The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
I was not able to post all the necessary and relevant Carter's excerpts , due to the lack of enough time , and due to the fact that the above posted excerpts were relatively enough anyway .

Thanks, guys .See ya in a few days, hopefully .
Cheryl :

You will get what you were asking for , don't worry about that .
After a few days , and after finishing with the above , i will be providing you with that overwhelming body of evidence that has been supporting the claims of non-materialist scientists through their own work .

Carter , for example, had even deliverd some serious refutations of all those materialist physiological and psychological explanations of psi-phenomena, NDE , placebo/nocebo effects , so ..

You will also hear about the latter , in due time .

Thanks to all of you , guys , appreciate indeed .

Best wishes to you all and nice weekend as well .
The Earth has a mass of 5.97x1024 kg. You would have to increase that by 1% (5.97x1022 kg) to get a 1% increase in the gravitational attraction to the moon. Introducing this much mass by way of meteorite impact would probably kill everything on the Earth many times over. But in theory, yes we could increase the mass of the Earth and it would change the moon's orbit.
or we could put a 100 metres large sphere of neutron star's material at the centre of Earth 😊.
I don't take responsibility for the subsequent tidal forces near that sphere, anyway 😊


Don't see where you find Pete to be ambivalent. He's perfectly clear here, and perfectly correct as far as I see? You need to read up on the subject.
Chemistry / How can I make MSM from pine tree bark?
« Last post by thedoc on Today at 19:30:01 »
ebbylenah asked the Naked Scientists:
I want to do a project of making MSM from pine tree can i go about it?

What do you think?
Ethos, dlorde, Cheryl, alancalverd :

Does the following famous and simple double slit experiment not show clearly that consciousness does collapse the wave function ? (Dr.Quantum amusing version ) ,without any tranfer of energy whatsoever ? :

Furthermore , I think that when Caroll says that the standard model of quantum field theory  that allegedly explains  how  the whole every-day -scale world works rules out any existence of psi-phenomena , NDE ....,since all major or significant natural laws  or forces were already discovered ,and even if physicists would discover in the future some too- insignificant -forces -to -be -detected / detectable- today , they would turn out to be irrelevant .
When caroll said that through  his wonderful and impressive lecture ,he maybe did not remember  the fact that classical physicists thought almost the same about classical Newtonian physics untill Max Planck showed up in the picture to topple classical Newtonian physics through his work that paved the way for quantum theory .

I suspect thus that the same might happen to that standard model of quantum field theory .

P.S.: I will be absent from this forum during a few days , so, i will be not active in this forum, just to give you and myself time enough to read all those excerpts of Carter , and then, afterwards , we can discuss them in an informed manner .

I know it takes time to read them , as i also know that posting lengthy excerpts from books is not the proper way to conduct constructive debates , but i had no choice but to do that , since i did not want to repeat the same mistake i committed yesterday by distorting Carter's arguments ...

My apologies for the inconvenience .

Thanks a lot for your understanding and cooperation, help ....time , efforts .., appreciate indeed .Best wishes .Cheers .

My apologies for not being able to reply to all your interesting posts here above , guys , since it took me so much time to target Carter's relevant excerpts on the subject and post them here , while fixing their display as well ...

dlorde :

Please , try to take some time to read those Carter's excerpts , and then, we will discuss them , after a few days , if you want to or have time enough for that at least . Thanks.

Since almost all those non-materialist scientists do rely heavily on one particular interpretation of quantum theory where consciousness seems to play a central or key role in physics : The conscious collapse of the wave function (I am well aware of your earlier critiques regarding that issue ) , i would, nevertheless,  appreciate it very much , if you would then pinpoint to me where all those eminent scientists on whose work Carter had based his conclusions , were wrong , since i do not know nearly enough about QM .I wish i did .I have been working on that .

Thanks . Best wishes.Cheers.

"Implications For Physics and Consciousness " : Schmidt's Experiments and more :

Attempts to replicate Schmidt's experiments do not appear to have been very successful. But I'm grateful that Don has provided at least one bone to chew on instead of mere "overwhelming evidence."

The effects, if not anomalies, or not connected to a lack of true randomness in the random generators, seem so minimal that I fail to see how it underlies or supports the entire structure of consciousness itself as a reliable and consistent mechanism. They are describing a force that only influences matter effectively - rarely, if at all, and yet is supposed to be (for Don's purposes, anyway) the vehicle through which consciousness communicates its objectives to the brain for every mental activity.
The probem is that the police aren't interested in criminals, most of whom employ better lawyers than the authorities. It is civil offences like speeding, parking on yellow lines, not paying council tax, and being rude, that are easy to prosecute. Since the magistrates tend to be middle class too, they rarely impose custodial sentences and we just get fined. This suits everyone: it keeps the prison population down, fills the public coffers, and doesn't expose the police to any danger or hardship, but does keep them fully occupied filling in forms.
dlorde :

You have to read Carter's excerpts here above before attempting to refute them .I know they take time to read . I know that's not the way to conduct a debate .But , since i will be absent from this forum in the next days , and since i did not want to distort Carter's arguments , i had no choice but to display those relevant excerpts of his.
You will have time enough to read those excerpts , i hope , the same goes for me , and then ,we can discuss them through our own words ,afterwards , when i will come back to this forum after some days  .
My apologies for the inconvenience . I would appreciate it very much ,if you would then, afterwards , pinpoint to me where Carter and all those eminent scientists on whose work he based his consclusions were  wrong.Thanks, appreciate indeed .

Furthermore : You said earlier as a reply to my following quote :

      Who's insane enough as to believe in that materialist non-sense ?

You said the following thus :

No-one, I would hope. It's a complete misrepresentation. If that's really what you think the materialist position is, it's no wonder you have difficulty with it. Personally, I think it's a deliberate misrepresentation intended to cover a depressing lack of reasoned argument against the real position.

Well , here is what Carter had to say about just that :


The doctrine of materialism is one of the implications of taking classical physics to be a complete description of all of nature, including human beings.
 It is essentially the idea that all events have a physical cause; in other words, that all events are caused by the interaction between particles of matter and force fields.
 It follows from this that mind has no causal role in nature but is at most merely a useless by-product produced by the brain, and so in short, all that matters is matter.
There are three basic materialist approaches: the mind does not exist, the mind is identical to the brain, or the mind is a useless by-product produced by the brain.
The eliminative materialists seriously argue that consciousness and the self do not exist, but that children are indoctrinated by “folk psychology” into believing that they exist as conscious, thinking beings. For instance, journalist Michael Lemonick writes, “Despite our every instinct to the contrary, there is one thing that consciousness is not: some entity deep inside the brain that corresponds to the ‘self,’ some kernel of awareness that runs the show, as the ‘man behind the curtain’ manipulated the illusion of a powerful magician in The Wizard of Oz. After more than a century of looking for it, brain researchers have long since concluded that there is no conceivable place for such a self to be located in the physical brain, and that it simply doesn’t exist.
This may sound bizarre, but since materialism cannot account for consciousness, some materialists simply deny their own existence as conscious beings.
They are driven to this act of desperation by their conviction that science, which they understand as applied materialism, supports them.
 Note the self-refuting nature of this position: If I believe that consciousness does not exist, then how could my belief exist? If my consciousness does not exist, then neither does my belief. And if my professed belief is nothing more than a machine going through its motions, then you have no reason to accept it as correct.
The identity theory holds great attraction for many philosophers, as it seems to offer a simple and
easy solution to the problem.
 It says, for instance, that the subjective awareness of a red patch is objectively the movement of particles taking place in one’s brain. Some identity theorists hope that neuroscience will one day be able to map out the brain states that correspond to mental states, so that we will be able to simply describe mental activity as the activity of the brain.
 But Beauregard points out why this is a false hope:
Every human mind and brain moves through life differently, changing as it goes, so the information obtained for his brain would not apply to anyone else’s—or even to his own brain at a later time!
This point bears repeating because it is so contrary to materialist hopes that it is often ignored in public discussions. One outcome, for example, is that [Jean-Peirre] Changeux’s view that mind states and brain states are completely identical is untestable and lacks predictive value.
Any theory that is untestable and lacks predictive value does not belong to science, but rather to philosophy at best, ideology at worse. And it does get worse. How are we even to understand the assertion that thoughts and brain states are really one and the same? If they are the same, then every characteristic of one must be a characteristic of the other; but this leads to nonsense, as physicist and philosopher C. D. Broad pointed out.
There are some questions which can be raised about the characteristics of being a molecular movement, which it is nonsensical to raise about the characteristics of being an awareness of a red patch; and conversely. About a molecular movement it is perfectly reasonable to raise the
question: Is it swift or slow, straight or circular, and so on? About the awareness of a red patch it is nonsensical to ask whether it is a swift or slow awareness, a straight or a circular awareness, and so on. Conversely, it is reasonable to ask about an awareness of a red patch whether it is a clear or a confused awareness; but it is nonsense to ask of a molecular movement whether it is a clear or a confused movement. Thus the attempt to argue that “being a sensation of so and so” and “being a bit of bodily behavior of such and such a kind” are just two names for the same characteristic is evidently hopeless.
Eliminative materialism and identity theory are varieties of monism, the idea that only one kind of substance exists in the universe.
A materialist monist believes that matter is all that exists, in contrast to a dualist, who believes that reality contains two sorts of essences: psychical and physical.
 The materialist believes that the full authority of science supports his position and that dualism is an outmoded legacy of a prescientific era, but many modern scientists disagree. Astronomer V. A. Firsoff writes, “To assert there is only matter and no mind is the most illogical of propositions, quite apart from the findings of modern physics, which show that there is no matter in the traditional meaning of the term.”
 As we saw earlier, many quantum theorists were driven to the conclusion that prior to conscious observation, matter exists only in a half-real state as possibility waves, without definite values for dynamic attributes such as position or velocity. Hence Walker’s remark that “duality is already a part of physics.”
Wolfgang Pauli, one of the major contributors to quantum theory, concluded, “The only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality—the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical—as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously.
Epiphenomenalism does not deny the existence of consciousness, but holds that the interaction between the brain and mind runs strictly one way, from brain to mind.
 This view was popularized by Darwin’s friend and colleague Thomas Huxley, who described the mind as a mere epiphenomena—a useless by-product of brain activity. According to this theory, free will and intent are only illusions.
Although Darwin liked and admired Huxley, he would have none of this. Supporting Huxley’s opinion would have contradicted his life’s work, as Karl Popper rightly pointed out.
The theory of natural selection constitutes a strong argument against Huxley’s theory of the onesided action of body on mind and for the mutual interaction of mind and body. Not only does the body act on the mind—for example, in perception, or in sickness—but our thoughts, our expectations, and our feelings may lead to useful actions in the physical world. If Huxley had been right, mind would be useless.
But then it could not have evolved … by natural selection.
So from a strictly Darwinian approach, the mental powers of animals and men should be expected to lead to useful actions and should therefore be a causal influence in nature.
 According to this account, perceptions, emotions, judgments, and thoughts all have a real effect.
And the more highly developed the mental powers, the more causal impact they should be expected to have.
However, Darwin’s viewpoint was thought to conflict with the physics of his time, which could specify no mechanism by which the mental could influence the physical. Arguments based on physics, being a more “basic” science than biology, were thought to trump arguments based on evolutionary theory. However, as we have seen, modern physics allows nonmechanical causation and has eliminated the causal closure of the physical.
Harold Morowitz, professor of molecular biophysics and biochemistry at Yale University, pointed out that while biologists have been relentlessly moving toward the hard-core materialism that characterized nineteenth-century physics, “at the same time, physicists, faced with compelling experimental evidence, have been moving away from strictly mechanical models of the universe to a view that sees the mind as playing an integral role in all physical events. It is as if the two disciplines were on fast-moving trains, going in opposite directions and not noticing what is happening across the tracks.”
 For Beauregard, this raises questions: “If physics fails to support biology, which discipline should rethink its position—physics or biology? On a practical note, can we reasonably expect much progress in neuroscience, given the problems, if we do not begin by reassessing the materialism that has characterized our hypotheses for decades?
Materialist theories of mind are based on the assumption that brain activity, and hence mental activity, is driven from below by the deterministic, observer-independent motions of elementary particles in the brain, as described by classical physics. But we have known since the early years of the twentieth century that classical physics fails drastically at the atomic and subatomic levels, and that the behavior of such particles is indeterministic and observer dependent.
 The irony here is that while materialists often describe themselves as promoting a scientific outlook, it is possible to be a materialist only by ignoring the most successful scientific theory of matter the world has yet seen.
The materialist believes that consciousness is created by matter, yet the best theory we have about the nature of matter seems to require that consciousness exists independently of matter.
And materialist models of mind utterly fail to answer the hard problem: why should consciousness exist in the first place and then constantly deceive us as to its function?
Materialist philosopher of mind John Searle has lamented the bankruptcy of most work in the philosophy of mind and has candidly suggested that the motivation behind acceptance of materialist views is more emotional than rational.
Acceptance of the current views is motivated not so much by an independent conviction of their truth as by a terror of what are apparently the only alternatives. That is, the choice we are tacitly presented with is between a ‘scientific’ approach, as represented by one or another of the current versions of ‘materialism,’ and an ‘anti-scientific’ approach, as represented by Cartesianism or some other traditional religious conception of the mind.


The equations of motion of a simple pendulum are based on an infintesimal point mass of infinite density but finite mass much smaller than that of the earth, and a weightless string of infinite tensile strenth, infinitesimal cross section, and no losses at the pivot. The string must of course be of finite length to produce a finite period of oscillation, but it must be infinitely long compared with the amplitude of oscillation so that sinθ = tanθ = θ.

Science museums generally display devices about 20 - 25 m long, with 50 - 100 kg pendulum bobs on a single steel strand.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
SMF 2.0 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines
Login with username, password and session length