The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Major Bombshell : Manifesto For A Post-Materialistic Science :  (Read 187902 times)

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
I agree with you Ethos_ that there has been no substantive progress made in terms of the OP, and no prospect of any; nevertheless I've found it a useful source of educational references (especially from Cheryl - thanks Cheryl!).
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
I agree with you Ethos_ that there has been no substantive progress made in terms of the OP, and no prospect of any; nevertheless I've found it a useful source of educational references (especially from Cheryl - thanks Cheryl!).

Well, you should reject materialism if you wanna see some progress or if you wanna see science progress .The false materialism has just been holding science back by imprisoning it within its false prison ,and must be thus kicked out of science  ,the sonner the better .

Quote
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg448250#msg448250 date=1420760521]
Ok, but what makes you so sure about those 60 % vegetative patients who seem to show no signs of consciousness ? They might experience some undetected yet minimal forms of consciousness too , who knows ?
The figures I gave are the current best approximation. I'm not going to argue definitions of consciousness, but in neurological terms, those vegetative patients with reticular brain stem damage cannot become conscious because that area controls all higher level arousal activity, including consciousness. Neither can those with certain high level cortical damage, or permanent axonal damage that impairs wide area connectivity. If you accept the evidence that consciousness awareness involves wide area rather than purely local activity of the brain, Stanislas Dehaene's techniques for elicitation of the characteristic P3 wave can positively determine conscious awareness for all patients (even for those in partial or total sensory isolation, tanscranial magnetic stimulation can be used). For those that show no global activation, consciousness, as generally recognised, doesn't occur. Dehaene has found patients whose RAS arousal level was just too low for consciousness, and used TMS to temporarily boost it so they became conscious, but to provide them with continuous consciousness would require some kind of stimulatory implant; near-future technology. This kind of empirical evidence provides some confidence that at least the gross functionality of the systems involved have been understood.

Stanislas Dehaene's work is very interesting indeed ,to some extent at least, and i see not why future technology cannot come up with some sort of stimulatory implant , as you put it  , to boost the  consciousness of brain damaged or vegetative  patients.

But , Deheane's problem,as a materialist scientist ,  is that he assumes that when he and his team can map all brain regions involved in conscious or aware perception ,and hence discover all "signatures of consciousness " in the brain , then they would understand how consciousness works completely,as he so bombastically said in that book of his in question : "Consciousness and the brain , Deciphering how the brain codes our thoughts " ,by assuming that consciousness ,the mind and all their related processes are in the brain  .

Dehaene then introduced what he called "Global neuronal workspace " hypothesis in Chapter 5  "Theorizing consciousness " ,in  his above mentioned book  ,as follows :

 Quote : "...to make sense of consciousness .The proposal is simple : consciousness is brain-wide information sharing .The human brain has developed efficient long distance networks, particularly in the prefrontal cortex , to select relevant information and disseminate it throughout the brain .Consciousness is an evolved device that allows us to attend to a piece of information and keep it active within this broadcasting system .Once the information is conscious , it can be flexibly routed to other areas according to our current goals.Thus we can name it , evaluate it , memorize it ,or use it to plan the future .Computer simulations of neural networks show that the global neuronal workspace hypothesis generates precisely the signatures that we see in experimental brain recordings .It can also explain why vast amounts of knowledge remain inaccessible to our consciousness ." End quote .

Well, of course computer simulations of those specific neural networks would show the same 'signatures " that he saw in experimental brain recordings lol , that's no evidence for his materialist false belief assumption or hypothesis that consciousness is generated by those specific neural networks : it's a bit like confusing music in CD's with the music itself lol

Nevertheless , Dehaene can't justify his extraordinary jump or leap from the neural correlates of consciousness or NCC to the latter itself , let alone that he could explain to us how consciousness or awareness occurs or arises from neurochemistry .


Besides, it has been proved by many experiments , like the binocular rivalry experiment ,that consciousness is not continuous but discontinuous (Binocular rivalry experiment has been used to be able to differentiate between the brain regions that are involved in conscious or aware perception and between the ones that are not , and hence to try to pinpoint exactly what specific regions of the brain are involved in conscious perception .) :  consciousness  works thus via gaps , or as lunatic Dennett said on the subject : " The discontinuity of consciousness is striking because of the apparent continuity of consciousness " .

