The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What's the real origin of the scientific method?  (Read 27574 times)

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #100 on: 31/08/2013 00:25:35 »
Quote :
"The theory of evolution ,however, has brought despair & anxiety , instead of hope & enthusiasm for life , to the modern world .

The reason is to be found in the unwarranted modern assumption that man's present structure , mental as well as physiological , is the last word in biological evolution , and that death , regarded as a biological event , has no constructive meaning .
Wow, what a miserable so-and-so; two straw man arguments for the price of one - and he grasps the wrong end of the stick with such confidence...

I doubt you'll find anyone with even a modest knowlege of evolution, who would make the asinine assumption that 'man is the last word in biological evolution'. It is indeed entirely unwarranted, and an obvious straw man.

Likewise, death has a primary constructive meaning - it's the driving force of evolution itself, and essential to ecosystem life in general.

Nature is oblivious to your wishful fantasies of life after death, it just recycles your constituents. There's no reason to think you'll be any more conscious after death than you were before birth, and plenty of reasons to think you won't.

But if it makes you feel better, dream away.

Quote
The world of today needs a Rumi to create an attitude of hope , and to kindle the fire of enthusiasm for life .

Rumi writes sweet poetry, but Iqbal needs counselling...
« Last Edit: 31/08/2013 00:33:53 by dlorde »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #101 on: 31/08/2013 17:35:50 »
Quote :
"The theory of evolution ,however, has brought despair & anxiety , instead of hope & enthusiasm for life , to the modern world .

The reason is to be found in the unwarranted modern assumption that man's present structure , mental as well as physiological , is the last word in biological evolution , and that death , regarded as a biological event , has no constructive meaning .
Wow, what a miserable so-and-so; two straw man arguments for the price of one - and he grasps the wrong end of the stick with such confidence...

I doubt you'll find anyone with even a modest knowlege of evolution, who would make the asinine assumption that 'man is the last word in biological evolution'. It is indeed entirely unwarranted, and an obvious straw man.

Likewise, death has a primary constructive meaning - it's the driving force of evolution itself, and essential to ecosystem life in general.

Nature is oblivious to your wishful fantasies of life after death, it just recycles your constituents. There's no reason to think you'll be any more conscious after death than you were before birth, and plenty of reasons to think you won't.

But if it makes you feel better, dream away.

Ho, ho, what turned you suddenly into this sort of 'beast " you seem to have become ?
Iqbal wrote that in the 1930's -1935's , i guess ,so :

Try to compare those errors of Iqbal with (no comparison in fact )  how western Eugenics , social darwinism , racist western anthropology back then, racist imperialist western orientalism back then ...to mention just that ...how they all were not only unscientific and stupid ,but were also criminal .
Besides,  i was only trying to display that poem of Rumi about evolution though  .
So, you were just trying to score this pathetic juvenile way , i am afraid : this is no competition , dude , just an exchange of opinions and ideas , insights ...That's all .

As for the rest of your words = that's a form of pathetic pleading , ironically enough .
We can absolutely not prove what lies ahead after death , either way ....so, you seem to have lost your mind suddenly : weird .
I hope you are alright though .


Quote
Quote
The world of today needs a Rumi to create an attitude of hope , and to kindle the fire of enthusiasm for life .

Rumi writes sweet poetry, but Iqbal needs counselling...

Both Rumi and Iqbal were just men of their ages , as we are all in fact , including the women then = nobody is infaillible , not even remotely close . 
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #102 on: 31/08/2013 18:51:43 »
No, those were no insults ,just hard talk = my own expression of tough love for you as a fellow human being .
It speaks volumes about you.

That's only your own perception ,interpretation or representation of the reality of my words .
Why is that ? I meant what i said , simply because i do not like hypocritical or political -correct talk you displayed sometimes on this board , that's why i resorted to that informed hard talk as a kindda tough love for you as a fellow human being , really , i mean it : that was genuinely candidly and harmlessly meant .

Quote
Quote
I was just trying to make you realise the fact that you do confuse materialism as a world view with scientifc facts , that's all .
Little danger of that, they're entirely different, though complementary, concepts.

No , buddy : you , guys , are so indoctrinated and brainwashed by materialism as a world view for so many centuries now that you cannot but confuse it with science proper , unfortunately enough .

Quote
Quote
The materialistic approach of human consciousness has thus more to do with materialism as a world view ,than with science itself .
Not really; it is more a result of taking a scientific approach
.

No , my friend, not really , not always though : materialism as a world view has been hijacking science exclusively for more than 5 centuries now that most people cannot but confuse materialism with science ,mostly then : just try to take a look back at history to find out about the real roots of materialism then .

