0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The bottom line is : materialism is false , mainly because it cannot account for consciousness,
The bottom line is : materialism is false , mainly because it cannot account for consciousness, let alone for its related anomalies and processes , so, any interpretation of QM that cannot account for consciousness as a non-physical and a non -local process ....is fundamentally false :
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 23/11/2014 20:19:53The bottom line is : materialism is false , mainly because it cannot account for consciousness, False..........................The brain which is material, the neurotransmission of chemo-electrical signals across the synapse resulting in the experience of thought. It's very materialistic my friend, without the brain and the neural networks, we would all be unconscious. If you can't understand that simple fact, we might begin to wonder about how conscious you are.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 23/11/2014 20:19:53The bottom line is : materialism is false , mainly because it cannot account for consciousness, let alone for its related anomalies and processes , so, any interpretation of QM that cannot account for consciousness as a non-physical and a non -local process ....is fundamentally false :I’ve used up all my data this month but pop in occasionally, and keep wondering where this extensive debate on the different interpretations of quantum mechanics is headed. Like the past lengthy discussion of Stapp’s quantum consciousness, it leaves me with the same question. If Don felt that materialist mechanisms failed to “fully” explain the “related anomalies and processes” of consciousness, you would think he’d find quantum mechanics even more bereft. The yes or no option of a collapsed wave form offers no additional insight into the richness and variety of conscious experience itself. The long list of mental phenomena that Don regularly cites as proof of materialism’s shortcoming remain still unaccounted for, actually even more so. Arguing as Don does that “consciousness is no part of the physical universe , it shapes it from outside of the laws of physics , from outside of space and time” is just, as David Cooper pointed out pages ago, relocating it to another realm, and fails to explain it any better. It accomplishes nothing, unless the goal is to assert that consciousness, being exempt from all physical laws and predictions, is irretrievably beyond human understanding forever. Relocating consciousness to this realm outside physics hugely complicates its interaction with biological systems and brains, and should be a big problem for fans of Ockham’s razor. What's more, physicists don’t really feel obligated to explain, or even attempt to define, consciousness for their own purposes, which is why neuroscientists don’t pay a whole lot of attention to how physicists reference or incorporate consciousness into their theories.
Yeah , right :How can the qualitative subjective experience or consciousness be generated by the quantitative neural correlates ? Only reductionist materialists can accomplish such an inexplicable paradoxical and absurd magical leap , jump or performance : Maybe our Ethos here can explain just the above to us : even his uncles Penrose-Hameroff would "refute" the following inexplicable magical "computation " lol : http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/neuronal-superhub-might-generate-consciousness/Well, finally , Penrose-Hameroff so-called quantum theory of consciousness has been corroborated : Eureka lol :Science and fairy tales have been becoming less and less indistinguishable from each other than ever : http://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-quantum-vibrations-microtubules-corroborates.html
Once again, you are barking up the wrong tree, as far as finding support for your mystical or religious theory.
Quote from: cheryl j on 25/11/2014 02:41:33 Once again, you are barking up the wrong tree, as far as finding support for your mystical or religious theory.I believe if we correctly analyze Don's motives here, we'll find it has more to do with his religious persuasion and very little to do with science. If he is the least bit successful in persuading anyone to buy into his sermons, his next step will be an attempt to convert them to his preferred religion. Let me guess, is he Catholic, Protestant, or maybe........Muslim?
Quote from: Ethos_ on 25/11/2014 04:29:35Quote from: cheryl j on 25/11/2014 02:41:33 Once again, you are barking up the wrong tree, as far as finding support for your mystical or religious theory.I believe if we correctly analyze Don's motives here, we'll find it has more to do with his religious persuasion and very little to do with science. If he is the least bit successful in persuading anyone to buy into his sermons, his next step will be an attempt to convert them to his preferred religion. Let me guess, is he Catholic, Protestant, or maybe........Muslim?Quantum Islam, given his postings on threads here. Like Cheryl, I don't know why he keeps posting materialist explanations for consciousness, quantum mechanical or otherwise, in support of a non-materialist, dualist external consciousness (and how does that work?).
"In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God. And the Word was God."Probably the best-publicised creation myth, but no more validated by experiment than turtles or string theory.
author=alancalverd link=topic=52526.msg445229#msg445229 date=1416870197]Thank you for a nice phys.org article, clearly implying that consciousness derives from material structures, as everyone apart from you thinks.
Come on, Don, just give us one example of a "nonmaterial science" prediction that turns out to be more accurate than a material one. That's all it takes - just one! Then you can save yourself the tedium of copying out screeds of stuff than nobody takes seriously.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 24/11/2014 20:59:19Yeah , right :How can the qualitative subjective experience or consciousness be generated by the quantitative neural correlates ? Only reductionist materialists can accomplish such an inexplicable paradoxical and absurd magical leap , jump or performance : Maybe our Ethos here can explain just the above to us : even his uncles Penrose-Hameroff would "refute" the following inexplicable magical "computation " lol : http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/neuronal-superhub-might-generate-consciousness/Well, finally , Penrose-Hameroff so-called quantum theory of consciousness has been corroborated : Eureka lol :Science and fairy tales have been becoming less and less indistinguishable from each other than ever : http://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-quantum-vibrations-microtubules-corroborates.htmlI’ve looked at Hammeroff’s work, and it sounds interesting and promising. But it also sounds quite materialistic, in that consciousness might be caused or expedited by quantum mechanical processes in the brain. I didn’t see anything about consciousness existing outside time and space, or being an as yet undetected field. I didn’t read anything about consciousness creating or changing or determining events outside the brain. I didn’t read anything about the brain being a mechanical receiver for yet undetected consciousness waves. I didn’t read anything about how quantum mechanical effects in micro-tubules, by themselves, create the content, or transmit the content of thought, ideas, memories, logic, creativity, emotions, or the other aspects of mental activity from some non-local source of consciousness. Once again, you are barking up the wrong tree, as far as finding support for your mystical or religious theory.
So are you admitting that nonmaterialist science doesn't actually predict anything?
In short :The physical brain is just a medium through which consciousness 'flows " or expresses itself , the brain as a transceiver ,so when certain areas of the brain are damaged or don't work properly due to diseases , genetic defects , ... consciousness gets disconnected at those levels ... and hence does not get through : that does absolutely not mean that the physical brain produces consciousness . Got it ?