Experiments involving experienced meditation practitioners proved  the  fact that meditation and mindfulness can also improve the power of focused attention of people by enabling them to voluntarily hold in place the  binocular rival images they choose to ....the same goes for the  dichotic listening task  experiment where different auditory stimuli are   presented simultaneously , one to each ear....

There are also many forms of waking consciousness , the phenomenal consciousness (the felt consciousness ) , access consciousness , the active and passive consciousness , the 'basic " consciousness, the life consciousness or sentience which is called by western philosophy of mind  "creature consciousness " that pertains to a whole subject of experience , not to the individual states of that subject ,self-consciousness that comes in different forms ...., to mention just those .Take your pick .

To pretend thus that neuroscientists  already understand how the sensory perceptual or gross consciousness or awareness are all about is a misguided and incorrect assumption .

Quote
Quote
Vegetative patients may be more conscious of the world than we think:
Yes; this is the difference between the commonly accepted definition of the condition, and the clinical diagnosis of the condition. Those who demonstrate conscious activity have been misdiagnosed as vegetative (according to Dehaene's usage).

Misdiagnosed ? So, Cambridge scientists conducted that simple test on misdiagnosed vegetative patients ? lol Come on .

Quote
Quote
P.S.: In another context , A cousin of mine who was healthy and then pronounced dead , was almost buried 3 times .
Every time they tried to bury the poor lad , i was told , ( He lives in another country far away from mine ) , he would show signs of life at almost the last moment .

He even started to scream once , i was told , when they were ready to put his coffin into the grave .
It's possible, although unlikely (to paraphrase Lady Bracknell, once would be unfortunate, twice looks like incompetence, and three times smacks of fiction). But, if true, it would be another example of misdiagnosis - the diagnosis of clinical death not corresponding to the patient's actual condition.

I concur . But , it did happen like i told you it did , unfortunately and unbelievably enough .It's hard to believe , but it was true , i was told at least .


 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
... Dehaene can't justify his extraordinary jump or leap from the neural correlates of consciousness or NCC to the latter itself , let alone that he could explain to us how consciousness or awareness occurs or arises from neurochemistry .
That's not how science works. Falsifiable hypotheses are made, based on observation, then tested. So far, the hypotheses have not been falsified.

Quote
Besides, it has been proved by many experiments , like the binocular rivalry experiment ,that consciousness is not continuous but discontinuous (Binocular rivalry experiment has been used to be able to differentiate between the brain regions that are involved in conscious or aware perception and between the ones that are not , and hence to try to pinpoint exactly what specific regions of the brain are involved in conscious perception .) :  consciousness  works thus via gaps , or as lunatic Dennett said on the subject : " The discontinuity of consciousness is striking because of the apparent continuity of consciousness " .
Indeed, there are several leading neuroscientists who support this view, and it's not that surprising, given that our vision is also discontinuous. It's yet another demonstration that subjective perception (in this case, of continuity) can be deceptive. It has no substantive effect on Deheane's interpretations.

Quote
To pretend thus that neuroscientists  already understand how the sensory perceptual or gross consciousness or awareness are all about is a misguided and incorrect assumption .
No-one pretends that, but we do know the areas and structures involved, and their basic functions - from observation and experiment.

Quote
Misdiagnosed ? So, Cambridge scientists conducted that simple test on misdiagnosed vegetative patients ? lol Come on .
It's a question of definition. A vegetative state is one lacking conscious awareness, by general definition. If a patient diagnosed as vegetative is found to be consciously aware, he's been misdiagnosed.

Quote
... it did happen like i told you it did , unfortunately and unbelievably enough .It's hard to believe , but it was true , i was told at least .
Lol! You clearly don't believe everything you're told, but you choose to believe that 'hard to believe' anecdote, despite calling it unbelievable... why, because it was a relative?
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile

What part of the above you can't understand then , Cheryl ?
I can read perfectly fine, thank you, and understand what you've said. I just don't happen to agree, hard as that may be for you to fathom.
You've arrived at the very same answer you started with, and if you're completely happy with that outcome, so be it. I'll leave you to whine about materialism unharassed.