Quote
Quote
If you want me to refute that materialistic view regarding human consciousness, then,it's pretty logical to expect from me that i just address that materialistic world view regarding consciousness ,which is certainly not a scientific fact .
I don't particularly want you to refute a materialistic view of consciousness, but just provide some reasoned argument for your own view. I'm curious to know whether you just believe what you've been brought up to believe, or whether you've somehow reasoned yourself into the view you take, and if so, by what arguments
.

Well, if you read my latest post to you carefully , you would notice that i was a kindda materialist myself without adhering to materialism as a world view or philosophy , paradigm...of course .
I have been struggling with the issue of muslims ' decline and the rise of the west in order to understand how when and why that happened , so i can address my own legetimate natural doubts as a result concerning my own faith whose extremely evolutionary , revolutionary , creative dynamic self-reviving intrinsic think tanks were tragically closed by muslims themselves for more than 5 centuries now :
But i did find out that Islam itself was not the problem ,on the contrary , muslims were/are  ,those current and ancient muslims who were guilty enough and responsible enough for their own decline , for the rise of the materialistic atheistic secular west = that's a huge tragedy and a huge crime against humanity what those muslims have been doing in the above mentioned sense , humanity will need a very long time to recover from, if ever , despite all those western material scientific technological and other great achievements :
I like to imagine what this violent intolerant , deceptive , full of hatred , extremism , bigotry,racism, xenophoby, make-believe,wars , hunger , inequalities, genocides,  ...full of lies even in the name of science ...world  would  really  look  like , if muslims did not abandon science , reason, logic .....combined with the true access to the tolerant open-minded cosmopolitan spirit and essence  of Islam  : i would like to imagine how this world would look like in that case , simply because human consciousness shaped by the right and true spirituality ,combined with true science,true science as also a  religious duty , as a form of worship of God in Islam at least ,combined with the truths contained in all cultures, religions, currents of thought ....would turn humans into some sort of "gods " , metaphorically speaking , instead of materialistic animals thanks to this down-to-earth materialistic secular atheistic civilization .
My life experiences thus , humble knowledge , research, reason, logic , the very nature of science ....had convinced me , beyond the shadow of a doubt , of the  exclusive ideological nature of materialism in all areas of life , especially in science : i told you  i have been struggling with this issue of materialism since an early age ,did i not ?

Besides, when i take a look back at history to see how early muslims whose "invention " and practice of the scientific method had revolutionized the world .when i saw how those early muslims were able to remain open to  all world views , to all cultures, to all human races , currents of thought ...thanks to Islam mainly that had shaped their conmsciousness  that way ,i cannot but remark (an understatement ) that suspicious exclusive dominance and exclusive monopoly of materialism in all sciences,in human sciences , in  literature , art , .....materialistic exclusive monopoly of the truth at all levels which excludes all non-materialistic world views in the process ....

So, when i take a look back at those tolerant and open-minded early muslim encyclopedic cosmopolitan scientists who used to exclude no world view whatsoever , i cannot but despise that exclusive narrow-minded materialism as a result , sorry .

All i wish for you is that you would realise those facts about materialism some day , in order to be able to wake up from your slumber , to broaden your own  tiny horizon which is exclusively confined within those exclusive reductionistic mechanical key hole or tunnel vision boundaries of materialism , and eventually expand the scope of your own consciousness and level of reality .
Best of luck and best wishes , my friend,from the very bottom of my heart  .

I do despise materialism indeed ,as i said, to be honest , i must admit once again , materialism as an exclusive world view which pretends to be scientific ,which misuses sciences and other fields of human knowledge and activity , in order to validate itself so desperately,in order to impose itself as the one and only truth  , but i do have respect for you as a fellow human being , and for your materialistic world views even  , as long as you do not try to impose them on people , as scientific facts,as long as you do not try to mislead and deceive people in the name of science and in the name of materialism in science  and elsewhere .

Early muslims were confident enough and used science just as an effective tool to find out about the secrets and signs of God within and without , they were certainly not doing just that in order to validate Islam or in order to impose islam as the  one and only truth , absolutely not :
They were just  doing that for practical and pragmatic reasons as well as a way to understand Islam istelf somehow in the process,and because practicing science was a religious duty and a form of worship of God in Islam as well ,  in the sense that the more knowledge in the broader sense  ,  experience , scientific knowledge , belief ,wisdom , practice ,work ...a believer can get or do , the closest to God he /she would get .
You are just yet another relatively voluntarily victim of materialism ,so : i cannot blame you for that indeed .
victims of materialism as a world view are better described by this experiment mentioned by Linda Jean Shepherd in that unique brilliant book of hers i talked about earlier :
Indians (From India , not those massacred American natives ) used to conduct the following experiment in order to tame the elephants :
They used to tie up new born elephants to soft leafs via soft ropes ,those new born elephants babies learned that way not to escape from that , despite the softness of their "chains " , but the amazing thing that happened was as follows :
When those elephants grow up as adult elephants , they would destroy their metal solid chains tied up to big trees,together with those trees in fact , but when one ties them up via soft ropes to soft leafs , they do not even try to "liberate " themselves form those soft "chains "

This was no pleading , let alone insults ,just facts, or just  life facts instead then  .


