The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?  (Read 307235 times)

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #450 on: 06/10/2013 18:40:55 »
... As of the damaged areas of the human brain that seem to cause the loss of their corresponding parts of consciousness ....I just see that as being the case of the damaged receiver or brain that stops to receive those corresponding "signals " from  those corresponding parts of consciousness ..
Oh dear. Did you miss the parts where Chery described brain injuries that affect the subject's knowledge and judgement without affecting movement or communication?

If your external consciousness hypothesis was correct, the external consciousness's knowledge & judgement would not be affected, and it would be able to communicate that, as it would still have control of the brain's communication facilities.

How do you account for this?

(I see consciousness or the soul as permeating the body from within and without , within every cell, atom , organ ...of the body ,and without ,i dunno )

Well, those brain injuries that affected knowledge and judgement of that patient ,without affecting movement and communication,may have caused those corresponding parts of consciousness to somehow 'disconnect " from their corresponding damaged brain areas ,  that's why they could not get through via those damaged areas of the brain, i dunno : i can only speculate about this .
I never pretended to know how consciousness interacts with the brain and vice versa ...otherwise , i should have deserved more than beyond a nobel prize for that , don't you think ?


 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #451 on: 06/10/2013 19:13:15 »
...perhaps you could explain how science will be done when it is free of 'materialist bullshit'?

Well, materialism will be history : inevitable = just a matter of time  indeed , materialism that has been superseded even by the physical sciences, especially by quantum physics ...
How come you still do not get it yet , after all these lengthy kilometers of pages on this thread ?
Science will continue using its effective and unparalleled method that's like no other , but will be free from that materialist prison...
Science will then be able to approach the universe or reality as not exclusively physical biological processes ...
...the mental side of nature will not be reduced to just physics and chemistry ....
What part of these statements can't you understand ?
I understand what you just said, but it didn't answer the question. Perhaps it was too general for you...

Let's be more specific; science involves observation, making hypotheses, and testing hypotheses; how do you propose that science observes the non-material, or tests a hypothesis about the non-material?

One can apply some sort of phenomenological approaches in that regard ,or indeed just try to study the effects of the immaterial consciousness  or mind  in relation to the physical brain : one should also not a-priori disregard those proved to be true mysterious healing powers of the mind in relation to the body or brain : the placebo effect ...
One should also not a -priori disregrad telepathy , and other psychic phenomena ..just because materialism says so , materialism as a false conception of nature in science thus, science should be delivered from  : see the work of Sheldrake on the subject as wel, while you are at it .
Besides, learning more about the functioning  or neurophysiology  , anatomy and activity of the brain, we still do not know much about despite all those advances of neuroscience in that regard , neuroscience that's also still kept within the narrow-minded exclusive false  walls of  the crippling ideological materialist prison though , neuroscience should also be liberated from thus , learning more about the physical brain thus might shed some  light on consciousness, indirectly , somehow ,also .

Quote
For someone who knows what they're talking about, it should be easy enough to give a realistic example; as that someone said recently, "when one pretends to know this or that  about something , one gotta prove that to be true".

See what i said to Cheryl here above on the subject .
All forms of naturalism, either reductionist or non -reductionist , all forms of anti-reductionist idealism ....cannot account for such processes fully such as life , consciousness, human cognition, memory , conscience , feelings , emotions, human love ........
In other words :
Only the right true universal cosmopolitan theism as a potentially valid conception of nature or meta-paradigm in science , combined with science while being separated from it as well in the process  = no contradiction ,might lead humanity somewhere on the subject of consciousness, life , ......................i guess, i dunno for sure either ...

As Sheldrake said in that above mentioned book of his : planes will still keep on flying , gsm's will continue functioning , internet will still be there , science will still continue to be practiced and deliver results ....if or when  that outdated false  materialism in science is out of the pic ....
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #452 on: 06/10/2013 19:22:41 »
Excerpts from "Science Set Free ..." By Sheldrake : Chapter 12 : Scientific Futures :
In other words : dear westerners : you'd better try to get rid of that Eurocentric outdated primitive backward orthodox materialist false secular religion in science, otherwise , you will find yourselves suddenly way behind the rest of the world at the level of the sciences , in plural, at least : you are warned :



