I had a great idea for an intriguing documentary. At least for me it would be intriguing, but first some background. Recently I have been interested in the idea of ghosts, perhaps because of the recent rise in popularity of the footage of the Michael Jackson ghost phenomenon on youtube. While I dont think it was actually a ghost, the very idea of a sort of disembodied consciousness seems to be a direct counter example to physicalism, a philosophical view that most contemporary philosophers of mind accept. Physicalism is the view that every concrete object and its properties are physical. Consciousness, according to most physicalist theories, is a physical phenomenon and is something that the brain functionally does. There is some empirical support for this view, since brain lesions and manipulating the brain in many cases produces different conscious experiences. And, it is thought, when the brain stops working then we stop being conscious since when there is minimal brain activity the agent reports having no or very minimal conscious experiences. Further most people working in brain sciences reject ideas about ghost in the machine ideas about consciousness. These theorists find very little empirical support for views that appeal to ghosts, spirits or souls since they have specifically looked for this ghostly basis for consciousness and could not find it. All they find is neural networks and other chemical basis for consciousness, no ectoplasmic conscious substance is observed, further philosophers find it unappealing since it brings up many philosophical problems associated with dualism.
It is argued by David Chalmers that if zombies are metaphysically possible in some other possible world then physicalism is false. Although I will not give an indepth analysis of zombie arguments the basis is that it is possible for us to observe all the physical happenings in the brain, yet not have a phenomenal experience. So, it is possible in another possible world that the neural basis in my brain for a visual experiences is happening yet I am not having a conscious visual experience. But I find this possibility counter intuitive, while it may be conceptually possible in a sense I can imagine it because of what we dont know about the brain, but it is not metaphysically possible.
But what about ghosts? In many instances it is difficult to give an in-depth analysis for such phenomenon since there are several different accounts of what they could be. Often ghostly phenomenon is static at best, one might have a single experience that shocks them for their entire life, but they never experience it again. Other times such phenomenon is reported more than once but is unpredictable. Sometimes the phenomenon is almost material, a fully figured man might appear in front of me that looks flesh and blood, and then de-materialize. Sometimes the phenomenon is shadowy lending some credence to the idea that perhaps the phantom is not material. Sometimes material objects are seen to move or fly around on their own, the explanation is that some conscious being that is not material or observable is moving the objects. Sometimes the beings seem to be communicating with you through EMF detectors as if conscious but cannot be seen. Some ghostly phenomenon is disembodied voices, actual human voices that occur with no material basis. Sometimes we experience a very physical touch but turn around and nobody is doing the touching. Often ghostly phenomenon are highly contextual in the sense that it occurs in particular places, or houses that particular events happened in the past. Other times they are attached to particular people, a ghostly phenomenon might be observed by me when my grandma dies, I may see her at the foot of my bed and take that as assurance that she has passed on. Whats more, the phenomenon is widely reported, perhaps so widely reported that it deserves attention to be investigated as an actual event. But how does one make sense of this phenomenon?
We might think that one can be scientifically informed and bring scientific information to explain the phenomenon. But for some of the phenomenon the scientific information seems to contradict what is being reported. For example, consider cases of disembodied voices, what scientists understand about how voices happen seems to contradict that voices can just occur free of their material basis. Voices, it is thought, occur during some special operations within our bodies, and if we injure or take away the basis of those special operations we observe that voices dont occur in our bodies. Or consider visual experiences of shadows. Scientifically we only observe physical phenomenon since objects we observe in our visual spectrum are usually effects of light bouncing off the object in particular ways, the light goes into the eye, the retina translates that light into information which is translated into visual information that is sent to the brain to process. There are three things that scientists seem to observe across the board regarding normal visual experiences. First if no material object is there to have light bounce off of it, then we dont see it. Second, if we remove our eyes or damage them in particular ways we dont see. Third, if we remove the light so it does not bounce off an object we have very different visual experiences; often we dont see the objects anymore. Ghostly phenomenon of disembodied voices are entirely alien to what scientists observes happening in our bodies when we speak or talk, and in contrast the same might be said for some visual representations we have of supposed non-material entities; the entities must be material or physical in some sense if they are observed through visual perception. Something similar can be said for materialization of bodies etc. If a body is blown up or taken apart, it does not simply come together again on its own. Finally, consider the case of a material object floating around, explained by a non-physical entity moving the material object. Most physicalists think that only physical entities can move other physical entities, if there is such a thing as a non-physical entity it cannot interact with a physical entity without being physical in some sense; therefore the only thing that has causal force in the physical world are physical in some sense. So even the possibility of ghostly phenomenon seems to contradict physicalism which grounds its plausibility in what scientists say goes on in the world with respect to consciousness, our bodies, or matter itself. If a philosopher would want to argue that physicalism is true or false they should be interested in whether ghostly phenomenon actually occur. Science, it is said, attempts to get at the truth by falsifying its own claims that are made. If I make a claim, a scientific investigation would attempt to prove that the claim is false through investigation or controlled testing. Physicalist theorist it seems to me should be very interested in proving that ghostly phenomenon do not occur and if it can be reported that ghostly phenomenon do not occur then that lends some credence to the physicalists commitments.