Take care

Have a nice week-end and life : life is too short , enjoy it while you can : when you will eventually die ,then and only then  you will know the Truth with a big T when those fake veils of reality in this life will be removed from your eyes mind and heart , as we all will indeed .

Bye
« Last Edit: 31/08/2013 19:34:33 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #103 on: 31/08/2013 18:59:29 »
As for the rest of your words = that's a form of pathetic pleading , ironically enough .
We can absolutely not prove what lies ahead after death , either way ....so, you seem to have lost your mind suddenly : weird .
I hope you are alright though .

I'm fine; I was just passing time until you came up with your reasoned argument for your world view. The reasons don't have to be logical, rational, or scientific - I'm just curious to know what they are and why they convince you.

I'll come back if something interesting like that shows up.

ETA: stop the presses - a new post arrives: From what I can make out, it's all grounded in your enthusiasm for Islam, despising materialistic world views, and a nostalgia for the heady but ancient days of Islamic primacy in science. Let me know if I missed anything major. 

Mostly context, little explanation, but fair enough; no surprises there.

OK, thanks for that.
« Last Edit: 31/08/2013 19:35:25 by dlorde »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #104 on: 31/08/2013 19:44:20 »
As for the rest of your words = that's a form of pathetic pleading , ironically enough .
We can absolutely not prove what lies ahead after death , either way ....so, you seem to have lost your mind suddenly : weird .
I hope you are alright though .

I'm fine; I was just passing time until you came up with your reasoned argument for your world view. The reasons don't have to be logical, rational, or scientific - I'm just curious to know what they are and why they convince you.

I'll come back if something interesting like that shows up.

ETA: stop the presses - a new post arrives: From what I can make out, it's all grounded in your enthusiasm for Islam, despising materialistic world views, and a nostalgia for the heady but ancient days of Islamic primacy in science. Let me know if I missed anything major. 

Mostly context, little explanation, but fair enough; no surprises there.

OK, thanks for that.

Well, science , reason , logic ...are not abscent in islam, on the contrary  : see that Qur'anic epistemology which gave rise to the scientific method , it's just that science , reason, logic ....can only cover some areas of this universe , can only cover the natural reality , but fail to address other levels of reality and other levels of consciousness,fail pathetically to address consciousness itself  ...that's where belief comes in : that's no God gap .

As for the rest of your words again, they are just speculations : i am a restless truth seeker , and i would try to find it even in the devil himself, so to speak haha , i just regret and condemn the fact that materialism is in fact the enemey of the truth , partly then , that's all .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #105 on: 31/08/2013 20:06:13 »
@ dlorde :

When you will acknowledge ,recognize and realise the obvious  limits of science , reason, logic ....when you will stop confusing materialism as an exclusive world view with science ....then and only then , we can progress in this discussion, otherwise it would be an utter waste of time , as you just realised ,...............unfortunately enough .

Otherwise , just keep on cherishing your own materialistic illusions ,delusions and fairytales in your own materialistic wonderland , dear Alice .

I was just trying to give you my points of view , i am not gonna be lost haha without you, do not worry , if you just leave me to these issues , as you said , don't worry .
I am a big boy , i am not afraid of the dark, i can find my way without you,i can confront my own demons as well, and i can take care of myself , thank you very much .

It's only logical rational and especially ethical to just despise exclusive world views ,especially when they pretend to be scientific , especially when they deceive mislead and lie to people in the name of science , just in order to impose themselves on people as the one and only truths , at the very expense of the truth thus = that's even the very definition of ...fascism as the enemy of the truth , no matter how true materialism can ever be , no matter how many truths are contained in materialism indeed .... .

Congratulations .
« Last Edit: 31/08/2013 20:08:41 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #106 on: 01/09/2013 17:46:15 »
Many scientific research proved the fact that consciousness could not or cannot be produced by the brain: those materialists who pretend to prove the opposite do not realise the paradoxical ramifications and implications of their false assumptions in that regard ...