I'm out. 
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg448362#msg448362 date=1420925661]
... Dehaene can't justify his extraordinary jump or leap from the neural correlates of consciousness or NCC to the latter itself , let alone that he could explain to us how consciousness or awareness occurs or arises from neurochemistry .
That's not how science works. Falsifiable hypotheses are made, based on observation, then tested. So far, the hypotheses have not been falsified.


Deheane did reduce by the way the multifaceted forms of waking consciousness to just one of them : the most gross one of them all : access consciousness .

Would you , Deheane or any other materialist scientist for that matter tell us how, on earth , how in Zeus ' name lol, how  the qualitative experiential subjective personal ...consciousness can emerge from the quantitative "impersonal objective "... brain activity that materialist magical inexplicable way ?

None of you can ,obviously , despite all your materialist absurd fancy theories on the subject ( I went almost through  all of them ) that cannot but turn out to be  some sort of simplistic and primitive child's play in disguise under scrutiny , so absurd paradoxical childish  simplistic and false are they deep down ,  simply because consciousness can never be reduced to , equated with or emerge from brain activity , biology , physics and chemistry , or from biological evolution , no way : why can't you , materialists , understand this simple fact ?

You can't understand that simple fact ,simply because you have been confusing materialism with science ,or because you have been equating the former with the latter , that's why , simply because you have been assuming that materialism has been 'scientific " .

More simply put :

Identity theory as well as the emergent property theory regarding the origin nature function and emergence of consciousness are just acts of faith , no scientific theories = untestable+ false  .

Consciousness is neither reducible to nor can it be equated with brain activity , let alone that consciousness can emerge from biology or from biological evolution .

To assumes otherwise is just an act of faith = untestable+ false .

Dehaene 's " Global neuronal workspace " hypothesis or consciousness as just a  brain-wide information sharing process is a bit like the other related theory : consciousness as integrated information = untestable and false , otherwise , how come computers cannot be conscious or aware since they work the same way ? = via global information sharing ...

Not to mention that they replace a mystery by yet another one , replacing the mystery of consciousness by the mystery of information, whatever the latter might mean in this context , that's no explanation thus .

The computer or machine analogy or metaphor regarding the nature , origin , emergence and function of life in general and consciousness and its brain in particular are obviously false , since life cannot but be conscious and aware ,unlike computers or machines , to say just that .

There are also major differences in kind between life and machines or computers as you should know as a biologist .

Quote
Quote
Besides, it has been proved by many experiments , like the binocular rivalry experiment ,that consciousness is not continuous but discontinuous (Binocular rivalry experiment has been used to be able to differentiate between the brain regions that are involved in conscious or aware perception and between the ones that are not , and hence to try to pinpoint exactly what specific regions of the brain are involved in conscious perception .) :  consciousness  works thus via gaps , or as lunatic Dennett said on the subject : " The discontinuity of consciousness is striking because of the apparent continuity of consciousness " .
Indeed, there are several leading neuroscientists who support this view, and it's not that surprising, given that our vision is also discontinuous. It's yet another demonstration that subjective perception (in this case, of continuity) can be deceptive. It has no substantive effect on Deheane's interpretations.

Well, that's a matter of opinion , not a matter of fact . Human perception is deceptive anyway ,so what makes you think that Dehaene 's interpretation is not yet another illusion or an elaborate self-deceit ,since he tries to fit the empirical evidence into his a -priori held materialist production theory regarding the relationship between consciousness and its brain, not the other way around .

In other words :

Any scientific theory should be falsifiable and hence should be either supported corroborated verified predicted reproduced ... by the empirical evidence or rejected by the latter : Deheane 's interpretations of the empirical evidence is delivered by his a -priori held materialist beliefs that shape his own consciousness on the subject , instead of the other way around : that's the most unscientific form of confirmation bias .

There is thus no empirical evidence whatsoever that supports his production or emergent property theory regarding consciousness .

Quote
Quote
To pretend thus that neuroscientists  already understand how the sensory perceptual or gross consciousness or awareness are all about is a misguided and incorrect assumption .
No-one pretends that, but we do know the areas and structures involved, and their basic functions - from observation and experiment.

