other than you) got cues of your thought because you worded it or communicated it by means of the body. Because the social role (physical body) to communicate it, the inner thought has to manifest itself in a Zahir (your physical body, or someones else).

That's why (as a physician) he believed that he could not rely on what a sick patient was saying or appearances of his condition to assume of the condition of the inner experiencer. So what the person reports to be remembering is not necessarily what the experiencer actually remember or thinks (because the inner thoughts could rely on any material mediums and has no particular location, while your social body is limited in space and time).

Some readings:, , , , , , (some are redundant, but that's better than randomly quote things out of context). I have not raised his beliefs about the liver, etc. and where, how the soul is in the body etc. because those are culture and period specific... so I have simply replaced that with body in a language everyone could understand, with minimal constructs or academic languages which most don't understand and will just take it for granted because it is sourced.

Adamson
Those were Adamson point of views about the thought experiment... seems that he doesn't have a clue of the thought experiment argument... he makes it as if Avicenna refer only of the subjects body (brain)... when the whole point was that the phenomena couldn't be restricted in any area, because there are bunches of individuals at several other places with their brains. It's pathetic that an academic could just miss the boat not even accurately describing another authors point of view and be included when he's alone... the whole point of the thought experiment is that starting from the argument that body processes (be it brain or anything else) would create consciousness alone; has to inevitably conclude that as long as there is any other brains in some form or another the processes would still be created elsewhere. How can Adamson even be considered as worthy for inclusion, when the title of the thought experiment is specifically coined to address this (FLOATING MAN!!!)... Anyone who provides an answer to Avicenna would be in a situation to give a materialistic explanation to the Qualia... this Adamson claims he got the solution?

Wiki Education assignment: Mind-Body, section 18
— Assignment last updated by George zisimopoulos1 (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Mind-Body, section 17
— Assignment last updated by Xxbaileyxx4 (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Mind-Body, section 16
— Assignment last updated by Jovanna.lanbaxter (talk) 17:34, 25 December 2022 (UTC)