The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?  (Read 309286 times)

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #975 on: 28/11/2013 20:41:17 »

Go back and read that carefully , my lady :

What  faslifiable verifiable  'evidence " has materialism been providing concerning the "fact " that all is ...matter? , and hence the mind is in the brain , or the mind is just brain's activity , memory is stored in the brain ....

Materialism that tries to explain 'everything " , just in terms of physics and chemistry, including the mind thus , materialism that seems to be corroborated or rather verified by everything,and thus can be faslified by nothing , so it seems  :



You're attributing a claim or goal to scientists that they do not themselves claim, and aren't even interested in - "explaining everything", or disproving the immaterial. There are about 26,000 current scientific journals that publish the results of experiments -- experiments that make specific, falsifiable predictions, just as your hero Popper says science should do. If you or someone could find a way to do the same with some aspect of the immaterial, I'm sure that one of them would them would gladly publish your results too.
[/quote]

Is the elusive physical so-called unified theory of "everything " = nothing not try to explain everything ,just in terms of physics and chemistry ? ,simply because "all is matter " ,as the false 'scientific world view " has been assuming or believing reality as a whole to be ? thanks to materialism , by a priori and per se ,and per definition, excluding the immaterial side of reality ,by reducing the latter  to just physics and chemistry ,including consciousness  thus , and hence by excluding the fact that the mind is non-physical ...

What falsifiable verifiable extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claims of materialism regarding the nature of reality ,materialism or its  mainstream dominating  "scientific world view " have been delivering so far on the subject , concerning the "fact " that "all is matter "? , including the mind or consciousness thus : what evidence have they been producing regarding the "fact " that "all is matter " ? = that's just a materialist act of faith , no empirical fact .

You tell me ...

So, anyone who would try to challenge the mainstream dominating "scientific world view " would be automatically branded as a heretic , a pseudo-scientist , a charlatan or worse : see what Sheldrake ,for example , has been going through ,and how he has been treated by the mainstream dominating "scientific consenus or scientific right thinking " scientific priesthood .

What do you think then about Walker's quantum theory of consciousness then , for example ? in the sense that the mind or the immaterial consciousness might be interacting with the physical brain , via its electrons all the way up to controlling the activity of neuro-transmitters between neural synapses : try to read that here above : seems relatively convincing to me .


Thanks , appreciate indeed .

Take care .
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #976 on: 28/11/2013 22:46:29 »



Is the elusive physical so-called unified theory of "everything " = nothing not try to explain everything ,just in terms of physics and chemistry ?

No. Because there is no such thing as "the theory of everything =nothing" You made it up. I haven't seen a single experiment in any journal that sets out to prove a theory of everything or prove that everything is material. From a random selection of articles from the journal Nature, these are the kind of things scientists design experiments to investigate, and to test theories about them:

Using Membrane Transporters to Improve Crops for Sustainable Food Production

Dusty starburst galaxies in the early Universe as revealed by gravitational lensing

Changes in global nitrogen cycling during the Holocene epoch

The catalytic mechanism for aerobic formation of methane by bacteria

Barium distribution in teeth reveal early-life dietary transitions in primates

Structures of the human and Drosophila 80S ribosome

Optical Addressing of an individual erbium ion in silicon

Identification of rudimentary neural crest in a non-vertebrate chordate

Long-term  sedimentary recycling of rare sulphur isotope anomalies

B12 cofactors directly stabilize an mRNA switch

Sodium content as a predictor of the advanced evolution of globular cluster stars

Severe malaria is associated with parasite binding to endothelial protein C receptor

Structure and function of Zucchini endoribonuclease in piRNA biogenesis

Extensive transcriptional heterogeneity revealed by isoform profiling

Repeated polyploidization of Gossypium genomes and the evolution of spinnable cotton fibres.

Discrete clouds of neutral gas between the galaxies M31 and M33

Elastic energy storage in the shoulder and the evolution of high speed throwing in Homo

The genomic signature of dog domestication reveals adaptation to starh rich diet.

Controlled-reflectance surfaces with film-coupled colloidal nanoantennas

Differential stem and progenitor cell trafficking by prostaglandin E2.

Multi-periodic pulsations of a stripped red-giant star in eclipsing binary system

An early and enduring advanced technology originating 71,000 years ago in South Africa.

Water structural transformation at molecular hydrophobic interfaces

Autophagosomes for at ER-mitochondia contact sites

Continous gas-phase synthesis of nanowires with tunable properties.

Vector transmission regulates immune control of Plasmodium virulence

The spin Hall effect in quantum gas

Heat dissipation in atomic-scale junctions

De novo mutations in histone-modifying genes inIL congenital heart disease
R1P1-driven autoinflammation targets -1a independently of inflammasomes and RIP3

Entanglement between light and optical atomic excitation

The bromodomain protein Brd4 insulates chromatin from DNA damage signaling

Glucose-TOR signalling reprograms the transcriptome and activates meristems

Modulation of TET2 expression and 5-methylcyctosine oxidation by CXXC domain protein IDAX

Formation of a topological non-Fermi liquid in MnSi

M-CSF instructs myeloid lineage fate in single haematopoietic stem cells

Meis1 regulates postnatal cardiomyocyte cell cycle arrest.

Thymus-derived regulatory T cells contribute to tolerance to commensal micobiota

Oroc mutant mosquitoes lose strong preference for humans and are not repelled by volatile DEET

In vivo cardiac reprogramming contributes to zebrafish heart regeneration

Non-synaptic inhibition between grouped neurons in an olfactory circuit

Fucose sensing regulates bacterial intestinal colonization

The calcium-sensing receptor regulates the NLRP3 inflammasome through Ca2+ and cAMP

An alternative route to cyclic terpenses by reductive cyclization in iridoid biosynthesis

Evaporative cooling of the dipolar hydroxal radical

Fractionalized excitations in the spin-liquid state of a kagome-lattice antiferromagnet

Quasi-cylindrical wave contribution in experiements on extraordinary optical transmission

Flickering gives early warning signals of a critical transition to a eutropic lake

Ventral tegmental area GABA projections pause accumbal cholinergic interneurons to enhance associative learning

Intergrated Genomic Characterization of Endometrial Carcinoma

Room-temperature ferroelectricity in supramolecular networks of charge-transfer complexes.

Mutations in the profiling 1 gene cause familial amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

A subset of dopamine neurons signals reward for odour memory in Drosophila

The human CST complex is a terminator of telomerase activity

Hard-X-ray emission lines from decay of 44Ti in the remnant of supernova 1987A

Zinc isotope evidence for origin of the Moon

Circuit quantum electrodynamics with a spin qubit

Bonding and structure of a reconstructed (001) surface of SrTi03 from TEM

Coastal eutrophication as a driver of salt marsh loss

Delayed build-up of Artic ice sheets during 400,000 year minima in isolation variability

Severe stress switches CRF action in nucleus accumbus from appetitive to aversive.

Filamentous bacteria transport electrons over centimetre distances

Hippocampal-cortical interaction during periods of subcortical silence

Synaptic amplification by dendritic spines enhances input cooperatively

« Last Edit: 28/11/2013 23:03:07 by cheryl j »
 

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 #977 on: 28/11/2013 22:59:17 »
Don is trying, with lamentable lack of success, to attack the straw man that mainstream science is about incontrovertible facts and absolute truths, when in fact no scientist I've ever met or worked with believes that.

His criticism of mainstream science for dealing only with the material is contradictory and irrational; science attempts to explain what is observed using models that have explanatory and predictive power - as Don himself has said, the immaterial is outside the realm of science; it cannot be observed, and being unknown, has no explanatory or predictive power.

Nevertheless, we have been open to any explanation of how science can deal with the immaterial, but Don can give nothing but handwaving, insults, and copyright infringements. It's absurd and surreal.

 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8132
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #978 on: 28/11/2013 23:45:52 »
... are Chris [D] Carter and Rupert Sheldrake joined at the hip ? .

So what ?

The “what” is that you quote people who incestuously write the forewords for each other's books which shows what an  isolated viewpoint you/they hold, [ their publisher's other author’s titles are equally psychadelic / sci-fi ].

… we need to keep on developing and evolving our own human epistemology concerning the valid sources of knowledge

If parapsychology was a valid source of knowledge its findings would be adopted by mainstream science : if a theory, no matter how left-field, can be verified by independently repeatable experiment it will be adopted by science. 

However parapsychology only serves an illustration of pseudoscience …

Quote from: wikipedia.org/Parapsychology
Many scientists regard the discipline as pseudoscience, saying that parapsychologists continue investigation despite not having demonstrated conclusive evidence of psychic abilities in more than a century of research.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology

In less than a century science progressed from the first powered flight to putting men on the moon.
In less than a century science progressed from invention of a transistor to creating the computer you’re using now which has many millions of them
In less than a century science progressed from discovering the mechanism of inheritance to modifying it.

In “more than a century” parapsychology has delivered SFA.  Evidently you’re flogging a dead horse.
« Last Edit: 28/11/2013 23:54:20 by RD »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4724
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #979 on: 29/11/2013 00:41:59 »

Quote
In less than a century science progressed from the first powered flight to putting men on the moon.
In less than a century science progressed from invention of a transistor to creating the computer you’re using now which has many millions of them.
In less than a century science progressed from discovering the mechanism of inheritance to modifying it.

Not strictly true. The science of rocket flight, conduction in solids, and at least the mechanistic generality of inheritance, is well over 100 years old. What we have achieved in the last 100 years is a great advance in engineering, i.e. putting the science to practical use.
 

Offline Supercryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #980 on: 29/11/2013 06:07:24 »
Which of these three statements best describes your stance?

(1) All aspects of the immaterial can be verified scientifically.
(2) Some aspects of the immaterial can be verified scientifically, but others cannot.
(3) No aspects of the immaterial can be verified scientifically.
 

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 #981 on: 29/11/2013 09:56:56 »
Walker's 'Physics of Consciousness' looks to me like yet another version of 'quantum mechanics is weird and unexplained, consciousness is weird and unexplained, let's mash them together', that makes the common mistake of reifying the wavefunction as something physical that must be 'collapsed' by an observer. I found Penrose's quantum microtubules more interesting (though equally unsustainable).

But that's just my take on it - here's a couple of reviews that point out some other flaws:
Donald - Cavendish Laboratory
Vanderman - Neuroquantology.

 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #982 on: 29/11/2013 14:22:07 »
Which of these three statements best describes your stance?

(1) All aspects of the immaterial can be verified scientifically.
(2) Some aspects of the immaterial can be verified scientifically, but others cannot.
(3) No aspects of the immaterial can be verified scientifically.

I asked essentially the same question in regards to the material, or chemistry and physics, and Don said I was "playing the silly wise girl." It seemed like a pretty straight forward question to me:

1)Some things can, but others can’t be explained by chemistry or physics  or

 2)Everything always involves an immaterial explanation, even if there is sometimes chemistry and physics involved in the process,    or

3)Chemistry and physics do not explain anything that happens. They do not matter at all, they are irrelevant. They explain nothing. They explain nothing by themselves or even when combined with a immaterial explanation.
« Last Edit: 29/11/2013 14:24:58 by cheryl j »
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #983 on: 29/11/2013 16:09:53 »
We humans are equipped with the five natural senses. Touch, sight, sound, smell and taste. All of which are used to distinguish facts about the natural world that surrounds us. Without these senses, no observations are possible. And without observation, no conclusions can be drawn about reality. Now..........if we want to explore that illusive sixth sense that I'm sure Mr. D......... will foist upon us, we are still limited to defining it thru the utilization of the five we are most familiar with. Without the sound we make with our mouth, discussion can't proceed. Without the touch, it can't even be written down on paper for others to see. And without sight, the written theory can't be read. So pray-tell, how in Heaven's name can we gather information about the sixth sense without the other five? So,........unless we all become telepathic, we won't be able to share any information using your guidelines. And BTW, even research into that realm has shown to be electrochemical in nature.

Mr. D................... your spinning your wheels. And those who are listening to you are wasting their time. Enough said.....................................Ethos
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #984 on: 29/11/2013 17:13:41 »
Walker's 'Physics of Consciousness' looks to me like yet another version of 'quantum mechanics is weird and unexplained, consciousness is weird and unexplained, let's mash them together', that makes the common mistake of reifying the wavefunction as something physical that must be 'collapsed' by an observer. I found Penrose's quantum microtubules more interesting (though equally unsustainable).

But that's just my take on it - here's a couple of reviews that point out some other flaws:
Donald - Cavendish Laboratory
Vanderman - Neuroquantology.



I'd be fascinated if consciousness involved quantum mechanics, and I think it would result in a whole new level of understanding as far as how it works. I've read articles about quantum mechanics in olfaction and in photosynthesis.

But if people are just looking to use quantum mechanics as a bridge to the mystical, I think they will be dissatisfied with the outcome in the end, and it won't necessarily endow consciousness with the qualities they are hoping for.
 And it seems odd that all along that the argument was that consciousness is not physical, it's not in the brain, so it doesn't have to obey the laws of physics, but now suddenly, the argument is "The brain is a physical entity and we have no reason to suppose that it evades the rules of quantum physics."
« Last Edit: 29/11/2013 18:33:45 by cheryl j »
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #985 on: 29/11/2013 17:31:06 »
Walker's 'Physics of Consciousness' looks to me like yet another version of 'quantum mechanics is weird and unexplained, consciousness is weird and unexplained, let's mash them together', that makes the common mistake of reifying the wavefunction as something physical that must be 'collapsed' by an observer. I found Penrose's quantum microtubules more interesting (though equally unsustainable).

But that's just my take on it - here's a couple of reviews that point out some other flaws:
Donald - Cavendish Laboratory
Vanderman - Neuroquantology.



I'd be facinated if consciousness involved quantum mechanics. I've read articles about quantum mechanics in olfaction and in photosynthesis.

But if one is just looking to use quantum mechanics as a bridge to the mystical, I think they will be dissatisfied with the outcome in the end, and it won't necessarily endow consciousness with the qualities they are hoping for.
 And it seems odd that all along that the argument was that consciousness is not physical, it's not in the brain, so it doesn't have to obey the laws of physics, but now suddenly, the argument is "The brain is a physical entity and we have no reason to suppose that it evades the rules of quantum physics."
It shouldn't surprise any one of us that Mr. D...............has chosen to use this tactic. In an effort to evade answering these challenges, to coin football slang, 'He keeps moving the goal post'. If anyone doesn't understand the phrase, PM me and I'll explain. IMHO, evading such challenges is the height of dishonesty. It appears to me his aim here is just to garner attention. Even though his literary skills are exceptional, he still comes off looking very foolish.
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #986 on: 29/11/2013 17:43:33 »
It shouldn't surprise any one of us that Mr. D...............has chosen to use this tactic. In an effort to evade answering these challenges, to coin football slang, 'He keeps moving the goal post'.

He can move the goal post to any position he likes, but I don't see how using quantum mechanics as a bridge to some mystical version of the homunculus
circumvents any of the logical contradictions arising from the previous model of the homunculus.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #987 on: 29/11/2013 17:53:58 »
It shouldn't surprise any one of us that Mr. D...............has chosen to use this tactic. In an effort to evade answering these challenges, to coin football slang, 'He keeps moving the goal post'.

He can move the goal post to any position he likes, but I don't see how using quantum mechanics as a bridge to some mystical version of the homunculus
circumvents any of the logical contradictions arising from the previous model of the homunculus.
To paraphrase Wikipedia: The homunculus argument is a fallacy because it tries to account for a phenomenon in terms of the very phenomenon that it is supposed to explain. But then, he probably wouldn't accept Wikipedia as any sort of authority either. Go figure??????????????
« Last Edit: 29/11/2013 17:56:06 by Ethos_ »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #988 on: 29/11/2013 18:36:25 »
Materialism as an unfalsifiable Irrefutable unverifiable Theory of Nature : Unscientific :



souls and spirits.2
If science is metaphysically neutral, then lines of evidence can be admitted that not only contradict
materialism as a metaphysical theory, but prove materialism false as a scientific hypothesis. But the
equation of materialism with science is so deeply ingrained in the academic establishment that even
some sophisticated near-death researchers fall prey to it. For instance, Peter Fenwick and Elizabeth
Fenwick write:
So far we’ve taken a largely scientific, and therefore a rather limited, view of the NDE. We’ve
been looking at mechanism, and almost everything we have said has been based on the
assumption that the NDE takes place in or is constructed by the brain. We’ve confined “mind” to
the brain because, scientifically … we have no other option. When the brain dies, the mind dies;
the scientific view does not allow for the possibility of a soul, or for any form of personal
survival.
It is only by looking at some non-scientific views that we might find a wider interpretation of
the NDE… .3
As Grossman points out, if the term “materialistic” is substituted for “scientific,” then the above
passage is an accurate statement. This semantic point needs to be stressed, because the term
“scientific” carries a lot of emotional weight. In our modern world, science and scientists hold a great
deal of prestige, and so few people want to be thought of as unscientific. To be labeled unscientific is
enough to have one’s work dismissed from serious consideration by the academic establishment. If to
be scientific is good and unscientific bad, and if the term “scientific” is thought to be synonymous
with the term “materialistic,” then any talk of disembodied minds or spirits is antimaterialist,
unscientific, and therefore bad.*72 The long-standing confusion of materialism with science is what
largely accounts for the persistent social taboo responsible for the ignorance and dismissal of the
substantial amount of evidence that proves materialism false.
Greyson has also elaborated on this confusion. He states, “Materialists often claim credit for the
scientific advances of the past few centuries. But it is the scientific method of empirical hypothesis
testing, rather than a materialistic philosophy, that has been responsible for the success of science in
explaining the world. If it comes to a choice between the empirical method and a materialistic
worldview, the true scientist will choose the former.”4
It is also important to stress at this point that although the evidence appears to prove false the
hypothesis that consciousness is produced by the brain, it does not follow that any particular
transmission theory discussed earlier is therefore proved correct. This is a subtle point and is worth
explaining.
It is important to distinguish between factual and theoretical hypotheses: gravity is considered an
empirical fact, but we attempt to explain how gravity works with various theoretical hypotheses. The
ancient hypothesis that biological evolution occurs also now appears to be a fact (after all, there is the
fossil record); yet we have theories of evolution to account for how it works. Factual hypotheses may
be proven correct beyond all reasonable doubt, but our scientific theories—which propose
relationships between facts—can never be, and must forever remain conjectures, or speculation.
Similarly, it may be proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the brain works as a receiver-transmitter,
but the details of precisely how the mind and brain work together is the task of the various quantum
mechanical theories of mind/brain interaction described earlier.
As discussed at length in chapter 15 of my previous book, Parapsychology and the Skeptics, our
scientific theoretical hypotheses are never proved correct; they may be disproved by observations that
contradict their predictions, but no amount of observation can logically prove that our universal
theories are correct. Rather, they are corroborated by unsuccessful attempts to refute them and by
successful attempts to refute rival hypotheses.
Only in the nonempirical fields of mathematics and pure logic are general statements proved
correct not only beyond all reasonable doubt, but beyond all conceivable doubt. That is because in
these fields, we are either deducing conclusions from premises that are accepted as axioms, or we are
simply expressing the same idea in different ways. In the field of empirical science, there is no
mathematical or logical certainty that what seems to be correct is indeed correct. We can never know
in advance in what ways our beliefs will eventually have to be modified.
Despite having said that, the hypothesis that the brain works as a receiver-transmitter of
consciousness has two decisive advantages over its rival: (1) the production hypothesis has been
proved false by the data, and (2) the transmission hypothesis can accommodate the facts that refute
the production theory. In terms of the production hypothesis, the cases of veridical out-of-body
perception during times of severely compromised if not entirely absent brain function are completely
inexplicable, except in terms of fraud. This desperate last resort is always available, of course, but we
should wonder why the defenders of materialism are left with no other realistic option.
In practice, the defenders of materialism largely ignore the evidence, rather than deal with it. This
is one available tactic; another is to continually insist that more and more evidence be presented,
thereby delaying any day of reckoning to some continually receding point in the future. Another is to
insist that alternatives to materialism be proved logically correct beyond all possible doubt; yet
another is to treat materialism as an ideology rather than a scientific theory. Popper does not refer to
challenges to any specific theory when he writes,
We can always immunize a theory against refutation. There are many such immunizing tactics;
and if nothing better occurs to us, we can always deny the objectivity—or even the existence—of
the refuting observation. Those intellectuals who are more interested in being right than in
learning something interesting but unexpected are by no means rare exceptions.5
One such intellectual would almost certainly be Michael Shermer: historian, author, director of the
Skeptic Society, and publisher of Skeptic magazine, who also has a regular column, “Skeptic,” in
Scientific American magazine. After flirting in his youth with various New Age practices such as
pyramid power, Shermer is currently on a crusade to expose ESP, OBEs, and alien abductions for what
he now thinks they are: complete nonsense.
In his book The Borderlands of Science, Shermer provides his readers with a series of criteria for
distinguishing between real science and “baloney.” He particularly warns us against people who have
ideologies to pursue, whose pattern of thinking “consistently ignores or distorts data not for creative
purposes but for ideological agendas.”6 But Shermer clearly seems to have an ideological agenda of
his own. His column in the March 2003 issue of Scientific American is devoted to the brain and
contains the subheading: “If the brain mediates all experience, then paranormal phenomena are
nothing more than neuronal events.”
Fair enough. In his article, Shermer concentrates on the OBE, writing, “Nowadays people are
reporting out-of-body experiences, floating above their beds. What is going on here? Are these elusive
creatures and mysterious phenomena in our world or in our minds? New evidence adds weight to the
notion that they are, in fact, products of the brain.”
Shermer then quotes a variety of studies in an attempt to show that OBEs “are nothing more than
neuronal events.” He claims that Persinger, whom we met earlier in our discussion of temporal lobe
seizures, “can induce all these perceptions in subjects by subjecting their temporal lobes to patterns of
magnetic fields. (I tried it myself and had a mild OBE.)”7 *73
He then quotes a Swiss study reported in the September 19, 2002, issue of Nature that describes
how a female patient experienced an OBE of sorts after electrical stimulation of an area of the brain
near the temporal lobe. The woman saw herself lying in bed, from above, but said that “I only see my
legs and lower trunk.” When asked to watch her real legs during electrical stimulation, she reported
seeing her legs “becoming shorter” and then “she reported that her legs appeared to be moving quickly
toward her face, and took evasive action.”8 Of course, this experiment does not prove that all OBEs
are illusions, and at any rate, the Swiss researchers did not say whether they attempted to test if the
woman could accurately perceive anything during the time she reported seeing herself.
Shermer then mentions a study that scanned the brains of meditating monks and speculates on what
the findings may imply for alien abductions. The last study Shermer mentions seems to have the most
relevance for his suggestion that OBEs are “products of the brain.”
Sometimes trauma can become a trigger. The December 15, 2001, issue of the Lancet published a
Dutch study in which 12 percent of 344 cardiac patients resuscitated from clinical death reported
near-death experiences, some having a sensation of being out of body, others seeing a light at the
end of a tunnel. Some even described speaking to dead relatives. Because the everyday
occurrence is of stimuli coming from the outside, when a part of the brain abnormally generates
these illusions, another part of the brain interprets them as external events. Hence, the abnormal
is thought to be the paranormal. These studies are only the latest to deliver blows against the
belief that mind and spirit are separate from brain and body. In reality, all experience is
mediated by the brain. (emphasis added)9
Shermer must have hoped that his readers would not consult the original article in The Lancet, for if
they do they are in for a surprise. This study was the source of the NDE reported above in the section
headed “Case of the Missing Dentures.” In it, the authors acknowledge that experiences similar to the
classic NDE can be induced in several ways, such as electrical stimulation of the brain, excessive
carbon dioxide, and with certain drugs. But they then point out that “induced experiences are not
identical to NDE.”
Instead of concluding that their research indicates that all experience is mediated by the brain, these
medical researchers came to the opposite conclusion! This is what cardiologist van Lommel and his
coauthors write:
With lack of evidence for any other theories for NDE, the thus far assumed, but never proven,
concept that consciousness and memories are localised in the brain should be discussed. How
could a clear consciousness outside one’s body be experienced at the moment that the brain no
longer functions during a period of clinical death with flat EEG? Also, in cardiac arrest the EEG
usually becomes flat in most cases within about 10 s [seconds] from onset of syncope [fainting].
Furthermore, blind people have described veridical perception during out-of-body experiences at
the time of this experience. NDE pushes at the limits of medical ideas about the range of human
consciousness and the mind-brain relation.10
Science writer and TV host Jay Ingram, normally a fan of Shermer’s writing, was startled when he
read Shermer’s column because he had interviewed van Lommel earlier and knew the study well. He
expressed his disappointment with Shermer in his newspaper column, stressing how he can’t stand it
“when influential figures misrepresent the research of others to make a point.” He wondered, “Is this
now considered justifiable if you have some sort of scientific axe to grind?”11


Chris Carter .
« Last Edit: 29/11/2013 18:39:12 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #989 on: 29/11/2013 19:12:14 »
Is the elusive physical so-called unified theory of "everything " = nothing not try to explain everything ,just in terms of physics and chemistry ?

No. Because there is no such thing as "the theory of everything =nothing" You made it up.

It's no secret  that the false mainstream materialist "scientific world view " or the false materialist meta-paradigm in science , have been asssuming that all is matter , including the mind thus , and hence the mind is in the brain , or the mind is just brain's activity , memory is stored in the brain ,life is just a matter of physics and chemistry , the same goes for the rest , since "all is matter ",which does mean that the materialistic science tries to explain "everything " = nothing , just in terms of physics and chemistry thus , and what better science can try to come up with a  unified  "theory of everything = a theory of nothing " than modern physics , by trying to unify Newton's theory of gravity and Einstein's relativity theory : see Stephen Hawking's " The theory of everything " on the subject :

http://www.amazon.com/The-Theory-Everything-Stephen-Hawking/dp/8179925919
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #990 on: 29/11/2013 19:41:43 »
Walker's 'Physics of Consciousness' looks to me like yet another version of 'quantum mechanics is weird and unexplained, consciousness is weird and unexplained, let's mash them together', that makes the common mistake of reifying the wavefunction as something physical that must be 'collapsed' by an observer. I found Penrose's quantum microtubules more interesting (though equally unsustainable).

But that's just my take on it - here's a couple of reviews that point out some other flaws:
Donald - Cavendish Laboratory
Vanderman - Neuroquantology.



I'd be fascinated if consciousness involved quantum mechanics, and I think it would result in a whole new level of understanding as far as how it works. I've read articles about quantum mechanics in olfaction and in photosynthesis.

But if people are just looking to use quantum mechanics as a bridge to the mystical, I think they will be dissatisfied with the outcome in the end, and it won't necessarily endow consciousness with the qualities they are hoping for.
 And it seems odd that all along that the argument was that consciousness is not physical, it's not in the brain, so it doesn't have to obey the laws of physics, but now suddenly, the argument is "The brain is a physical entity and we have no reason to suppose that it evades the rules of quantum physics."


What are you afraid of ? I am not talking about science proper as we know it , just about the false materialist mainstream "scientific world view " that has been assuming that "all is matter ", including the mind  thus  ,just for materialist ideological purposes .

Why don't you tell me ,once again, what makes that false conception of nature , or that false mainstream materialist "scientific world view " , what makes it so "scientific " ?

Has science ever proved the materialist "fact ". or rather the materialist core belief assumption to be "true " that "all is matter ", including the mind ? Obviously ...not :

Why has that materialist false conception of nature been taken for granted as the "scientific world view " then, for so long now ?: materialism that's just a false conception of nature , a world view, a philosophy , no empirical fact ,not even remotely close thus .


A materialist false world view or false materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " that has been hardening itself as to become an unfalsifiable unverifiable dogma in science .
Materialism has been imposed as a synonymous of science , for so long now , and hence materialism does exclude , per definition, a priori and per se any existence of the non-physical ,including the non-physical nature of consciousness, just for materialist ideological purposes  that have nothing to do with science proper ,because materialism is so afraid of the implications of the non-physical nature of consciousness, obviously : you can trace that all the way back to the historic Eurocentric religious struggles: by rejecting religions, materialism "had " to reduce everything to just matter thus ,including the mind= that's just the materialist ideology at work in science , no science , even though that materialist outdated and superseded ideology that dates back all the way to the 19th century , has been taken for granted as the "scientific world view " since then  .

Materialism that relied since on Newton's classical physics : quantum physics has been superseding materialism thus .
Not "all is matter " , and hence consciousnss is non-physical ,and therefore is consciousness nonlocal and evades space and time + does not "obey " the laws of physics = outside of the latter .
See how dualism is already present in quantum mechanics regarding the dualist nature of matter itself .

The immaterial consciousness does mutually interact with the physical brain ,via ways we do not know anything about yet ,so Walker and others just try to come up with their own theories on the subject ,the latter theories that must be falsifiable, verifiable  and predictable if they wanna be raised to the scientific status: the materialist "all is matter ,including the mind " theory or rather ideology is unfalsifiable unverifiable : worse : it  has been claiming itself to be the 'scientific world view " , since : amazing  .

The immaterial consciousness is in fact normal , not mystical .
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #991 on: 29/11/2013 19:48:25 »

Greyson has also elaborated on this confusion. He states, “Materialists often claim credit for the
scientific advances of the past few centuries. But it is the scientific method of empirical hypothesis
testing, rather than a materialistic philosophy, that has been responsible for the success of science in
explaining the world.


True, but it's kind of a silly argument. That's like saying that one could be a gourmet chef and prepare a meal without actually using any ingredients or cooking utensils. Sure, you can invent imaginary recipes, but that's as far as you'll get.

 If you strip scientists of material tools and methods, exclude their senses or instruments that extend them, exclude the very material itself that one is observing or testing, there is no way to gather empirical evidence or test your predictions. 

 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #992 on: 29/11/2013 20:04:51 »
Which of these three statements best describes your stance?

(1) All aspects of the immaterial can be verified scientifically.
(2) Some aspects of the immaterial can be verified scientifically, but others cannot.
(3) No aspects of the immaterial can be verified scientifically.

I asked essentially the same question in regards to the material, or chemistry and physics, and Don said I was "playing the silly wise girl." It seemed like a pretty straight forward question to me:

1)Some things can, but others can’t be explained by chemistry or physics  or

 2)Everything always involves an immaterial explanation, even if there is sometimes chemistry and physics involved in the process,    or

3)Chemistry and physics do not explain anything that happens. They do not matter at all, they are irrelevant. They explain nothing. They explain nothing by themselves or even when combined with a immaterial explanation.

[/quote]

Be serious , please :
All i have been saying is that not "all is matter " ,as the false materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " has been assuming for so long now , thanks to materialism, by making science try to explain "everything " thus , since "everything  is just matter ",including the mind thus,  just in terms of physics and chemistry ,once again .

The materialist  "All is matter ,including the mind " mainstream 'scientific world view " is thus false = not all is matter ,and consciousness is non-material ,non-physical .

Physics and chemistry ,or matter , are    , once again , just one single side of the whole pic , the other side is the mental that's irreducible to the physical , the mental that's more fundamental than matter can ever be .

To try thus , once again, to explain "everything " just in terms of physics and chemistry , or just in terms of matter , just via one single side of the whole pic , as science under materialism has been doing for so long now , is a false and an unscientific attempt to do so

 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8132
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #993 on: 29/11/2013 20:06:58 »
...NDE ...

NDE phenomena can be explained without resorting to the supernatural : some people who have been in a centrifuge which reduced the blood supply to their brain have experienced them ...  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-LOC

... it is the scientific method of empirical hypothesis testing, rather than a materialistic philosophy, that has been responsible for the success of science in explaining the world.

Almost three decades of "empirical hypothesis testing" for the existence of psychic phenomena by the PEAR project , nil result.
« Last Edit: 29/11/2013 20:14:12 by RD »
 

Offline Supercryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #994 on: 29/11/2013 20:16:56 »
So which of my three sentences best describes your stance?
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #995 on: 29/11/2013 20:26:16 »

Greyson has also elaborated on this confusion. He states, “Materialists often claim credit for the
scientific advances of the past few centuries. But it is the scientific method of empirical hypothesis
testing, rather than a materialistic philosophy, that has been responsible for the success of science in
explaining the world.


True, but it's kind of a silly argument. That's like saying that one could be a gourmet chef and prepare a meal without actually using any ingredients or cooking utensils. Sure, you can invent imaginary recipes, but that's as far as you'll get.

You still do not get it yet , amazing :
That's what i have been saying all along : all scientific achievements were /are being and will be accomplished by scientists, whether they happen to be materialists or non-materialists ( Many great scientists were / are and will be religious ones , for example : Newton and many others ) , all scientific achievements thus were / are being / and will be accomplished by scientists just  through, and just thanks to,  the effective and unparalled scientific method that's like no other = materialism as a false ideology has absolutely nothing to do with all those scientific achievements indeed .

Science has been in fact materialistic ,just  in the sense that science has been assuming that "all is matter , including the mind thus " , thanks to materialism=  "all is  matter , including the mind " has been thus just a materialist core belief assumption, no empirical one  : so, to confuse science with materialism , as it have been the case for so long now ,by assuming that the false materialist conception of nature is the   real scientific world view ,  is like saying that science can be muslim, christian, buddhist or alien haha ,since materialism is just a world view , and a false one at that also= the current false mainstream 'scientific world view " is thus just the false materialist conception of nature , science proper has absolutely nothing to do with  .
Materialism has just been taking ,once again, a free ride on the unwilling back of science , by trying to pretend to be "scientific " , by trying to impose its false conception of nature as the "scientific world view " (materialism has been successfull in doing the latter since the 19 th century at last ) , in order to "vindicate " itself in the process , in vain of course .

Quote
If you strip scientists of material tools and methods, exclude their senses or instruments that extend them, exclude the very material itself that one is observing or testing, there is no way to gather empirical evidence or test your predictions.

What are you talking about ? see above : what has materialism to do with science proper then ? = absolutely nothing .

Science is just the scientific method ,science is falsification ...see Karl Popper on the subject .

Since materialism has been indeed successful in imposing its own false materialist conception of nature or ideology as the "scientific world view " , you cannot but confuse materialsim with science ,unless you would try to distinguish between them : materialism is just a fasle world view ideology , science is not an ideology : Karl Popper might help you distinguish science from ideology ,or from pseudo-science ...
Popper can indeed do much better than just that : his writings on the subject can also help you detect even pseudo-science at the very heart of the current science = the materialist mainstream false "scientific world view " .

Good luck .
« Last Edit: 29/11/2013 20:32:08 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #996 on: 29/11/2013 20:46:01 »
Walker's 'Physics of Consciousness' looks to me like yet another version of 'quantum mechanics is weird and unexplained, consciousness is weird and unexplained, let's mash them together', that makes the common mistake of reifying the wavefunction as something physical that must be 'collapsed' by an observer. I found Penrose's quantum microtubules more interesting (though equally unsustainable).

But that's just my take on it - here's a couple of reviews that point out some other flaws:
Donald - Cavendish Laboratory
Vanderman - Neuroquantology.

No , since the materialist "all is matter , including the mind " conception of nature is false , and hence since the materialist mainstream "scientific world view " is also false  as a result  , then consciousness that's irreducible to the physical has to interact with the physical brain in a mutual manner : how the immaterial consciousness does interact with the physical brain mutually ?

Well, Walker  and others just try to figure that out their own ways .

Have better falsifiable theories on the subject then, since  the immaterial  mind cannot be in  the physical brain , since the immaterial mind cannot be the  "product " of the  physical brain's activity ?

Otherwise , what makes you think that "all is matter ,including the mind " ? : that's just the false materialist conception of nature, no empirical fact .

Otherwise , try to prove to the people here that "all is  matter  , including the mind " then ?

Amazing ....
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #997 on: 29/11/2013 21:03:20 »
RD :


For the record , the following : in order to make things clear , once and for all, hopefully :
I am not really interested in parasychology or in any so-called psychic phenomena , but that does not mean they are necessarily false: they might either turn out to be false or true , either way : that's something that must be left to science , when the latter will be liberated from that false materialist "all is matter ,including the mind " conception of nature  .

I am mainly interested in the refutations of materialism in those books i have been quoting , that's all .

When one assumes that "all is matter , including the mind " = just a materialist false conception of nature ,no empirical fact , then, it's pretty logical to exclude a priori ,per definition ,or per se any so-called psychic phenomena : get that ?

I am just interested in the fact that the materialist " all is matter  , including the mind " conception of nature is false , and hence the materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " is also false as a result , which means that consciousness is non-physical or non-material mutually interacting with the physical brain ,in ways we still have to try to figure out .

Have better ideas or better faslifiable theories on the subject ?

Otherwise , try to prove to the people here that the materialist "all is matter" false conception of nature is "true " , is an "empirical fact " .

Oh, boy , you cannot, obviously .

That false materialist conception of nature has even been making itself so unfalsifiable unverifiable ,by also being "verified and corroborated " by "everything " that it cannot be but unscientific , and must therefore be expelled from science , without mercy or regret ,without looking back , for the betterment and progress of science that must be free from dogmas such as those materialist ones .
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #998 on: 29/11/2013 22:13:14 »

Greyson has also elaborated on this confusion. He states, “Materialists often claim credit for the
scientific advances of the past few centuries. But it is the scientific method of empirical hypothesis
testing, rather than a materialistic philosophy, that has been responsible for the success of science in
explaining the world.


True, but it's kind of a silly argument. That's like saying that one could be a gourmet chef and prepare a meal without actually using any ingredients or cooking utensils. Sure, you can invent imaginary recipes, but that's as far as you'll get.

You still do not get it yet , amazing :
That's what i have been saying all along : all scientific achievements were /are being and will be accomplished by scientists, whether they happen to be materialists or non-materialists ( Many great scientists were / are and will be religious ones , for example : Newton and many others ) , all scientific achievements thus were / are being / and will be accomplished by scientists just  through, and just thanks to,  the effective and unparalled scientific method that's like no other = materialism as a false ideology has absolutely nothing to do with all those scientific achievements indeed .

And you still cannot explain how you would construct an experiment to test the immaterial, which you said repeatedly is impossible. Hence, Popper's article is useless for your purposes, as is quantum mechanics since you've thoroughly explained that the immaterial and the mental is not in the brain, is not physical.  It "escapes the laws of physics" is, I believe, the phrase you used a few pages ago. You've painted yourself into a corner.


« Last Edit: 29/11/2013 23:56:31 by cheryl j »
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8132
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #999 on: 29/11/2013 23:07:30 »
... I am not really interested in parasychology or in any so-called psychic phenomena ...

Despite your lack of interest your post which mentions NDE almost entirely consists of a quote from Chris "afterlife / NDE / psychic-phenomena" Carter.

... but that does not mean they [psychic phenomena] are necessarily false: they might either turn out to be false or true , either way : that's something that must be left to science ...

These fields have been investigated for decades,  no repeatable results : no telepathy , no clairvoyants , no mediums, no telekinesis , no "remote-viewing", no ESP. Nothing nada, zero, zilch.

Quote from: Parapsychological Association
First established in 1957, the PA has been an affiliated organization of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) since 1969.  The PA is a non-profit, non-adjudicating organization that endorses no ideologies or beliefs other than the value of rigorous scientific and scholarly inquiry.
http://www.parapsych.org/home.aspx

Quote from: csicop.org
PEAR Lab Closes, Ending Decades of Psychic Research
The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) group is shutting down after some twenty-eight years of searching for proof of the paranormal. On February 10, 2007, PEAR issued a press release that stated, in part: “The PEAR program was established at Princeton University in 1979 by Robert G. Jahn, then Dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Science, to pursue rigorous scientific study of the interaction of human consciousness with sensitive physical devices, systems, and processes common to contemporary engineering practice.
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/pear_lab_closes_ending_decades_of_psychic_research/

Decades wasted : think about it for a minute, if these "psi" phenomena had ever arisen in some humans the rest of humanity would be their slaves.
« Last Edit: 29/11/2013 23:18:27 by RD »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #999 on: 29/11/2013 23:07:30 »

 

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