0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
In other words, the wave function of a large ensemble is very small in comparison with the size of the ensemble, and although I couldn't predict where one iron atom will be in a diffraction experiment, I can tell you pretty well exactly where to find a cannonball. More to the point, I could study the number 21.08 x 1023 for ever and have absolutely no idea where it came from or how an iron atom will behave on its own, but there is no quantum enigma if you start with what we know now, instead of what our predecessors assumed.
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg448250#msg448250 date=1420760521]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 08/01/2015 20:47:46Ok, but what makes you so sure about those 60 % vegetative patients who seem to show no signs of consciousness ? They might experience some undetected yet minimal forms of consciousness too , who knows ?The figures I gave are the current best approximation. I'm not going to argue definitions of consciousness, but in neurological terms, those vegetative patients with reticular brain stem damage cannot become conscious because that area controls all higher level arousal activity, including consciousness. Neither can those with certain high level cortical damage, or permanent axonal damage that impairs wide area connectivity. If you accept the evidence that consciousness awareness involves wide area rather than purely local activity of the brain, Stanislas Dehaene's techniques for elicitation of the characteristic P3 wave can positively determine conscious awareness for all patients (even for those in partial or total sensory isolation, tanscranial magnetic stimulation can be used). For those that show no global activation, consciousness, as generally recognised, doesn't occur. Dehaene has found patients whose RAS arousal level was just too low for consciousness, and used TMS to temporarily boost it so they became conscious, but to provide them with continuous consciousness would require some kind of stimulatory implant; near-future technology. This kind of empirical evidence provides some confidence that at least the gross functionality of the systems involved have been understood.
Ok, but what makes you so sure about those 60 % vegetative patients who seem to show no signs of consciousness ? They might experience some undetected yet minimal forms of consciousness too , who knows ?
QuoteVegetative patients may be more conscious of the world than we think:Yes; this is the difference between the commonly accepted definition of the condition, and the clinical diagnosis of the condition. Those who demonstrate conscious activity have been misdiagnosed as vegetative (according to Dehaene's usage).
Vegetative patients may be more conscious of the world than we think:
QuoteP.S.: In another context , A cousin of mine who was healthy and then pronounced dead , was almost buried 3 times .Every time they tried to bury the poor lad , i was told , ( He lives in another country far away from mine ) , he would show signs of life at almost the last moment .He even started to scream once , i was told , when they were ready to put his coffin into the grave .It's possible, although unlikely (to paraphrase Lady Bracknell, once would be unfortunate, twice looks like incompetence, and three times smacks of fiction). But, if true, it would be another example of misdiagnosis - the diagnosis of clinical death not corresponding to the patient's actual condition.
P.S.: In another context , A cousin of mine who was healthy and then pronounced dead , was almost buried 3 times .Every time they tried to bury the poor lad , i was told , ( He lives in another country far away from mine ) , he would show signs of life at almost the last moment .He even started to scream once , i was told , when they were ready to put his coffin into the grave .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 08/01/2015 21:26:47Besides, looking for the mind and consciousness , memories ....in the brain , equating them with or reducing them to the physical activity of the brain is an absurd and a futile dead -end street or attempt , since consciousness and the mind +their related processes are neither in the brain , neither brain activity , nor that they can emerge from it , to say the least thus .P.S.: What makes you think i haven't done your above "recommended" stuff ? and more . What makes me think that is the sentence above. If you start out with the assumption that the brain is no more than blinking indicator lights on the dash board of your vehicle, you are not likely to investigate what scientists say about how the brain functions, or even, working from your theory, "contributes" to mental. Consequently, you will dismiss it as not very important or worth learning about in any great detail. Although you often retreat and dig in your heels about the immaterial mind and souls, more and more I notice your excerpts contain references to neuroscience and things that the brain actually does - and not simply as a "transceiver" or interface with immaterial realm, but as the responsible agent for these functions. So you can either ignore all of neuroscience and be satisfied with "who knows how the mind and brain interact thus" or keep going.
Besides, looking for the mind and consciousness , memories ....in the brain , equating them with or reducing them to the physical activity of the brain is an absurd and a futile dead -end street or attempt , since consciousness and the mind +their related processes are neither in the brain , neither brain activity , nor that they can emerge from it , to say the least thus .P.S.: What makes you think i haven't done your above "recommended" stuff ? and more .