But I often wonder why most physicalists dont seem remotely interested in investigating ghostly phenomenon. Perhaps they are scared of what their academic peers might think of them. Perhaps they think its already been done. Perhaps they accept that ghost phenomenon occurs but they are more interested in the physical basis of consciousness in actual non-static human beings. But the first reason I think is untenable, philosophers should be interested in following the truth and evidence wherever it may lead them. The second reason seems to be false, there is not one philosopher I have come across that is interested in such phenomenon and has written extensively on this. The final and third reason is a more pragmatic reason, yet it does not show a definite commitment to physicalism as a metaphysical hypothesis of mind that is true. There may be a fourth reason: that philosophers just assume its true since it solves some philosophical puzzles that dualism does not solve. But this is a poor reason, since a theory should not be accepted as true just because it solves philosophical puzzles, it should be accepted because the evidence suggests its true and the arguments are most strong for the theory, and the counter evidence is simply false or untenable.
Alright, now the idea for the documentary is this. Get a few philosophers who are trained in philosophy of mind that happen to be physicalists have them stay a month or so in a reportedly highly haunted place. During this time have cameras following them in the location as they talk about philosophy of mind and ghosts, and perhaps report any weird events that happen to them. The person who is doing the documentary also stays in the mansion and attempts to capture evidence of ghostly phenomenon and in the process gets the philosophers to comment on the phenomenon with scepticism. Before all of this happens of course introduce the notion of physicalism, the philosophers, the history of the haunted place and the reports of ghostly activity in the place. Make sure the philosophers involved would be ready to give up their position if they had enough evidence for ghosts. After the stay in the haunted location the interviewer should ask them their final thoughts about their stay and whether they have changed their view at all.
It is argued by David Chalmers that if zombies are metaphysically possible in some other possible world then physicalism is false. Although I will not give an indepth analysis of zombie arguments the basis is that it is possible for us to observe all the physical happenings in the brain, yet not have a phenomenal experience. So, it is possible in another possible world that the neural basis in my brain for a visual experiences is happening yet I am not having a conscious visual experience. But I find this possibility counter intuitive, while it may be conceptually possible in a sense I can imagine it because of what we dont know about the brain, but it is not metaphysically possible.
But what about ghosts? In many instances it is difficult to give an in-depth analysis for such phenomenon since there are several different accounts of what they could be. Often ghostly phenomenon is static at best, one might have a single experience that shocks them for their entire life, but they never experience it again. Other times such phenomenon is reported more than once but is unpredictable. Sometimes the phenomenon is almost material, a fully figured man might appear in front of me that looks flesh and blood, and then de-materialize. Sometimes the phenomenon is shadowy lending some credence to the idea that perhaps the phantom is not material. Sometimes material objects are seen to move or fly around on their own, the explanation is that some conscious being that is not material or observable is moving the objects. Sometimes the beings seem to be communicating with you through EMF detectors as if conscious but cannot be seen. Some ghostly phenomenon is disembodied voices, actual human voices that occur with no material basis. Sometimes we experience a very physical touch but turn around and nobody is doing the touching. Often ghostly phenomenon are highly contextual in the sense that it occurs in particular places, or houses that particular events happened in the past. Other times they are attached to particular people, a ghostly phenomenon might be observed by me when my grandma dies, I may see her at the foot of my bed and take that as assurance that she has passed on. Whats more, the phenomenon is widely reported, perhaps so widely reported that it deserves attention to be investigated as an actual event. But how does one make sense of this phenomenon?