To say that the materialistic approach of consciousness fits the up to date data is simply a twist of facts ...and just a materialistic interpretation of the data ...
 
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #107 on: 01/09/2013 21:56:15 »
Many scientific research proved the fact that consciousness could not or cannot be produced by the brain.

OK, I'll bite. What scientific research (link to sources please)?
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #108 on: 03/09/2013 20:16:52 »
Many scientific research proved the fact that consciousness could not or cannot be produced by the brain.

OK, I'll bite. What scientific research (link to sources please)?

Plenty : i will try to make a selection for you ,later on .
 

Offline MarkPawelek

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #109 on: 04/09/2013 09:06:57 »
I personally think the scientific method may have been independently invented by several people in several places prior to its take off in Renaissance Europe. The scientific method is a very useful invention. What allowed it to take off in Europe, from 1543 onward?

1) It's utility.
2) The printing press.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Revolution [nofollow]
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #110 on: 04/09/2013 09:18:00 »
I personally think the scientific method may have been independently invented by several people in several places prior to its take off in Renaissance Europe.
Not a bad summary of the thread, although it's debatable how far back in history, precisely when it's identifiable as the scientific method, and how independent the inventions.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #111 on: 04/09/2013 18:47:01 »
I personally think the scientific method may have been independently invented by several people in several places prior to its take off in Renaissance Europe. The scientific method is a very useful invention. What allowed it to take off in Europe, from 1543 onward?

1) It's utility.
2) The printing press.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Revolution

Hi there : welcome to the thread : it's been becoming a bit boring to talk to just one member here about the subject of this thread ,even though the person in question is a very worthy discussion partner indeed .

Besides, before jumping to any a-priori conclusions, please try to read that relatively short essay on the subject by Koshul , you can download for free , as mentioned above in this thread's opening 's article : the man made his case scientifically and methodically ,so.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #112 on: 04/09/2013 19:12:31 »
Many scientific research proved the fact that consciousness could not or cannot be produced by the brain.

OK, I'll bite. What scientific research (link to sources please)?

Try this ,for starters : if i am not mistaken at least : "Brain is not needed for consciousness ",try to download the article related to the subject as well from a link below the video on youtube :

« Last Edit: 04/09/2013 19:14:41 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #113 on: 05/09/2013 10:50:22 »
Try this ,for starters : if i am not mistaken at least : "Brain is not needed for consciousness ",try to download the article related to the subject as well from a link below the video on youtube..

I read the article (which is only a discussion article, not a scientific research publication), and it simply doesn't support your assertion that "scientific research proved the fact that consciousness could not or cannot be produced by the brain".

These quotes from the article make it clear enough:
Quote
Kenneth Till, a former neurosurgeon at the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick Children, London, has this to say: "Interpreting brain scans can be very tricky.There can be a great deal more brain tissue in the cranium than is immediately apparent." Till echoes the cautions of many practitioners when he says, "Lorber may be being rather overdramatic when he says that someone has 'virtually no brain.'
...
As to the question "Is your brain really necessary?" Lorber admits that it is only half serious. "You have to be dramatic in order to make people listen," concedes the tactician. Bower's answer to the tongue-in-cheek question is this: "Although Lorber's work doesn't demonstrate that we don't need a brain, it does show that the brain can work in conditions we would have thought impossible." Bower occasionally complains that Lorber's style is less scientific than it might be.

Lorber's studies of hydrocephalics shows that a few have negligible detectable functional impairment, which is unexpected, given the degree of brain distortion. There is some debate as to whether deep brain structures (unaffected by hydrocephalus) contribute more to high level function than had been thought. Studies show that it's the white matter (the neural fibres) that is squashed most, but the cortical nerve cells are still present. When a shunt is implanted to relieve the pressure, the brain structure generally recovers roughly normal appearance. Sadly, the majority of hydrocephalics are seriously functionally impaired.

So, in summary, Lorber has discovered that the cerebral cortex is far more resilient to long-term developmental distortion than was previously appreciated. This is in line with discoveries in recent years that the brain has far more neuroplasticity than previously thought. Science moves on apace.

But no, it doesn't support your claim.

You said there is "Many [sic] scientific research", which I take to mean more than one discussion article. Have you got something better, like a published research paper in a peer reviewed journal of repute; something that actually supports your claim?
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #114 on: 05/09/2013 18:26:12 »
Try this ,for starters : if i am not mistaken at least : "Brain is not needed for consciousness ",try to download the article related to the subject as well from a link below the video on youtube..

I read the article (which is only a discussion article, not a scientific research publication), and it simply doesn't support your assertion that "scientific research proved the fact that consciousness could not or cannot be produced by the brain".