The sciences are entering a new phase. The materialist ideology that has ruled them since the
nineteenth century is out of date. All ten of its essential doctrines have been superseded. The
authoritarian structure of the sciences, the illusions of objectivity and the fantasies of omniscience
have all outlived their usefulness.
The sciences will have to change for another reason too: they are now global. Mechanistic science
and the materialist ideology grew up in Europe, and were strongly influenced by the religious disputes
that obsessed Europeans from the seventeenth century onward. But these preoccupations are alien to
cultures and traditions in many other parts of the world.
In 2011, the worldwide expenditure on scientific and technological research and development was
more than $1,000 billion, of which China spent $100 billion.1 Asian countries, especially China and
India, now produce enormous numbers of science and engineering graduates. In 2007, at BSc level
there were 2.5 million science and engineering graduates in India and 1.5 million in China,2 compared
with 515,000 in the United States3 and 100,000 in the UK.4 In addition, many of those studying in the
United States and Europe are from other countries: in 2007, nearly a third of the graduate students in
science and engineering in the United States were foreign, with the majority from India, China and
Korea.5
Yet the sciences as taught in Asia, Africa, the Islamic countries and elsewhere are still packaged in
an ideology shaped by their European past. Materialism gains its persuasive power from the
technological applications of science. But the successes of these applications do not prove that this
ideology is true. Penicillin will go on killing bacteria, jet planes will keep on flying and mobile
telephones will still work if scientists move on to wider views of nature.
No one can foresee how the sciences will evolve, but I believe recognizing that “science” is not one
thing will facilitate their development. “Science” has given way to “the sciences.” By moving beyond
physicalism, the status of physics has changed. By freeing the sciences from the ideology of
materialism, new opportunities for debate and dialogue open up, and so do new possibilities for
research.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4696
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #453 on: 06/10/2013 19:45:29 »
Quote
If you are a scientist , i am Elvis :

Feel free to check my qualifications and professional registrations. Or contact Rupert Sheldrake - we've not been in touch for years!

Can you do a gig next Saturday? The hall is already hired for a big band show (they know most of your Las Vegas numbers), no problem raising backing singers, and I have a quartet of contemporary rockers who will be delighted to work through your early stuff from memory. Name your price, big fella - I'm sure it will be a sellout. And as many burgers as you want.   
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #454 on: 06/10/2013 19:55:28 »
how do you propose that science observes the non-material, or tests a hypothesis about the non-material?
One can apply some sort of phenomenological approaches in that regard
Such as?

Quote
Quote
For someone who knows what they're talking about, it should be easy enough to give a realistic example..
See what i said to Cheryl here above on the subject .
I'll take that as, "I haven't a clue..." 
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #455 on: 06/10/2013 19:57:22 »
Quote
If you are a scientist , i am Elvis :

Feel free to check my qualifications and professional registrations. Or contact Rupert Sheldrake - we've not been in touch for years!

Can you do a gig next Saturday? The hall is already hired for a big band show (they know most of your Las Vegas numbers), no problem raising backing singers, and I have a quartet of contemporary rockers who will be delighted to work through your early stuff from memory. Name your price, big fella - I'm sure it will be a sellout. And as many burgers as you want.

Well, judging from your own replies and behaviour here on this forum , you 're either a  vulgar  liar , or a lousy third or x grade "scientist " , sorry : no pain, no gain, truth does hurt sometimes.
No hard feelings , right ?
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #456 on: 06/10/2013 20:04:31 »
Incidentally Don, you might find this SciAm article on the materialism and science interesting: Is Scientific Materialism “Almost Certainly False”?. The author, John Horgan, approves of Nagel's book, but it's the comments to the article that tell the story :)
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #457 on: 06/10/2013 20:13:15 »
how do you propose that science observes the non-material, or tests a hypothesis about the non-material?
One can apply some sort of phenomenological approaches in that regard
Such as?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology
Quote
Quote
Quote
For someone who knows what they're talking about, it should be easy enough to give a realistic example..
See what i said to Cheryl here above on the subject .
I'll take that as, "I haven't a clue..."