We might think that one can be scientifically informed and bring scientific information to explain the phenomenon. But for some of the phenomenon the scientific information seems to contradict what is being reported. For example, consider cases of disembodied voices, what scientists understand about how voices happen seems to contradict that voices can just occur free of their material basis. Voices, it is thought, occur during some special operations within our bodies, and if we injure or take away the basis of those special operations we observe that voices dont occur in our bodies. Or consider visual experiences of shadows. Scientifically we only observe physical phenomenon since objects we observe in our visual spectrum are usually effects of light bouncing off the object in particular ways, the light goes into the eye, the retina translates that light into information which is translated into visual information that is sent to the brain to process. There are three things that scientists seem to observe across the board regarding normal visual experiences. First if no material object is there to have light bounce off of it, then we dont see it. Second, if we remove our eyes or damage them in particular ways we dont see. Third, if we remove the light so it does not bounce off an object we have very different visual experiences; often we dont see the objects anymore. Ghostly phenomenon of disembodied voices are entirely alien to what scientists observes happening in our bodies when we speak or talk, and in contrast the same might be said for some visual representations we have of supposed non-material entities; the entities must be material or physical in some sense if they are observed through visual perception. Something similar can be said for materialization of bodies etc. If a body is blown up or taken apart, it does not simply come together again on its own. Finally, consider the case of a material object floating around, explained by a non-physical entity moving the material object. Most physicalists think that only physical entities can move other physical entities, if there is such a thing as a non-physical entity it cannot interact with a physical entity without being physical in some sense; therefore the only thing that has causal force in the physical world are physical in some sense. So even the possibility of ghostly phenomenon seems to contradict physicalism which grounds its plausibility in what scientists say goes on in the world with respect to consciousness, our bodies, or matter itself. If a philosopher would want to argue that physicalism is true or false they should be interested in whether ghostly phenomenon actually occur. Science, it is said, attempts to get at the truth by falsifying its own claims that are made. If I make a claim, a scientific investigation would attempt to prove that the claim is false through investigation or controlled testing. Physicalist theorist it seems to me should be very interested in proving that ghostly phenomenon do not occur and if it can be reported that ghostly phenomenon do not occur then that lends some credence to the physicalists commitments.
But I often wonder why most physicalists dont seem remotely interested in investigating ghostly phenomenon. Perhaps they are scared of what their academic peers might think of them. Perhaps they think its already been done. Perhaps they accept that ghost phenomenon occurs but they are more interested in the physical basis of consciousness in actual non-static human beings. But the first reason I think is untenable, philosophers should be interested in following the truth and evidence wherever it may lead them. The second reason seems to be false, there is not one philosopher I have come across that is interested in such phenomenon and has written extensively on this. The final and third reason is a more pragmatic reason, yet it does not show a definite commitment to physicalism as a metaphysical hypothesis of mind that is true. There may be a fourth reason: that philosophers just assume its true since it solves some philosophical puzzles that dualism does not solve. But this is a poor reason, since a theory should not be accepted as true just because it solves philosophical puzzles, it should be accepted because the evidence suggests its true and the arguments are most strong for the theory, and the counter evidence is simply false or untenable.
Alright, now the idea for the documentary is this. Get a few philosophers who are trained in philosophy of mind that happen to be physicalists have them stay a month or so in a reportedly highly haunted place. During this time have cameras following them in the location as they talk about philosophy of mind and ghosts, and perhaps report any weird events that happen to them. The person who is doing the documentary also stays in the mansion and attempts to capture evidence of ghostly phenomenon and in the process gets the philosophers to comment on the phenomenon with scepticism. Before all of this happens of course introduce the notion of physicalism, the philosophers, the history of the haunted place and the reports of ghostly activity in the place. Make sure the philosophers involved would be ready to give up their position if they had enough evidence for ghosts. After the stay in the haunted location the interviewer should ask them their final thoughts about their stay and whether they have changed their view at all.