These quotes from the article make it clear enough:
Quote
Kenneth Till, a former neurosurgeon at the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick Children, London, has this to say: "Interpreting brain scans can be very tricky.There can be a great deal more brain tissue in the cranium than is immediately apparent." Till echoes the cautions of many practitioners when he says, "Lorber may be being rather overdramatic when he says that someone has 'virtually no brain.'
...
As to the question "Is your brain really necessary?" Lorber admits that it is only half serious. "You have to be dramatic in order to make people listen," concedes the tactician. Bower's answer to the tongue-in-cheek question is this: "Although Lorber's work doesn't demonstrate that we don't need a brain, it does show that the brain can work in conditions we would have thought impossible." Bower occasionally complains that Lorber's style is less scientific than it might be.

Lorber's studies of hydrocephalics shows that a few have negligible detectable functional impairment, which is unexpected, given the degree of brain distortion. There is some debate as to whether deep brain structures (unaffected by hydrocephalus) contribute more to high level function than had been thought. Studies show that it's the white matter (the neural fibres) that is squashed most, but the cortical nerve cells are still present. When a shunt is implanted to relieve the pressure, the brain structure generally recovers roughly normal appearance. Sadly, the majority of hydrocephalics are seriously functionally impaired.

So, in summary, Lorber has discovered that the cerebral cortex is far more resilient to long-term developmental distortion than was previously appreciated. This is in line with discoveries in recent years that the brain has far more neuroplasticity than previously thought. Science moves on apace.

But no, it doesn't support your claim.

You said there is "Many [sic] scientific research", which I take to mean more than one discussion article. Have you got something better, like a published research paper in a peer reviewed journal of repute; something that actually supports your claim?
[/quote]

I do salute and appreciate the fact that you did make some efforts to read that article at least : good that you try to examine any perspective relating to consciousness at least .

(Prior note : I think you should read this interesting book : "You are not your brain " : sort of mindfulness combined with neurology , by Jeffrey M.Schwartz and Rebecca Gladding........
Besides,there are also many non-materialistic approaches  of  consciousness out there : buddhist , and other , that i did not wanna mention , simply because they are not really scientific ...= it's extremely difficult to brand any approaches of consciousness ,for that matter ,as being totally scientific though , simply because they all rely heavily on their corresponding world views on the subject , as the materialistic approach of consciousness do as well ...= no single approach of consciousness whatsoever can be really called totally scientific , including the materialistic one thus = a fact you should realise ,recognize and acknowledge as such =a fact i mentioned many times ....no wonder when consciousness or the subject  tries to study itself = the subject trying to study the subject = the subject or consciousness as a process that's mainly shaped by world views . )

Anyway : I also expected that above mentioned case of that guy with "no brain " to be exaggerated indeed , but that nevetheless proves the fact that the brain ,in a way , is less necessary , to some degree at least , for consciousness .
Besides, i do agree with what that guy on the radion in the video said about  the fact that materialists do confuse correlation between  the 2 "systems" = brain and consciousness,with causation = the brain does not cause or produce consciousness , there is just a certain correlation or interaction between them .   
That said , i read about some scientific studies concerning the brain and consciousness ,some time ago, concerning the fact that  the first cannot produce the second  : they are so marginalized though ,due to that materialistic paradigm that's dominating in science ,so,  it's difficult to find them .
I will look for them ,later on then .
« Last Edit: 05/09/2013 18:35:29 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #115 on: 05/09/2013 21:08:55 »
I also expected that above mentioned case of that guy with "no brain " to be exaggerated indeed , but that nevetheless proves the fact that the brain ,in a way , is less necessary , to some degree at least , for consciousness .
Nope, not even slightly. You're clutching at straws that don't exist. Please explain how any of it supports your assertion.

 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #116 on: 05/09/2013 21:19:13 »
I also expected that above mentioned case of that guy with "no brain " to be exaggerated indeed , but that nevetheless proves the fact that the brain ,in a way , is less necessary , to some degree at least , for consciousness .
Nope, not even slightly. You're clutching at straws that don't exist. Please explain how any of it supports your assertion.