See what i said to Cheryl on the subject .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #458 on: 06/10/2013 20:32:28 »
Incidentally Don, you might find this SciAm article on the materialism and science interesting: Is Scientific Materialism “Almost Certainly False”?. The author, John Horgan, approves of Nagel's book, but it's the comments to the article that tell the story :)

Well, i did just read some parts of some comments quickly :
Obviously , those commentators do confuse materialism with science proper and with scientific results , as you all do , ironically enough = very predictable = there is no such a thing such as the "scientific " materialism , just the materialist false conception of nature in science that has absolutely nothing to do with science proper , let alone with scientific results , scientific approaches , scientific method .....
I will read some more , later .
I do agree with atheist Nagel's analysis , relatively speaking , regarding the materialist false conception of nature in science , but , i do reject his proposed vague alternative to materialism ,to mention just that,  simply because it is also a false conception of nature : what can one expect from an atheist in that regard indeed , right :  just another false conception of nature thus = very predictable indeed.
Nagel tried to come up with some teleological and non-reductionist naturalist approach or conceptions of nature to account for the "fact " that consciousness,mind,  life , human cognition....were "generated" , so to speak , by nature haha = makes no sense = Nagel does not realise that he also tries to do what he accuses materialism of doing = he tries to make his non-reductionist naturalist "teleological " atheism fit the scientific data as well haha
Nagel is an irritating torturing read also , i did skip many of those pages of that book of his as a result ...
Sheldrake's "Science set free ..." is an extremely enjoyable fascinating interesting read though , even though i do not share his morphic resonance fields theory with him , to say just that ....
« Last Edit: 06/10/2013 20:45:00 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #459 on: 07/10/2013 01:42:55 »
I'll have to look into the rat experiment. There have been problems reproducing other research he cites or has done, like the staring experiment. ( http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ruperts-resonance )

 Any phenomena that is new is worth pursuing, trying to reproduce and explain, no argument from me. But again, if you suggest a mechanism (like morphic fields), the validity of the claim rests on evidence that directly supports, not lack of some other mechanism. Saying "well, this is how it could work...." is a nice start, I guess, but that's all it is.

 The one thing I wondered about the rat experiment, how genetically similar do the rats have to be? And can they access the squirrel channel if they need to?

There are two things that bother me: 1) The repetitive claim that science has somehow "crippled" itself by materialism, when the research productivity is exploding in neurology. You and Sheldrake may not like their conclusions, but it is not grinding to halt for some reason.

The second is, when mystics or fringe scientists invent an alternative model for a process in science, or mystical explanation for a phenomena, they seem to think they are off the hook, and won't have their very own complaints and criticisms turned against them. "But Sheldrake, how can some simple field explain love and poetry and culture, and my unique individuality, blood sweat and tears, hopes and dreams, Duck Dynasty and all of human history and....no way makes no sense! Science proper has been hijacked by morphism!"

Incidentally the placebo effect does not always mean that beliefs or expectations made patients better. In experiments, it is used to control for a number of variables, such as diseases healing via physical processes with or without the drug, or patients not wanting to disappoint their caregivers by complaining that the medicine didn't work, etc. I'm not saying a patient's mental state has no effect, just that that isn't the sole purpose of placebos.

« Last Edit: 07/10/2013 01:46:58 by cheryl j »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4696
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #460 on: 07/10/2013 08:27:31 »
Well, judging from your own replies and behaviour here on this forum , you 're either a  vulgar  liar , or a lousy third or x grade "scientist " , sorry : no pain, no gain, truth does hurt sometimes.
No hard feelings , right ?

So, soi-disant Elvis, I take you at your word and offer you the chance to make an amazing comeback and as much money as you want for one night's work, and instead of thanking me, you call me a liar. Hard feelings? Your stupidity is beneath contempt! Or maybe your honesty is questionable. Perhaps you are a priest after all. Never mind! Young Alice will sing for us as usual - and she is in a better state of preservation.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #461 on: 07/10/2013 11:28:42 »
Incidentally the placebo effect does not always mean that beliefs or expectations made patients better. In experiments, it is used to control for a number of variables, such as diseases healing via physical processes with or without the drug, or patients not wanting to disappoint their caregivers by complaining that the medicine didn't work, etc. I'm not saying a patient's mental state has no effect, just that that isn't the sole purpose of placebos.
As I understand it, it affects the patient's subjective perceived and/or reported symptoms (i.e. they feel it has helped). Meta-studies show no evidence overall for a placebo effect on objectively measured outcomes (although one might have expected a small effect for stress or mood-related physiological problems). They show minor improvements in subjective outcomes, particularly pain.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #462 on: 07/10/2013 17:18:45 »
Well, judging from your own replies and behaviour here on this forum , you 're either a  vulgar  liar , or a lousy third or x grade "scientist " , sorry : no pain, no gain, truth does hurt sometimes.
No hard feelings , right ?
So, soi-disant Elvis, I take you at your word and offer you the chance to make an amazing comeback and as much money as you want for one night's work, and instead of thanking me, you call me a liar. Hard feelings? Your stupidity is beneath contempt! Or maybe your honesty is questionable. Perhaps you are a priest after all. Never mind! Young Alice will sing for us as usual - and she is in a better state of preservation.