Quote from: alancalverd on 10/01/2015 08:09:45 In other words, the wave function of a large ensemble is very small in comparison with the size of the ensemble, and although I couldn't predict where one iron atom will be in a diffraction experiment, I can tell you pretty well exactly where to find a cannonball. More to the point, I could study the number 21.08 x 1023 for ever and have absolutely no idea where it came from or how an iron atom will behave on its own, but there is no quantum enigma if you start with what we know now, instead of what our predecessors assumed.Excellent comments alan,...........There is no reason or advantage in making these questions any more complicated than the example alan has given us. Reality is; "What you can see thru experiment is what you got."No mystery about consciousness either, it is the function of our neural network and nothing more. I been following this thread for way too long now and have decided it is going nowhere, will go nowhere, and is no longer worth the effort. The author of this thread is unwilling to deal with realities and therefore, it is a waste of time to continue giving him examples of it. To date, absolutely no progress has been made regarding the issues involved regarding this debate and will continue to remain such because the question Don has raised doesn't deal with scientific fact, it's a question about philosophy and mysticism.In summation, I applaud Alan's comments for they should bring clarity to the mind of the honest reader and also offer much respect to Delorde and Cheryl j as well for their intelligent contributions. Nevertheless, I have exhausted all confidence in Don's ability to separate fact from fiction and will make my exit from this thread as well. Sir Don.................I respect your persistence and the energy you've applied to this effort. If you had only applied such an effort to a worthwhile endeavor you would have surely profited greatly from it. Nevertheless, in all truth, you're spinning your wheels my friend, this exercise of yours has no future. Good luck to all......................................
I agree with you Ethos_ that there has been no substantive progress made in terms of the OP, and no prospect of any; nevertheless I've found it a useful source of educational references (especially from Cheryl - thanks Cheryl!).
... Dehaene can't justify his extraordinary jump or leap from the neural correlates of consciousness or NCC to the latter itself , let alone that he could explain to us how consciousness or awareness occurs or arises from neurochemistry .
Besides, it has been proved by many experiments , like the binocular rivalry experiment ,that consciousness is not continuous but discontinuous (Binocular rivalry experiment has been used to be able to differentiate between the brain regions that are involved in conscious or aware perception and between the ones that are not , and hence to try to pinpoint exactly what specific regions of the brain are involved in conscious perception .) : consciousness works thus via gaps , or as lunatic Dennett said on the subject : " The discontinuity of consciousness is striking because of the apparent continuity of consciousness " .
To pretend thus that neuroscientists already understand how the sensory perceptual or gross consciousness or awareness are all about is a misguided and incorrect assumption .
Misdiagnosed ? So, Cambridge scientists conducted that simple test on misdiagnosed vegetative patients ? lol Come on .
... it did happen like i told you it did , unfortunately and unbelievably enough .It's hard to believe , but it was true , i was told at least .
What part of the above you can't understand then , Cheryl ?
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg448362#msg448362 date=1420925661]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 10/01/2015 18:27:00... Dehaene can't justify his extraordinary jump or leap from the neural correlates of consciousness or NCC to the latter itself , let alone that he could explain to us how consciousness or awareness occurs or arises from neurochemistry .That's not how science works. Falsifiable hypotheses are made, based on observation, then tested. So far, the hypotheses have not been falsified.
QuoteBesides, it has been proved by many experiments , like the binocular rivalry experiment ,that consciousness is not continuous but discontinuous (Binocular rivalry experiment has been used to be able to differentiate between the brain regions that are involved in conscious or aware perception and between the ones that are not , and hence to try to pinpoint exactly what specific regions of the brain are involved in conscious perception .) : consciousness works thus via gaps , or as lunatic Dennett said on the subject : " The discontinuity of consciousness is striking because of the apparent continuity of consciousness " .Indeed, there are several leading neuroscientists who support this view, and it's not that surprising, given that our vision is also discontinuous. It's yet another demonstration that subjective perception (in this case, of continuity) can be deceptive. It has no substantive effect on Deheane's interpretations.
QuoteTo pretend thus that neuroscientists already understand how the sensory perceptual or gross consciousness or awareness are all about is a misguided and incorrect assumption .No-one pretends that, but we do know the areas and structures involved, and their basic functions - from observation and experiment.
QuoteMisdiagnosed ? So, Cambridge scientists conducted that simple test on misdiagnosed vegetative patients ? lol Come on .It's a question of definition. A vegetative state is one lacking conscious awareness, by general definition. If a patient diagnosed as vegetative is found to be consciously aware, he's been misdiagnosed.
Quote... it did happen like i told you it did , unfortunately and unbelievably enough .It's hard to believe , but it was true , i was told at least .Lol! You clearly don't believe everything you're told, but you choose to believe that 'hard to believe' anecdote, despite calling it unbelievable... why, because it was a relative?
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg448377#msg448377 date=1420937557]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 10/01/2015 20:40:54What part of the above you can't understand then , Cheryl ? I can read perfectly fine, thank you, and understand what you've said.
I just don't happen to agree, hard as that may be for you to fathom. You've arrived at the very same answer you started with, and if you're completely happy with that outcome, so be it. I'll leave you to whine about materialism unharassed.
I'm out.
So, those Cambridge neuroscientists in question were so incompetent as to not be aware of the "fact " that they conducted that simple test on misdiagnosed vegetative patients lol , were so incompetent as not to able to tell the difference between real vegetative patients and between the misdiagnosed ones lol