The very fact that he seems to be missing some parts at least of his brain is evidence enough for the fact that the brain, or rather some parts of it at least , is not always needed for consciousness,even though scientific studies had shown that some  damaged  areas of the brain can indeed affect some parts of our consciousness .
Why do you seem to have the materialistic habit or assumption assertion view  that the brain causes consciousness, instead of just correlating or interacting with it ? : correlation and causation are 2 totally different processes , even though some people do think that even causation itself as such does not exist= just an illusion  .
But , i cannot see how science can function or explain anything without causation though ...
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #117 on: 05/09/2013 23:06:35 »
The very fact that he seems to be missing some parts at least of his brain is evidence enough for the fact that the brain, or rather some parts of it at least , is not always needed for consciousness,even though scientific studies had shown that some  damaged  areas of the brain can indeed affect some parts of our consciousness .
That's been known for a very long time. Not only are many parts of the brain not involved in consciousness, but consciousness is (as I have already described) the result of a large number of processes, in various parts and structures of the brain, interacting. Damage or destruction to these areas damages the relevant aspects of consciousness, but it can sustain, albeit increasingly degraded, considerable damage before it is no longer apparent. If you've lived with someone developing dementia (e.g. Alzheimer's) you'll know what I'm talking about.

Quote
Why do you seem to have the materialistic habit or assumption assertion view  that the brain causes consciousness, instead of just correlating or interacting with it ?
I addressed this in an earlier post.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #118 on: 06/09/2013 18:53:33 »
The very fact that he seems to be missing some parts at least of his brain is evidence enough for the fact that the brain, or rather some parts of it at least , is not always needed for consciousness,even though scientific studies had shown that some  damaged  areas of the brain can indeed affect some parts of our consciousness .
That's been known for a very long time. Not only are many parts of the brain not involved in consciousness, but consciousness is (as I have already described) the result of a large number of processes, in various parts and structures of the brain, interacting. Damage or destruction to these areas damages the relevant aspects of consciousness, but it can sustain, albeit increasingly degraded, considerable damage before it is no longer apparent. If you've lived with someone developing dementia (e.g. Alzheimer's) you'll know what I'm talking about.

Quote
Why do you seem to have the materialistic habit or assumption assertion view  that the brain causes consciousness, instead of just correlating or interacting with it ?
I addressed this in an earlier post.


Just try to read the following strong refutation of materialism in science which gets confused with science by many people , including you ,  especially concerning the materialistic dogmatic magical approach of consciousness, the latter  as a so-called emergent property from the complexity of the evolved brain  ....written by a physicist :

http://www.superconsciousness.com/topics/science/why-consciousness-not-brain
   
Why Consciousness is Not the Brain
 FALL 2010


 
The Science of Premonitions
Author: Larry Dossey

Excerpted from The Science of Premonition: How Knowing the Future Can Help Us Avoid Danger, Maximize Opportunities and Create a Better Life by Larry Dossey. Copyright 2009 by Larry Dossey. Reprinted by permission of the author.

Physicist Freeman Dyson believes the cosmos is suffused with consciousness, from the grandest level to the most minute dimensions. If it is, why aren’t we aware of it?
For more articles about "Science", Click Here

“We don’t know who first discovered water, but we can be sure that it wasn’t a fish,” the old saw reminds us. Continual exposure to something reduces our awareness of its presence. Over time, we become blind to the obvious. We swim in a sea of consciousness, like a fish swims in water. And like a fish that has become oblivious to his aqueous environment, we have become dulled to the ubiquity of consciousness.

Why Consciousness is Not the Brain - The Science of Premonitions - Larry Dossey

In science, we have largely ignored how consciousness manifests in our existence. We’ve done this by assuming that the brain produces consciousness, although how it might do so has never been explained and can hardly be imagined. The polite term for this trick is “emergence.” At a certain stage of biological complexity, evolutionary biologists claim, consciousness pops out of the brain like a rabbit from a magician’s hat. Yet this claim rests on no direct evidence whatsoever. As Rutgers University philosopher Jerry A. Fodo flatly states, “Nobody has the slightest idea how anything material could be conscious. So much for our philosophy of consciousness.”

In spite of the complete absence of evidence, the belief that the brain produces consciousness endures and has ossified into dogma. Many scientists realize the limitations of this belief. One way of getting around the lack of evidence is simply to declare that what we call consciousness is the brain itself. That way, nothing is produced, and the magic of “emergence” is avoided. As astronomer Carl Sagan expressed his position, “My fundamental premise about the brain is that its workings – what we sometimes call mind – are a consequence of anatomy and physiology, and nothing more.” Nobelist Francis Crick agreed, saying “[A] person’s mental activities are entirely due to the behavior of nerve cells, glial cells, and the atoms, ions, and molecules that make up and influence them.”

This “identity theory” – mind equals brain – has led legions of scientists and philosophers to regard consciousness as an unnecessary, superfluous concept. Some go out of their way to deny the existence of consciousness altogether, almost as if they bear a grudge against it. Tufts University cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett says, “We’re all zombies. Nobody is conscious.” Dennett includes himself in this extraordinary claim, and he seems proud of it.

Consciousness can operate beyond the brain, body, and the present, as hundreds of experiments and millions of testimonials affirm. Consciousness cannot, therefore, be identical with the brain.

Others suggest that there are no mental states at all, such as love, courage, or patriotism, but only electrochemical brain fluxes that should not be described with such inflated language. They dismiss thoughts and beliefs for the same reasons. This led Nobel neurophysiologist Sir John Eccles to remark that “professional philosophers and psychologists think up the notion that there are no thoughts, come to believe that there are no beliefs, and feel strongly that there are no feelings.” Eccles was emphasizing the absurdities that have crept into the debates about consciousness. They are not hard to spot. Some of the oddest experiences I recall are attending conferences where one speaker after another employs his consciousness to denounce the existence of consciousness, ignoring the fact that he consciously chose to register for the meeting, make travel plans, prepare his talks, and so on.

Many scientists concede that there are huge gaps in their knowledge of how the brain makes consciousness, but they are certain they will be filled in as science progresses. Eccles and philosopher of science Karl Popper branded this attitude “promissory materialism.” “[P]romissary materialism [is] a superstition without a rational foundation,” Eccles says. “[It] is simply a religious belief held by dogmatic materialists . . .who confuse their religion with their science. It has all the features of a messianic prophecy.”

The arguments about the origins and nature of consciousness are central to premonitions. For if the promissory materialists are correct – if consciousness is indeed identical with the brain – the curtain closes on premonitions. The reason is that the brain is a local phenomenon – i.e., it is localized to the brain and body, and to the present. This prohibits premonitions in principle, because accordingly the brain cannot operate outside the body and the here-and-now. But consciousness can operate beyond the brain, body, and the present, as hundreds of experiments and millions of testimonials affirm. Consciousness cannot, therefore, be identical with the brain.

In science, we have largely ignored how consciousness manifests in our existence. We’ve done this by assuming that the brain produces consciousness, although how it might do so has never been explained and can hardly be imagined.

These assertions are not hyperbolic, but conservative. They are consistent with the entire span of human history, throughout which all cultures of which we have record believed that human perception extends beyond the reach of the senses. This belief might be dismissed as superstition but for the fact that modern research has established its validity beyond reasonable doubt to anyone whose reasoning has not clotted into hardened skepticism. To reiterate a single example – the evidence supporting foreknowledge – psi researchers Charles Honorton and Diane Ferrari examined 309 precognition experiments carried out by sixty-two investigators involving 50,000 participants in more than two million trials. Thirty percent of these studies were significant in showing that people can describe future events, when only five percent would be expected to demonstrate such results by chance. The odds that these results were not due to chance was greater than 10 to the twentieth power to one.

One of the first modern thinkers to endorse an outside-the-brain view of consciousness was William James, who is considered the father of American psychology. In his 1898 Ingersoll Lecture at Harvard University, James took a courageous stand against what he called “the fangs of cerebralism and the idea that consciousness is produced by the brain. He acknowledged that arrested brain development in childhood can lead to mental retardation, that strokes or blows to the head can abolish memory or consciousness, and that certain chemicals can change the quality of thought. But to consider this as proof that the brain actually makes consciousness, James said, is irrational.

Why Consciousness is Not the Brain - The Science of Premonitions - Larry Dossey

Why irrational? Consider a radio, an invention that was introduced during James’s lifetime, and which he used to illustrate the mind-brain relationship. If one bangs a radio with a hammer, it ceases to function. But that does not mean that the origin of the sounds was the radio itself; the sound originated from outside it in the form of an electromagnetic signal. The radio received, modified, and amplified the external signal into something recognizable as sound. Just so, the brain can be damaged in various ways that distort the quality of consciousness – trauma, stroke, nutritional deficiencies, dementia, etc. But this does not necessarily mean the brain “made” the consciousness that is now disturbed, or that consciousness is identical to the brain.

British philosopher Chris Carter endorses this analogy. Equating mind and brain is irrational, he says as listening to music on a radio, smashing the radio’s receiver, and thereby concluding that the radio was producing the music.

To update the analogy, consider a television set. We can damage a television set so severely that we lose the image on the screen, but this doesn’t prove that the TV actually produced the image. We know that David Letterman does not live behind the TV screen on which he appears; yet the contention that brain equals consciousness is as absurd as if he did.

My conclusion is that consciousness is not a thing or substance, but is a nonlocal phenomenon. Nonlocal is merely a fancy word for infinite. If something is nonlocal, it is not localized to specific points in space, such as brains or bodies, or to specific points in time, such as the present.

The radio and TV analogies can be misleading, however, because consciousness does not behave like an electromagnetic signal. Electromagnetic (EM) signals display certain characteristics. The farther away they get from their source, the weaker they become. Not so with consciousness; its effects do not attenuate with increasing distance. For example, in the hundreds of healing experiments that have been done in both humans and animals, healing intentions work equally well from the other side of the earth as at the bedside of the sick individual. Moreover, EM signals can be blocked partially or completely, but the effects of conscious intention cannot be blocked by any known substance. For instance, sea water is known to block EM signals completely at certain depths, yet experiments in remote viewing have been successfully carried out beyond such depths, demonstrating that the long-distance communication between the involved individuals cannot depend on EM-type signals. In addition, EM signals require travel time from their source to a receiver, yet thoughts can be perceived simultaneously between individuals across global distances. Thoughts can be displaced in time, operating into both past and future. In precognitive remoteviewing experiments – for example, the hundreds of such experiments by the PEAR Lab at Princeton University – the receiver gets a future thought before it is ever sent. Furthermore, consciousness can operate into the past, as in the experiments involving retroactive intentions. Electromagnetic signals are not capable of these feats. From these differences, we can conclude that consciousness is not an electric signal.

Then what is it? My conclusion is that consciousness is not a thing or substance, but is a nonlocal phenomenon. Nonlocal is merely a fancy word for infinite. If something is nonlocal, it is not localized to specific points in space, such as brains or bodies, or to specific points in time, such as the present. Nonlocal events are immediate; they require no travel time. They are unmediated; they require no energetic signal to “carry” them. They are unmitigated; they do not become weaker with increasing distance. Nonlocal phenomena are omnipresent, everywhere at once. This means there is no necessity for them to go anywhere; they are already there. They are infinite in time as well, present at all moments, past present and future, meaning they are eternal.

Researcher Dean Radin, whose presentiment experiments provide profound evidence for future knowing, believes that the nonlocal events in the subatomic, quantum domain underlie the nonlocal events we experience at the human level. He invokes the concept of entanglement as a bridging hypothesis uniting the small- and large-scale happenings. Quantum entanglement and quantum nonlocality are indeed potent possibilities that may eventually explain our nonlocal experiences, but only further research will tell. Meanwhile, there is a gathering tide of opinion favoring these approaches. As physicist Chris Clarke, of the University of Southampton, says, “On one hand, Mind is inherently non-local. On the other, the world is governed by a quantum physics that is inherently non-local. This is no accident, but a precise correspondence ...[Mind and the world are] aspects of the same thing...The way ahead, I believe, has to place mind first as the key aspect of the universe...We have to start exploring how we can talk about mind in terms of a quantum picture...Only then will we be able to make a genuine bridge between physics and physiology.”

When scientists muster the courage to face this evidence unflinchingly, the greatest superstition of our age – the notion that the brain generates consciousness or is identical with it – will topple. In its place will arise a nonlocal picture of the mind.

Whatever their explanation proves to be, the experiments documenting premonitions are real. They must be reckoned with. And when scientists muster the courage to face this evidence unflinchingly, the greatest superstition of our age – the notion that the brain generates consciousness or is identical with it – will topple. In its place will arise a nonlocal picture of the mind. This view will affirm that consciousness is fundamental, omnipresent and eternal – a model that is as cordial to premonitions as the materialistic, brain-based view is hostile.


 
« Last Edit: 06/09/2013 18:59:41 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #119 on: 06/09/2013 21:14:15 »
Just try to read the following strong refutation of materialism in science which gets confused with science by many people , including you ,  especially concerning the materialistic dogmatic magical approach of consciousness, the latter  as a so-called emergent property from the complexity of the evolved brain  ....written by a physicist :

Plenty of unsubstantiated assertions, arguments from intuition, and argumentumn ad populum, but no scientific research.

Where's the 'many scientific research' you said you knew about?
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #120 on: 06/09/2013 22:07:47 »
Just try to read the following strong refutation of materialism in science which gets confused with science by many people , including you ,  especially concerning the materialistic dogmatic magical approach of consciousness, the latter  as a so-called emergent property from the complexity of the evolved brain  ....written by a physicist :

Plenty of unsubstantiated assertions, arguments from intuition, and argumentumn ad populum, but no scientific research.

Where's the 'many scientific research' you said you knew about?

The guy said true things about materialism though ..

As for the rest , later on then : i have a life of my own also , things to do, responsibilities , duties, people to take care of  ...so
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #121 on: 09/10/2013 18:06:33 »
History must be rewritten indeed ...............
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #121 on: 09/10/2013 18:06:33 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length