Face it , dude , you are  just  a vulgar liar : if you are a scientist , then i am Lady Gaga or Madonna also,not just Elvis  .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #463 on: 07/10/2013 17:23:54 »
Excerpts from "Science Set Free ..." By Sheldrake : Questions for materialists :


Experimenters’ expectations are known to affect the results of research in psychology, parapsychology
and medicine, which is why researchers often use blind methodologies. Do you think that
experimenter effects could play a role in other fields of science too?
Do you think that scientists and science students should write in the passive voice in their reports, or
use the active voice?
Most scientists publish only a small proportion of their results. Do you think that this is likely to
introduce serious biases into the scientific literature?
How should scientists deal with ideologically, politically or commercially motivated skepticism?
SUMMARY
Scientists are often imagined to achieve a superhuman level of objectivity. This belief is sustained by
the ideal of disembodied knowledge, unaffected by ambitions, hopes, fears and other emotions. In the
allegory of the cave, scientists venture forth into the light of objective truth and bring back their
discoveries for the benefit of ordinary people, trapped in a world of opinion, self-interest and illusion.
By writing in the passive voice (“a test tube was taken”) rather than the active voice (“I took a test
tube”) scientists tried to emphasize their objectivity, but many have now abandoned this pretense.
Scientists are, of course, people, and subject to the limitations of personality, politics, peer-group
pressures, fashion and the need for funding. Within medicine, psychology and parapsychology, most
researchers recognize that their expectations can bias their results, which is why they often use blind
or double-blind methodologies. In the so-called hard sciences, most researchers assume that blind
methods are unnecessary. This is no more than an assumption, and needs to be tested experimentally.
In most fields of science, researchers publish only a small proportion of their data, giving plenty of
scope for the selective presentation of results, and scientific journals introduce a further source of bias
through their unwillingness to publish negative findings. Fraud and deceit in science are rarely
detected by the peer-review system and usually come to light as a result of whistle-blowing.
Skepticism is a healthy part of normal science but is often used as a weapon in defense of politically
or ideologically motivated points of view, or to stave off the regulation of toxic chemicals. Productdefense
companies emphasize uncertainty on behalf of big business, influencing policy decisions in
favor of their clients. The separation of facts and values is usually impossible in practice, and many
scientists have to exaggerate the value of their research in order to get it funded. Although the
objectivity of science is a noble ideal, there is more hope of achieving it by recognizing the humanity
of scientists and their limitations than by pretending that science has a unique access to truth.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #464 on: 07/10/2013 17:28:04 »
I'll have to look into the rat experiment. There have been problems reproducing other research he cites or has done, like the staring experiment. ( http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ruperts-resonance )

 Any phenomena that is new is worth pursuing, trying to reproduce and explain, no argument from me. But again, if you suggest a mechanism (like morphic fields), the validity of the claim rests on evidence that directly supports, not lack of some other mechanism. Saying "well, this is how it could work...." is a nice start, I guess, but that's all it is.

 The one thing I wondered about the rat experiment, how genetically similar do the rats have to be? And can they access the squirrel channel if they need to?

There are two things that bother me: 1) The repetitive claim that science has somehow "crippled" itself by materialism, when the research productivity is exploding in neurology. You and Sheldrake may not like their conclusions, but it is not grinding to halt for some reason.

The second is, when mystics or fringe scientists invent an alternative model for a process in science, or mystical explanation for a phenomena, they seem to think they are off the hook, and won't have their very own complaints and criticisms turned against them. "But Sheldrake, how can some simple field explain love and poetry and culture, and my unique individuality, blood sweat and tears, hopes and dreams, Duck Dynasty and all of human history and....no way makes no sense! Science proper has been hijacked by morphism!"