Correlation does not necessarily imply causation, once again .
What Dehaene delivers on the subject of the nature , emergence and function of consciousness has not been supported by any empirical evidence whatsoever : he just takes for granted  his materialist interpretations of the empirical evidence as the real thing , simply put,by confusing  the forest with the tree that hides the forest  , so to speak  .

Quote
Quote
Misdiagnosed ? So, Cambridge scientists conducted that simple test on misdiagnosed vegetative patients ? lol Come on .
It's a question of definition. A vegetative state is one lacking conscious awareness, by general definition. If a patient diagnosed as vegetative is found to be consciously aware, he's been misdiagnosed.

So, those Cambridge neuroscientists in question were so incompetent as to not be aware of the "fact " that they conducted that simple test on misdiagnosed vegetative patients lol , were so incompetent as not to able to tell the difference between real vegetative patients and between the misdiagnosed ones lol

Come on, dlorde .I know you can do much better than that . lol

Quote
Quote
... it did happen like i told you it did , unfortunately and unbelievably enough .It's hard to believe , but it was true , i was told at least .
Lol! You clearly don't believe everything you're told, but you choose to believe that 'hard to believe' anecdote, despite calling it unbelievable... why, because it was a relative?

Nevermind . I lost sight of the man in question, so to speak, during a period of over 20 years just to hear that story of his alleged multiple "deaths " ,later on . I had no contact with him whatsoever all that time .

I can't verify that story  thus, either way  . I should adopt an agnostic position about it , i guess indeed, a bit like (kidding ) when Joy Jim claimed that he could adopt an agnostic position regarding all interpretations of QM which  are all "equally valid " as he added , just to say later on that the consciousness -based interpretation of QM is no longer  taken seriously by hardly anyone lol  .

It' not that i have been building some scientific theories on that alleged story of my cousin in question thus , like materialist scientists have been doing , in another major context ,  by confusing their materialist beliefs with science or by equating the former with the latter . lol

Oh, man : most of what materialist science has been telling us all regarding the origin of the universe , the nature of life , the origin of life , the evolution of life and much more has to be seriously and radically questioned ,to say the least, you have no idea  .

In other words :

Most of what the majority of scientists ,together with most people, have been taking for granted as science or as "the scientific world view " , without question, since the second half of the 19th century at least and counting , has been just the false materialist dogmatic belief system at the very heart of science , not the latter .

Most scientists thus and most people have been taking the false dogmatic ideological materialist belief system for granted as science or as "the scientific world view " ,all that time and counting .

What a serious and tragic predicament .Unbelievable .

Congratulations, scientist .
« Last Edit: 11/01/2015 18:49:12 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg448377#msg448377 date=1420937557]

What part of the above you can't understand then , Cheryl ?
I can read perfectly fine, thank you, and understand what you've said.

Well, it's not that you don't understand what i have been saying all along and on way too many occasions , you just don't want to understand that , so blinded have you been by your own materialist belief system , the one you have been taking for granted as science or as "the scientific world view " , like the majority of scientists today have been doing by the way .

Quote
I just don't happen to agree, hard as that may be for you to fathom.
You've arrived at the very same answer you started with, and if you're completely happy with that outcome, so be it. I'll leave you to whine about materialism unharassed.

The fact that materialism is false ,including all its extensions ,including all materialist theories of mind , is not a matter of opinion, lady : it is a matter of fact .

Quote
I'm out.

Well, that's too bad then . Your own choice .I respect that . But that won't make the above mentioned fact go away anyway .

That won't make the fact go away that science has to reject materialism and move on beyond it : that's what science usually does anyway  when it stumbles upon anomalies such as consciousness that explode in its scientific face ,and hence make science question its prevailing 'wisdom " of the moment .That's the only way science can progress :

 Imagine with me for a moment that Planck's work,for example,  was rejected by the mainstream scientific community , we would still be stuck within the approximately correct and fundamentally false classical deterministic mechanical Newtonian world view upon which materialism was built , ironically enough .

In fact , as materialists yourselves, guys , you are really still stuck within that false classical world view anyway . Congratulations .

I don't recall how many times i wanted to leave this forum,since i saw/ see no point in continuing this discussion ,simply because none of you , guys , was/is ready yet to consider the simple fact that materialism is false , let alone ready to change your minds on the subject .

Take care , best wishes,lady  .Thanks for all your valuable contributions .You've been a major and valuable contributor to this thread and certainly the most open-minded one . Cheers.

Science will be forcing you to become even more open-minded ,whether you would like it or not , if you live long enough to witness that inevitable fact .

It is only a matter of time thus before science ,all sciences for that matter , rejects materialism ,otherwise science will  remain just a dogmatic ideology or just a secular dogmatic materialistic atheistic religion deep down ,and hence loose its credibility and reliability as a valid source of knowledge ....

« Last Edit: 11/01/2015 19:25:18 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Final thoughts , very quickly then  :

There is a lot more to say about the following , but i will have to leave it at that then :

Materialist science is in fact so primtitive and so fundamentally false ,so fundamentally way behind , thousands of years behind some aspects of some ancient wisdom , behind some aspects of human expériences , knowledge and wisdom, as to assume that all is matter ,thanks to materialism,  that all can be reduced to just matter or to just material ,physical or biological processes or  causes  :

So, You , all your joys , sorrows , your sense of self , your sense of free will , your thoughts , your dreams, imagination, creativity , love , beliefs and the rest are just some sort of sexy "ritual " lol strip-tease dances , oscillations or vibrations of your neurons or neurochemistry ,as some savant -idiot scientist said on the subject in other words of his (Francis Crick ) : absurd and paradoxical non-sense .

There are also a lots of "scientific " fairy tales regarding the origin of the universe , the nature of life , the origin of life , the evolution of life ....thanks to materialism ,that one is extremely perplexed by the fact that materialist 'science " is called science lol , seriously .

Materialism has been just imprisoning science within its false materialist theory of the nature of reality , and hence has been making science deliver a highly distorted and fundamentally false version of the nature of reality, to say the least , while holding the free inquiry spirit of science back by making it  explore only the false materialist version of the nature of reality and hence preventing science from going beyond that , despite the fact that naturalist science , its naturalist methodology and its naturalist epistemology do go beyond materialism and can be either dualist , idelalist monist or even theistic  .

Science should in fact neither be materialist nor otherwise , science should be metaphysically neutral , but that remains just a naive idealistic utopia so far , since science is just a human social activity ,and to some extent just a cultural one as well ( see how the Eurocentric ethnocentric and exclusive materialism has been equated with science for relatively so long now and counting .),so the old Cartesian dichotomy between the observer and the observed , between the subjective thus and the objective is false : there is no such thing as the independent observer or independent observed , they are inseparably and inescapably intertwined with each other  .

All scientific discoveries though , all scientific progress , all scientific material and technological advances have been the results of applying the scientific method by materialist and non-materialist scientists alike , so all that has been having absolutely nothing to do with materialism that's just a false conception of nature , a false belief , a philosophy , an outdated and supreseded 19th century ideology or world view that was built upon the approximately correct and fundamentally false classical mechanical deterministic Newtonian world view .

It's about time that science gets rid of materialism and for good , the sonner the better ,for the benefit and  progress of  both science and humanity as a whole .

It's about time for a post-materialistic science as the subject matter of this thread by the way .

P.S.: The above was /is no whining about materialism, Cheryl : the above is simply just facts , undeniable ones at that , that is .

Denying the latter won't make it go away either thus.

Have fun with your 'scientific " materialist délusions , guys then . Thank you all  for your valuable contributions , time , relative knowledge , and energy , appreciate indeed .Best wishes to all of you . See ya all in another life , so to speak .Cheers.
« Last Edit: 11/01/2015 21:21:41 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
So, those Cambridge neuroscientists in question were so incompetent as to not be aware of the "fact " that they conducted that simple test on misdiagnosed vegetative patients lol , were so incompetent as not to able to tell the difference between real vegetative patients and between the misdiagnosed ones lol

No. It's really very simple. I'll explain one last time. There were a number of patients who had previously been diagnosed as being in a vegetative state. The neuroscientists gained access to them and carried out their tests, finding some of them to show characteristic signs of conscious awareness, contrary to the diagnosis they had been given.

Now I'm out.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

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