0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
QuoteDecoherence.There are many interpretations of quantum physics , you know .
Decoherence.
The man is still alive and kicking : has he been deluded ?
As you know , there are many interpretations of quantum theory , what makes you then think that the materialist one is the approximately 'correct " one ?
<book extract>
"The Spiritual Brain , A Neuroscientist's Case For The Existence of The Soul " By Mario Beauregard and Denyse O'Leary(Prior note : Cheryl : why didn't you download the audio version of this book for which i provided you with a link to download it from ? Why didn't you use the library's wifi for that then, lazy sis , since you pretend to be interested in what these scientists had to say ? , not to mention your cameleon-like mood swings that make this discussion with you a very Kafkaian weird one .Non-materialist cognitive therapy might help you with that , i guess .I tried to fix the display of this excerpt , almost in vain ...sorry .)
"The Spiritual Brain , A Neuroscientist's Case For The Existence of The Soul " By Mario Beauregard and Denyse O'Leary(Prior note : Cheryl : why didn't you download the audio version of this book ...
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg442871#msg442871 date=1414018956]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 22/10/2014 20:45:59"The Spiritual Brain , A Neuroscientist's Case For The Existence of The Soul " By Mario Beauregard and Denyse O'Leary(Prior note : Cheryl : why didn't you download the audio version of this book for which i provided you with a link to download it from ? Why didn't you use the library's wifi for that then, lazy sis , since you pretend to be interested in what these scientists had to say ? , not to mention your cameleon-like mood swings that make this discussion with you a very Kafkaian weird one .Non-materialist cognitive therapy might help you with that , i guess .I tried to fix the display of this excerpt , almost in vain ...sorry .)How do you know what I did or didn't download?
You said I was wasting your time with silly games, so I did not think you would be interested in my comments.
Now if you'll excuse me, I seem to have transformed inexplicably into an insect like creature with a large tail, and I am going down to the bureau to file some papers about it.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 22/10/2014 20:45:59"The Spiritual Brain , A Neuroscientist's Case For The Existence of The Soul " By Mario Beauregard and Denyse O'Leary(Prior note : Cheryl : why didn't you download the audio version of this book ... Don't bother downloading : their work is summarised on rationalwiki ...http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non-materialist_neuroscience#Mario_Beauregardhttp://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Denyse_O'Leary[ also see ... http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_woo ]
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg442882#msg442882 date=1414059557]OK, I had enough free time to read the extract from Carter's book. The summary? three prominent neuroscientists use the argument from incredulity to espouse a dualist interpretation of mind-brain for which there is no empirical evidence. Is that a scientific approach? Clearly not.
However, Carter does say, "It needs to be stressed that the findings of modern neuroscience do not alter the argument one bit, as they are equally compatible with both production and transmission."
Although this is far from the impression I get from my reading, for the sake of argument, let's evaluate this statement as it stands. When two theories can't be distinguished on the evidence alone, Popper says we should prefer the one with the highest degree of empirical content (The Logic of Scientific Discovery). Poincare suggested simplicity (best expressed in Ockham's Razor); more contemporary criteria are to choose the theory which provides the best (and novel) predictions, the one with the highest explanatory potential, the one which offers better problems or the most elegant and simple one. Alternatively a theory may be preferable if it is better integrated into the rest of contemporary knowledge.
In each case, the dualist theory falls - it has no empirical content, requires additional unexplained entities, has no predictive power, no explanatory potential, has intractable problems (not least interaction itself), is neither elegant nor simple, nor does it integrate into contemporary knowledge.
However, we've only examined this in an isolated context - what does the rest of science tell us? thermodynamics and information theory tells us that persistent information patterns, such as an independent mind, require some persistent medium and energy source to maintain them. Interaction involves energy transfer. Quantum field theory tells us that only electromagnetism has the range and strength to support neural interaction. Extensive research involving the brain has shown no evidence of any such extraneous fields, no information supporting medium, no extraneous energy source or consumption, and no interaction; and EMF disruptions, such as MRI scanners, and Faraday cage shielding helmets have no effect on consciousness. If such a field and its interactions were too delicate to detect or measure, they'd be too delicate to influence the relatively crude (by modern measurement standards) electrochemical activity of neurons, and would be swamped and disrupted by the everyday fields of household wiring & electrical devices, not least mobile phones.
In short, it's a busted flush.
How can the false materialist theory of consciousness account for all those "anomalies " such as psi phenmena , palcebo/nocebo effects and more ?
... materialism assumes that the mind is just in the brain or just brain activity ,without any causal effects on matter brain or body , let alone on the rest of the physical world , and hence consciousness and the mind are just side effects of evolution, just useless epiphenomena (absurd ) : we are just mindless machines or computers , hardware programmed by software
...Who's insane enough as to believe in that materialist non-sense ?
P.S . : Oh , yeah , oeps : I see i might have made a serious mistake .I am not sure Carter used that entanglement argument i talked about,
I was just referring to yor repeated requests and mainly to that so-called crystal healing silly story ...
... an attempt to argue that no amount of empirical evidence, no number of successful predictions a theory makes, no functional utility, is ever sufficient to establish that something is more likely than not to be a "cause" of another thing - all knowledge is an irrational choice. (When all else fails, drag out Hume. )
Bizarrely, Beauregard's own experiments are the best evidence that he's wrong. They are exactly what you'd expect to find if consciousness was a product of the brain, and not a receiver or transmitter of it.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 23/10/2014 20:00:48P.S . : Oh , yeah , oeps : I see i might have made a serious mistake .I am not sure Carter used that entanglement argument i talked about,Now.........................that's very refreshing DonQ. There may be some hope for you yet. I'll give you credit for that sir, anyone that can admit to error has some genuine honesty hiding somewhere within.Bravo my man,......................Bravo
"Psi phenomena don't exist. Placebo/nocebo effects are the autonomic nervous system at work." .
... see what Dean radin says about entaglement in his "Entangled Minds ..." book