Incidentally the placebo effect does not always mean that beliefs or expectations made patients better. In experiments, it is used to control for a number of variables, such as diseases healing via physical processes with or without the drug, or patients not wanting to disappoint their caregivers by complaining that the medicine didn't work, etc. I'm not saying a patient's mental state has no effect, just that that isn't the sole purpose of placebos.


http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/placebo-cracking-code/
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #465 on: 07/10/2013 17:30:15 »
Incidentally the placebo effect does not always mean that beliefs or expectations made patients better. In experiments, it is used to control for a number of variables, such as diseases healing via physical processes with or without the drug, or patients not wanting to disappoint their caregivers by complaining that the medicine didn't work, etc. I'm not saying a patient's mental state has no effect, just that that isn't the sole purpose of placebos.
As I understand it, it affects the patient's subjective perceived and/or reported symptoms (i.e. they feel it has helped). Meta-studies show no evidence overall for a placebo effect on objectively measured outcomes (although one might have expected a small effect for stress or mood-related physiological problems). They show minor improvements in subjective outcomes, particularly pain.


http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/placebo-cracking-code/
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #466 on: 07/10/2013 17:35:34 »
Excerpts from "Science Set Free ..." By Sheldrake : Chapter 12 : Scientific Futures :
In other words : dear westerners : you'd better try to get rid of that Eurocentric outdated primitive backward orthodox materialist false secular religion in science, otherwise , you will find yourselves suddenly way behind the rest of the world at the level of the sciences , in plural, at least : you are warned :



The sciences are entering a new phase. The materialist ideology that has ruled them since the
nineteenth century is out of date. All ten of its essential doctrines have been superseded. The
authoritarian structure of the sciences, the illusions of objectivity and the fantasies of omniscience
have all outlived their usefulness.
The sciences will have to change for another reason too: they are now global. Mechanistic science
and the materialist ideology grew up in Europe, and were strongly influenced by the religious disputes
that obsessed Europeans from the seventeenth century onward. But these preoccupations are alien to
cultures and traditions in many other parts of the world.
In 2011, the worldwide expenditure on scientific and technological research and development was
more than $1,000 billion, of which China spent $100 billion.1 Asian countries, especially China and
India, now produce enormous numbers of science and engineering graduates. In 2007, at BSc level
there were 2.5 million science and engineering graduates in India and 1.5 million in China,2 compared
with 515,000 in the United States3 and 100,000 in the UK.4 In addition, many of those studying in the
United States and Europe are from other countries: in 2007, nearly a third of the graduate students in
science and engineering in the United States were foreign, with the majority from India, China and
Korea.5
Yet the sciences as taught in Asia, Africa, the Islamic countries and elsewhere are still packaged in
an ideology shaped by their European past. Materialism gains its persuasive power from the
technological applications of science. But the successes of these applications do not prove that this
ideology is true. Penicillin will go on killing bacteria, jet planes will keep on flying and mobile
telephones will still work if scientists move on to wider views of nature.
No one can foresee how the sciences will evolve, but I believe recognizing that “science” is not one
thing will facilitate their development. “Science” has given way to “the sciences.” By moving beyond
physicalism, the status of physics has changed. By freeing the sciences from the ideology of
materialism, new opportunities for debate and dialogue open up, and so do new possibilities for
research.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #467 on: 07/10/2013 17:41:46 »
Folks :
You all should try to learn about what science proper  really  is all about , what its limitations are , what its nature , function and role are ....
You can't just go on confusing science proper , scientific results , scientific approaches ...with materialism as a false conception of nature , materialism that has thus absolutely nothing to do with science proper , scientific results or scientific approaches whatsoever ...once again .
I see no real challenges here coming from you ,guys , so, i am just gonna head for Scientific American ,for a while,  in order to try to make those silly materialists there wake up from their ideological false outdated materialist  ...slumber , or big lie ....science proper , or rather all sciences for that matter , must be liberated from ....
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #468 on: 07/10/2013 19:09:54 »
Materialism will not only be laughable , ridiculed as it is the case now already in fact , but will be also despised by the next generations , simply because materialism  as a false ideology at least  has been deceiving people since the 19th century at least , in the name of science , the latter has aboslutely nothing to do with ...by pretending to be "scientific " ...

« Last Edit: 07/10/2013 19:12:18 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #469 on: 07/10/2013 19:29:43 »
You all should try to learn about what science proper  really  is all about , what its limitations are , what its nature , function and role are ....
You can't just go on confusing science proper , scientific results , scientific approaches ...with materialism as a false conception of nature , materialism that has thus absolutely nothing to do with science proper , scientific results or scientific approaches whatsoever ...once again .
Some of us have actually worked as scientists, doing real research. You haven't yet clearly defined 'science proper', but all the indications are that it is not something the vast majority of working scientists would recognise or agree with. So, do you get to define science proper, or should it be the consensus of the majority of working scientists? To save confusion, you might be better calling your 'science proper' something else (magic? nonsense?).
 
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #470 on: 07/10/2013 19:40:06 »
You all should try to learn about what science proper  really  is all about , what its limitations are , what its nature , function and role are ....
You can't just go on confusing science proper , scientific results , scientific approaches ...with materialism as a false conception of nature , materialism that has thus absolutely nothing to do with science proper , scientific results or scientific approaches whatsoever ...once again .
Some of us have actually worked as scientists, doing real research. You haven't yet clearly defined 'science proper', but all the indications are that it is not something the vast majority of working scientists would recognise or agree with. So, do you get to define science proper, or should it be the consensus of the majority of working scientists? To save confusion, you might be better calling your 'science proper' something else (magic? nonsense?).

You're the ones using magic in science ,obviously,  via materialism ,dude , via that magical materialist magical approach of life , consciousness, mind, memory , human cognition , feelings , emotions, love , conscience ....their origins evolution and emergence , don't you see just that yet ?
How can you call yourself a scientist ,if you cannot see these obvious facts ? I wonder ...

Well, since you all, obviously , still cannot but confuse materialism with science after all these kilometers long pages of this thread , then, it's pretty logical to question your own understanding or perception of what science proper is or might be  , don't you think ?
Besides, does it ever occur to you that the "consensus of the majority of working scientists " , as you put it at least, or the mainstream dominating political-correct right -thinking consensus in science might be  wrong ?
Science is not a matter of the opinions of the majority , dude , not a democracy ...Come on .
Unbelievable lack of understanding , unbelievable denials of obvious facts : and you do dare have the nerve to say that some of you, guys , are working scientists doing research ?????????
I do fear the worst for science in your hands , obviously , logically ...

I think that your next remarks or questions will be as follows :
What is the alternative to materialism , right ?
Well, dude , that alternative should be , was and has been delivered by some scientists , thinkers ...even though it is still vague ....still in the making thus ...
But , that's not the point :
The point is : one should first define or detect the problem or rather the disease and its sympthoms   first , via the right diagnosis , research , analysis and depistation : the disease and its sympthoms =  materialism and its extensions in all sciences , if one wants to resolve the problem or to cure the disease in question and its sympthoms at least ...don't you think ?

Materialism in science is an incurable lethal disease  in fact  , a bit like cancer , even though some forms of cancer can be cured indeed : the only alternative to rid science from the materialist lethal cancer disease is by eradicating materialism from science ,from all sciences for that matter , by eradicating its symthoms extensions   also in all sciences thus  , and all its left-overs and  traces as well  in all sciences and elsewhere  .............if one wants to have a real healthy science or sciences as a result at least...
« Last Edit: 07/10/2013 20:10:14 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #471 on: 07/10/2013 22:20:08 »
Incidentally the placebo effect does not always mean that beliefs or expectations made patients better. In experiments, it is used to control for a number of variables, such as diseases healing via physical processes with or without the drug, or patients not wanting to disappoint their caregivers by complaining that the medicine didn't work, etc. I'm not saying a patient's mental state has no effect, just that that isn't the sole purpose of placebos.
As I understand it, it affects the patient's subjective perceived and/or reported symptoms (i.e. they feel it has helped). Meta-studies show no evidence overall for a placebo effect on objectively measured outcomes (although one might have expected a small effect for stress or mood-related physiological problems). They show minor improvements in subjective outcomes, particularly pain.

Yes, that's how I always interpreted it. They also include patients who get neither, but there are so many unidentifiable variables to control for in drug studies. Is a person getting the drug (or what they think is a drug) more careful about what they eat and drink? Do they become more "health minded" because they are being treated for something? Do they they have more overall contact with health professionals and get treated early for other, unrelated, potentially harmful conditions? So inexperiments they try to make the over conditions as similar as possible.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #472 on: 07/10/2013 22:57:14 »
... you do dare have the nerve to say that some of you, guys , are working scientists doing research ?????????
It takes no special nerve to be a scientist, although an appropriate qualification helps. In my case, it was many years ago, but, as the man said, it was what they paid me for; even had my name on some cited papers.

Quote
I do fear the worst for science in your hands , obviously , logically ...
Meh; some of the kit I helped design and build is still saving lives (on the Hajj, ironically enough), which puts your distain and 'fears for science' into some perspective.

Quote
Materialism in science is an incurable lethal disease  in fact  , a bit like cancer , even though some forms of cancer can be cured indeed : the only alternative to rid science from the materialist lethal cancer disease is by eradicating materialism from science ,from all sciences for that matter , by eradicating its symthoms extensions   also in all sciences thus  , and all its left-overs and  traces as well  in all sciences and elsewhere  .............if one wants to have a real healthy science or sciences as a result at least...
Healthy science as a result? very amusing - confusing a healthy body for a tumour and amputating it to save the head; ouch! should have gone to SpecSavers... The world is grateful you're not a surgeon :) 

Which puts me in mind of the old adage, "The operation was a great success, but the patient died".
« Last Edit: 08/10/2013 00:18:17 by dlorde »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #473 on: 07/10/2013 23:03:51 »
... there are so many unidentifiable variables to control for in drug studies. Is a person getting the drug (or what they think is a drug) more careful about what they eat and drink? Do they become more "health minded" because they are being treated for something? Do they they have more overall contact with health professionals and get treated early for other, unrelated, potentially harmful conditions? So inexperiments they try to make the over conditions as similar as possible.
Yup, it's a minefield; hard enough to design a robust study, but implementing & controlling one is hard work, very expensive, and very time-consuming, which is why they're very often less than ideal, and why drug companies like to hide negative results.
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #474 on: 07/10/2013 23:30:19 »
Regarding Sheldrake's criticisms of materialist explanation of memories in the brain:


It was once thought that memory was distributed "across the brain," and that you could not remove a particular cell that would make you forget the day you got married. And I am familiar with the hologram analogy. But now it seems more likely that memories are stored in multiple ways in different areas of the brain. There are brain areas responsible for things, shape of things, the identifying characteristics of things. There brain areas responsible for events that happened to you, called episodic memory. Several different parts of the brain may contribute to the overall memory of your wedding day, so you'd have to destroy a large part of brain to completely wipe it out.

It is, however, surprising how specifically located some memory is in the brain. One lady in a medical study who suffered a stroke  could not identify or remember the names of fruit. Her intelligence, vocabulary and memory seemed normal in every other respect, and she could identify other common house hold objects - a spoon, a hammer, a chair, a toaster, a tooth brush. But bananas, apples, oranges, or any other kind of fruit were all gone from her memory. A person I knew personally had brain surgery for an aneurysm. She said she felt normal, the only thing she noticed afterwords was she could no longer tell time from a dial face clock. She could from a digital one, but not the one with the numbers in a circle and big and small hands that she understood since she was five years old. That is just anecdotal evidence, but I thought it was interesting, none the less.

As for the comment that memory cannot exist in the brain because of molecular turnover, I question it for several reasons. The bones in your body are not the same ones you had in your body five, ten or 30 years ago. There is constant remodeling,  and yet they maintain their form and size and arrangement, with some wear and tear, perhaps a loss of density as you age. Patterns can be replicated.  There is also research that suggests that a memory is not like a file that records the original event and is stored forever. They do fade with time, and the ones that remain do so because you access them, and think about them, and store not the original memory but the newly recalled version of it. When you re-record it, you may re-record a slightly different version of it with missing information,  new embellishments or interpretations of it. That is the basis of false memories, as well as therapeutic techniques to help PTSD patients.

If memory is based on morphic resonance, why should memories fade at all? Why should some memories fade but not others, and why should they not be completely accurate? 

One problem with talking about consciousness is the habit of thinking of it as a "thing" and not a process or an action.  I notice that in discussing consciousness, people like Sheldrake point and say "show me  where a memory is in the brain," but I could just as easily point to your lower limbs and say "Show me where walking is in the legs." A lot of complicated things have to happen together in a precise way, or you're not going anywhere.
 
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #474 on: 07/10/2013 23:30:19 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums