The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Major Bombshell : Manifesto For A Post-Materialistic Science :  (Read 187790 times)

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
alancalverd, dlorde :

I- What do you think about that PDF regarding the eather theory in physics ? : Is it based on solid physics and maths or not ? You can get that PDF for free through the above displayed links

I speed-read the document, and though I can't comment on the quality of the mathematical physics (not my forte), they claim testability only through a couple of simple tests of magnetic properties, which may make it falsifiable. Nevertheless, proof of the pudding will come in the eating - if it really does a better  job than the Standard Model, it's different enough that it should be fairly obvious (although I don't see it, and nor, apparently do most other people actually working in the field). The suggestion of infinite free energy being available doesn't inspire confidence [:o)].

However, the discussion section on 'Ontological Foundation' (pp.27-28) is ful of misleading and apparent misunderstandings of current theory, and the 'Philosophy' section covering Orgonomy, Health & Healing, Form & Beauty (e.g. geometric numerology  [:o)]), God (Universal Mind of God  ::)), Consciousness, Truth, War & Peace, etc., is so full of dippy mystic woo, that I have very little confidence that the physics of this aether theory is likely to be sound. A solid theory doesn't need a smokescreen of distracting nonsense.

I'll be convinced when they verifiably out-predict the current model, or when I see an aether physics free energy generator running over-unity.

Other than that, it was a waste of five minutes of life I'll never get back. Thanks.
« Last Edit: 02/11/2014 22:54:51 by dlorde »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
alancalverd, dlorde :

I- What do you think about that PDF regarding the eather theory in physics ? : Is it based on solid physics and maths or not ? You can get that PDF for free through the above displayed links

I speed-read the document, and though I can't comment on the quality of the mathematical physics (not my forte), they claim testability only through a couple of simple tests of magnetic properties, which may make it falsifiable. Nevertheless, proof of the pudding will come in the eating - if it really does a better  job than the Standard Model, it's different enough that it should be fairly obvious (although I don't see it, and nor, apparently do most other people actually working in the field). The suggestion of infinite free energy being available doesn't inspire confidence [:o)].

However, the discussion section on 'Ontological Foundation' (pp.27-28) is ful of misleading and apparent misunderstandings of current theory, and the 'Philosophy' section covering Orgonomy, Health & Healing, Form & Beauty (e.g. geometric numerology  [:o)]), God (Universal Mind of God  ::)), Consciousness, Truth, War & Peace, etc., is so full of dippy mystic woo, that I have very little confidence that the physics of this aether theory is likely to be sound. A solid theory doesn't need a smokescreen of distracting nonsense.

I'll be convinced when they verifiably out-predict the current model, or when I see an aether physics free energy generator running over-unity.

Other than that, it was a waste of five minutes of life I'll never get back. Thanks.

OK, thanks anyway . See this : they say that the maths in that book are correct , and that the physics is not only consistent with the standard model, but also presents a paradigm shift :

Regarding the link below : when you get redirected to it , just go to the left side and click on the secrets of the aether , because whenever i try to post its direct url , i get the message that i have used a black listed term, whatever the latter  might be :

http://www.16pi2.com/



http://softaether.blogspot.com/

https://sites.google.com/site/qadi16pi2//home/secrets-of-the-aether

The standard model of quantum field theory cannot but be approximately correct and fundamentally false anyway ,simply because it cannot account for consciousness that's a key component or a key "building block " of the universe .
« Last Edit: 03/11/2014 18:56:36 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4723
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
alancalverd, dlorde :

I- What do you think about that PDF regarding the eather theory in physics ? : Is it based on solid physics and maths or not ? You can get that PDF for free through the above displayed links .


As you have read it, and I have a business to run and a life to lead, perhaps you can tell us in not more than 100 words what it explains that is not explained by any other theory, and what it testably predicts.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4723
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile

...... consciousness that's a key component or a key "building block " of the universe .

An assertion that has no foundation or demonstration, other than as a deliberate misinterpretation of "observation" in some oversimplistic descriptions of quantum mechanics and indeterminacy.   
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile

...... consciousness that's a key component or a key "building block " of the universe .

An assertion that has no foundation or demonstration, other than as a deliberate misinterpretation of "observation" in some oversimplistic descriptions of quantum mechanics and indeterminacy.


Many prominent physicists ' interpretations of QM , through the double slit experiment , for example, say that consciousness does play a central and key role in shaping the physical reality , not to mention Von Neumann school , almost all founders of QM , many modern physicists ...  :

Materialists cannot but deny that fact , since they assume that consciousness is a material process , a product of the brain :

So, consciousness is a key component or a key "building block " of the universe :

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/05/01/scientific-study-shows-meditators-collapsing-quantum-systems-at-a-distance/
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
alancalverd, dlorde :

I- What do you think about that PDF regarding the eather theory in physics ? : Is it based on solid physics and maths or not ? You can get that PDF for free through the above displayed links .


As you have read it, and I have a business to run and a life to lead, perhaps you can tell us in not more than 100 words what it explains that is not explained by any other theory, and what it testably predicts.

I have already talked about that aether theory : see the above displayed links on the subject in my reply to dlorde
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg443591#msg443591 date=1414966744]



IV- How can you quantify the subjective information of memory , consciousness ...? since materialism assumes that they are encoded in or computed by the brain .


You use the word subjective like it's some trump card, a barrier you are 100% certain we will never be able to cross. You are more than willing to accept any "indirect" evidence of psi - that doesn't bother you in the least - but indirect and replicable evidence of subjective experience is outlandish to you. This is despite the fact that we've already made considerable progress. A mere 50-60 years ago, Behaviorists said most of mental activity couldn't be studied, because it couldn't be observed or measured - only behavior was suitable subject matter for science. That has changed with neuro-imaging and ingenious study designs, like those of Ramachandran's, who proved that subjective experiences like synesthesia were real sensory phenomena. We are starting to decode the language of neurons. We can reconstruct the visual images of things a person is looking at with surprising accuracy. All of this was once considered an impossibility because it was "subjective" internal human experience. And the technology just keeps getting better and better.

Just answer the question , please :

How can one quantify the subjective information ? How can the quantitative neurophysiology produce the subjective qualitative mental states , memories , inner experiences by "storing them in the brain , via  encoding them or computing them " = quantifying them ?

The related brain activity of consciousness , memories , the mind , ....are not the latter themselves : the former is just the result of the latter working through the brain .

Quote

Consciousness , the mind and their related memories are non-physical processes+ non-local , and hence they are neither in the brain nor are they the product of brain activity :

Quote
Well, that's your theory, but not most scientist's. Tell me how this non local, immaterial consciousness interfaces with matter. Tell me what field or particle carries the information in your consciousness or immortal soul from place to place. If you are proposing something like this, as Carroll pointed out in his lecture, you are not simply "adding" something extra to what is already known about physics - the standard model would  actually have to be wrong, almost all of it, and there's just too much evidence that it's not. Which is not to say that someone is not free to chuck science completely out the window and believe whatever he likes. But you can't hedge your bets anymore, and say okay, physics is right about certain things but there's still room for souls, and telekinesis -I can make machines generate certain numbers with my thoughts,and see into the future, and read minds, etc. No, you can't, and dark matter and aether will not help you do it.

I-Consciousness -related anomalies studies  have proved consciousness to be a non -physical and a non-local process, that's mainly why there is an urgent need of a new post-materialistic science ,as the subject matter of this thread  .

II- One particular interpretation of quantum theory says that consciousness collapses the wave function instantaneously without any transfer of energy whatsoever .

III- What we call reality is psycho-physical = matter and mind are inseparable = 1 , so ,there is no interface between matter and mind ,since they are inseparable , and since there is no separate matter or separate mind as such .

IV- The standard model of quantum field theory cannot but be approximately correct and fundamentally false , since it cannot account for the central and key component or "building block " of the universe : consciousness as the anomaly that breaks the neck of that standard model , together with that of materialism  .

V- The aether theory in physics is not new , it goes all the way back to the 19th century , and it have been proved to exist empirically ,finally :

"The Aether Field Exists : Just as it had been predicted !!

Michelson and Morley Interferometer experiment failed due to lack of equipment . US Air Force repeated the experiment in 1986 and discovered that the field actually exists . Not only that, The field measured the same way Michelson and Morley predicted !! Our Science was wrong all along !!!

Checkout for yourself : E.W Silvertooth , " Special Relativity ," Nature Magazine Vol 322 (August 1986): p.590 ."




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment


http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/michelsonmorley.html

feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PLFA99EC0D46A0F4D5

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.hasslberger.com%2Fdocs%2FAETHER_FURTHER_PROOF-THIS_CHANGES_THE_GAME-3.pdf&ei=rd5XVKbcBuPlsASB2YKIDA&usg=AFQjCNE2SBQEZg9qPHb86epxlUNYT8Jzeg





« Last Edit: 03/11/2014 20:03:57 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
See this : they say that the maths in that book are correct , and that the physics is not only consistent with the standard model, but also presents a paradigm shift :
Well they would, wouldn't they?

Quote
Regarding the link below : when you get redirected to it , just go to the left side and click on the secrets of the aether...
Nah. If you want to discuss or argue something, go ahead - make your argument (and an argument isn't just the assertions you usually make). You're welcome to post links for reference to the points you argue, but I'm not just going to follow links for the hell of it.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
IV- How can you quantify the subjective information of memory , consciousness ...?
...
How can one quantify the subjective information ?
Tononi's  'Integrated Information Theory' of consciousness covers this. Look for the section called 'A Mathematical Analysis: Quantifying Integrated Information'.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
So, consciousness is a key component or a key "building block " of the universe :

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/05/01/scientific-study-shows-meditators-collapsing-quantum-systems-at-a-distance/
The study quoted there was a mess (Dean Radin again - why am I not surprised?); the results don't jibe with the experiment described.
 

Offline cheryl j

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

Just answer the question , please :

How can one quantify the subjective information ? How can the quantitative neurophysiology produce the subjective qualitative mental states , memories , inner experiences by "storing them in the brain , via  encoding them or computing them " = quantifying them ?


Well, that's not one question, it's several. But "subjective" doesn't mean totally off limits as far as science is concerned.

Synthesia is not an important or significant neurological phenomena. But it was once considered totally subjective. Patients came to Ramachandran and said they saw, for example, numbers as colors. He said, do you mean that metaphorically, as in the number 5 seems like it is "yellowish" or because you played with colored, magnetic letters on a board when you were first learning to read and the number 5 was yelllow?

No, they said. When I see the number 5, I see the color yellow.

You can't prove what someone else says they are experiencing. You don't know if they are lying or imagining something. But he figured out a test. He showed them a field with scattered 5s and 2s and other numbers all in black ink. The fives made a triangle on a background of 2s and other numbers. A normal person would have to look really hard for several minutes to see it. They'd have to hunt really hard for the 5's. But a person with synesthesia would spot the triangle in seconds, just like anyone else would if the 5's were actually a different color.  That is an example of an experimental design that can prove a totally subjective experience is real, without someone physically experiencing the same thing themselves.

That is how the subjective can be proven, but it is probably of little interest to you since it doesn't involve anything magical or mystical.
« Last Edit: 04/11/2014 04:23:20 by cheryl j »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4723
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
The contention that the human mind can affect matter (unlikely) is quite different from the assertion that all quantum phenomena require consciousness to initiate them (ridiculous).
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile

Just answer the question , please :

How can one quantify the subjective information ? How can the quantitative neurophysiology produce the subjective qualitative mental states , memories , inner experiences by "storing them in the brain , via  encoding them or computing them " = quantifying them ?


Well, that's not one question, it's several. But "subjective" doesn't mean totally off limits as far as science is concerned.

Synthesia is not an important or significant neurological phenomena. But it was once considered totally subjective. Patients came to Ramachandran and said they saw, for example, numbers as colors. He said, do you mean that metaphorically, as in the number 5 seems like it is "yellowish" or because you played with colored, magnetic letters on a board when you were first learning to read and the number 5 was yelllow?

No, they said. When I see the number 5, I see the color yellow.

You can't prove what someone else says they are experiencing. You don't know if they are lying or imagining something. But he figured out a test. He showed them a field with scattered 5s and 2s and other numbers all in black ink. The fives made a triangle on a background of 2s and other numbers. A normal person would have to look really hard for several minutes to see it. They'd have to hunt really hard for the 5's. But a person with synesthesia would spot the triangle in seconds, just like anyone else would if the 5's were actually a different color.  That is an example of an experimental design that can prove a totally subjective experience is real, without someone physically experiencing the same thing themselves.

That is how the subjective can be proven, but it is probably of little interest to you since it doesn't involve anything magical or mystical.

When you mentioned the synesthesia phenomenon earlier on , i went on to look it up again in Ramachandran's " The tell tale brain " book : I have some  books of his , videos , lectures ...
The man is a brilliant  neuroscientist , but , his main problem is that he , like the rest of materialist scientists , reduces everything , including consciousness and its related phenomena and qualia , to just material processes ,while they are irreducible to the latter : he mistakes the neural correlates of consciousness and its qualia , memory , ...for the latter, like the man who mistook his wife for a hat lol (I love Oliver Sacks books by the way )  .

I have to finish that part of his book about synesthesia , later on then .

Mainly artists do have that : some  even see sounds , hear colors , taste images ....think in images , forms ...

Einstein, for example , was known about his developed imagery imagination , that 's why , maybe , he said : " Imagination is more important than knowledge " .He knew that first hand of course .Without imagery creative imagination, he could not have come up with his famous theories .

Imagination that's behind many scientific discoveries ,behind many  great  works of art and music ,  literature ...

Furthermore , in his " The brain that changes itself ..." by Norman Doidge (He's a materialist , so, he assumes that the brain changes itself lol , ironically enough, while he reported many cases of people who changed their brains through informed determined trained efforts of their minds like Barbara Arrowsmith Young , the woman who could change her brain  and therefore "fix " and overcome her disabilities  ,thanks to the insights she gleaned from the work of the Russian neuroscientist Luria , through his book " The man with a shattered world " mainly , where  the story was  told of a Russian soldier who was shot in the head and hence suffered from almost the same disabilities Barbara was born with ...Luria's  detailed mapping of those specific  damaged regions  of that soldier's brain and his rigorus work on the subject inspired Barbara to the point that she developed brain exercises that trained her brain to change ,through self-directed neuroplasticity , and therefore  overcome her disabilities ... :

http://www.barbaraarrowsmithyoung.com/  ).

In that above mentioned Doidge's book thus ,  some great neuroscientists who were early pioneers regarding neuroplasticiy, self-directed neuroplasticity ... like Michael Merzenich and Edward Taub did deliver some amazing insights on the subject by proving that when some areas of the brains of some patients are damaged ,and then , they loose the capacity of speech , sight , or even balance, touch .....that  they can be trained as to make the brain replace those damaged areas by other healthy ones : the damaged auditory system can be taken over by the olfactory system ,for example ...(there is an amazing story of a woman who felt that she was always falling .She had no sense of balance .She always fell . From what i can recall from that story is that she underwent some sort of a surgery , earlier on, where a certain drug was prescribed to her that  did cause those nasty side effects by infecting her cochlea and the rest of her auditory system , and then her auditory region in the brain was no longer working , i guess. Merzenich "fixed" that by replacing her  damaged cochlea by a device that relied on her sense of taste through training her to literally hear through her tongue by connecting her tongue to that implanted artificial cochlea,and so ,  her damaged auditory system in the brain were taken over by her olfactory system ...something like that .) , which means that sensory systems can get mixed up with each other , get replaced by each other to deliver the same function if one of them gets damaged ...

The damaged auditory system can be taken over by the olfactory one , or overlap with it, the same goes for other sensory systems  ...that's how i understand synesthesia , i don't know .


https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/557215-the-brain-that-changes-itself-stories-of-personal-triumph-from-the-fron

http://www.normandoidge.com/

But , that's not what i was talking about anyway .

I was just asking you to tell me how one can quantify the subjective information , since materialists assume that they can turn the activity of certain neural correlates of consciousness regarding the speech ability and visual memory.... into their original  words and images .

I see dlorde here above referring me to a certain integrated information theory on the subject the content of which i will have to take a close look at , later one .

I do not see how subjective information can be quantified though , subjective information that 's about meaning , purpose ,easthetics ,ideals , values , morality , ethics ....

How can one quantify the latter ?

Let's dlorde   here try to quantify for us the subjective smell of a flower , the wonder , beauty , ecstacy ....we experience while watching a sunset , while listening to nice music , while watching a breath-taking piece of landscape , while experiencing love , joy , sadness , ....



« Last Edit: 04/11/2014 19:15:22 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
dlorde :

Tesla was a real genius : he predicted, among many other scientific achievements of his ,  that neutrinos traveled  faster than the speed of light , as he believed in the existence of aether through which he tried to explain the laws of physics ,including gravity, and hence disagreed with Einstein. CERN did discover that neutrinos do travel faster than the speed of  light , for example : see this and the related short video here below :

"Classical physics sees the force of gravity as some type of almost magical attractive force between stars and planets. Ether theory has a totally different view. The reason we fall back to the Earth when we jump up is not this mystical force of gravity, but rather it is because the Earth is constantly absorbing a tremendous amount of ether to keep all of its elementary particles spinning. We are just in the way of this influx. This view explains what gravity is, and also explains Tesla's seemingly odd statement that the Sun is absorbing more energy than it is radiating. The more you think about it, the more this seemingly nutty idea makes perfect sense. The Sun requires a gargantuan amount of etheric energy to keep it's integrity.
Scientists at the world's largest physics lab said they have clocked neutrinos travelling faster than light. That's something that according to Einstein's 1905 special theory of relativity -- the famous E (equals) mc2 equation -- just doesn't happen . . .
CERN now reports that they've clocked neutrinos exceeding the speed of light."
:



The Aether Field  Does Exist :

The most famous failed experiment ever : the  Michelson and Morley Interferometer experiment has been replicated by the US air force in 1986 with success ,and published in the prestigious Nature scientific magazine :

That changes everything in physics :


"The Aether Field Exists : Just as it had been predicted !!

Michelson and Morley Interferometer experiment failed due to lack of equipment . US Air Force repeated the experiment in 1986 and discovered that the field actually exists . Not only that, The field measured the same way Michelson and Morley predicted !! Our Science was wrong all along !!!

Checkout for yourself : E.W Silvertooth , " Special Relativity ," Nature Magazine Vol 322 (Augest 1986): p.590 "


How come the standard model does not account for that ?

Extended Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment. English version :

See the extra info below the video :


P.S.: I will take a look at your above displayed links, later on .Thanks .


« Last Edit: 04/11/2014 19:13:12 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: DonQuichotte link=topic=52526.msg443710#msg443710
When you mentioned the synesthesia phenomenon earlier on , i went to look it up again in Ramachandran's " The tell tale brain " book : I have some  books of his , videos , lectures ...
The man is a brilliant  neuroscientist , but , his main problem is that he , like the rest of materialist scientists , reduces everything , including consciousness and its related phenomena and qualia , to just material processes....

I'd argue that he's not a reductionist at. But regardless, it's not a "problem" unless you don't get any kind of a solution at all, or completely unexpected results that can't be explained by your theory. If I can figure out how photosynthesis works without somehow incorporating plate tectonics (or angels or God or the possible consciousness of plants) or into my experimental design, why is it necessary for me to do that? What can I reasonably leave out as not relevant to the specific question I am asking?

Quote
Furthermore , in his " The brain that changes itself ..." by Norman Doidge (He's a materialist , so, he assumes that the brain changes itself , ironically enough, while he reported many cases of people who changed their brains through informed determined trained efforts of their minds like Barbara Arrowsmith Young , the woman who could change her brain  and therefore "fix " and overcome her disabilities  ,thanks to the insights she gleaned from the work of the Russian neuroscientist Luria , through his book " The man with a shattered world " mainly , where  the story was  told of a Russian soldier who was shot in the head suffered from almost same disabilities Barbara was born with ...Luria's  detailed mapping of the damaged regions  of that soldier's brain and his rigorus work on the subject inspired Barbara to the point that she developed brain excercises that trained her brain to change ,through self-directed neuroplasticity , and therefore  overcome her disabilities ...).


I think those events actually make a lot more sense from a neuroscience perspective than one involving immaterial consciousness. If most or even part of the brain is still functioning adequately, and if neuroplasticity happens (eg cells can form new connections with practice) why shouldn't it be possible for the brain to self diagnosis a problem and do things to try to fix itself or compensate for the damaged area. That's essentially what learning is, even in non-damaged brains.

But if consciousness is some indivisible entity that just "is," what mechanism would allow it to fix part of itself? Or - why should it matter what percentage of the brain, or which areas are still functioning, if immaterial consciousness can just jump in there and fix and transform whatever it needs to? That only makes sense from an anatomical/physiological perspective.

The examples you give, about rewiring sensory systems, or one part of the brain compensating for another, actually appear to contradict the argument you are making.






 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
The more you think about it, the more this seemingly nutty idea makes perfect sense.

I think I'm going to have that statement engraved on something. Maybe embroider it on to a wall hanging or a pillow.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
The contention that the human mind can affect matter (unlikely) is quite different from the assertion that all quantum phenomena require consciousness to initiate them (ridiculous).

Actually :

I- It's no secret to any one of us that consciousness can shape or alter the physical reality at will : see how some thoughts or ideas have been changing and revolutionizing science itself, technology , societies , cultures and all the rest of human activity and history : it all starts with ideas in the head , oh lol, or rather in the mind through mutual interactions with the environment via the sensory systems to the brain to the mind and back and more .

How do you think science works ? through the work of our atoms ? lol , through upward deterministic mindless mechanical causation , instead of through that downward non-mechanical causation of the mind that shapes reality and gets influenced by it  through upward causation ?

Do your atoms, molecules , cells , organs, ...make you type what you do through your physical brain , that materialist deterministic mechanical mindless way ?

See how you ,as a human being , a scientist , a lover , and maybe a father ....can shape and alter and get influenced by your environment through your mindful decisions and actions .

II- The double slit experiment , or quantum theory, or just 1 particular interpretation of it , revolutionized our classical or conventional conception of the nature of reality and matter : our reality is just the product of the mutual interactions between consciousness , unconsciousness and their related environment , including the brain and body : the mind or consciousness do intervene actively and proactively in the physical reality by shaping it ,and by getting influenced by it .

Most of what we call the physical reality thus is just a representation or reflection of our minds : that's why Von Neumann , for example, said that the measurement paradox or problem in QM takes place in the ...mind .

And since the whole universe is quantum "mechanical " in the non -Von Neumann sense , where consciousness plays  a central active and proactive role in shaping the physical reality through non-mechanical instantaneous energyless downward causation, and gets influenced by its environment through upward causation , then why should consciousness not be able to alter or shape the physical reality at all levels , including at the macro one ?

Otherwise , how can you account for , let alone explain, the above and all those consciousness -related anomalies , not to mention psi-phenomena , including remote viewing ....

All materialist physiological and psychological "explanations " of the above have been refuted .

Some say that even our bodies are just projections of our minds : the holographic notion of the universe :

Evidence That the Human Body is a Projection of Consciousness :

http://themindunleashed.org/2014/04/proof-human-body-projection-consciousness.html

P.S.: How can the standard model of quantum field theory account for the existence of aether ? The latter that seems to be the most  fundamental field or force of them all , and that seems to be able to explain all what the standard model explains  and also account for and explain what the standard model can neither explain nor account for ? : can explain and account for gravity , electro-magnetism and the rest better than the standard model also...

The eather that seems to underlie all laws of physics ,and seems to permeate everything from the elementary particles of the micro -world  all the way up to the macro-universe  : there is thus no empty space or vacuum , to say the least thus .

The authors of "The secrets of the aether " also assert , through solid maths and physics , some say , i don't know, that are consistent  with what the standard model says , that the the non-material aether field that underlies all the rest has even a huge force that holds the whole universe together .

How could the standard model not account for or detect that huge force or field then ? since it asserts that there are no significant or relevant forces or fields left to be discovered ,and hence it rules out the existence of psi and other consciousness -related anomalies .

« Last Edit: 04/11/2014 20:07:43 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg443713#msg443713 date=1415128281]
Quote from: DonQuichotte link=topic=52526.msg443710#msg443710
When you mentioned the synesthesia phenomenon earlier on , i went to look it up again in Ramachandran's " The tell tale brain " book : I have some  books of his , videos , lectures ...
The man is a brilliant  neuroscientist , but , his main problem is that he , like the rest of materialist scientists , reduces everything , including consciousness and its related phenomena and qualia , to just material processes....

I'd argue that he's not a reductionist at. But regardless, it's not a "problem" unless you don't get any kind of a solution at all, or completely unexpected results that can't be explained by your theory. If I can figure out how photosynthesis works without somehow incorporating plate tectonics (or angels or God or the possible consciousness of plants) or into my experimental design, why is it necessary for me to do that? What can I reasonably leave out as not relevant to the specific question I am asking?


I am talking here only about the many consciousness -related anomalies studies that have proved consciousness to be an irreducible to matter or to material processes phenomenon ,so, don't introduce your usual straw man arguments or red herrings in this discussion , by telling me about photosynthesis ...

And yes, Ramachandran is a reductionist materialist , a deluded one who reduces everything , including consciousness, the mind , memories , ...to just material processes , unfortunately enough , despite his brilliant work from which i have been learning a lot .Too bad for his brilliant mind he has been reducing to just deterministic mechanical mindless material processes, ironically enough .

And yes, consciousness has a downward non-mechanical causation , an instantaneous energyless one (see how even CERN had discovered that even neutrinos can travel faster than the speed of light , by violating Einstein's assumptions on the subject . Why can't consciousness work through entanglement , for example , i mean in the same way entangled particles do or even better ?by a non-mechanical instantaneous energyless action  ) .

Finally , don't mistake the neural correlates of consciousness, the mind and their related qualia, memories ...for the latter , as materialists do , don't mistake your husband for a hat lol


Quote
[
Quote
quote]
Furthermore , in his " The brain that changes itself ..." by Norman Doidge (He's a materialist , so, he assumes that the brain changes itself , ironically enough, while he reported many cases of people who changed their brains through informed determined trained efforts of their minds like Barbara Arrowsmith Young , the woman who could change her brain  and therefore "fix " and overcome her disabilities  ,thanks to the insights she gleaned from the work of the Russian neuroscientist Luria , through his book " The man with a shattered world " mainly , where  the story was  told of a Russian soldier who was shot in the head suffered from almost same disabilities Barbara was born with ...Luria's  detailed mapping of the damaged regions  of that soldier's brain and his rigorus work on the subject inspired Barbara to the point that she developed brain excercises that trained her brain to change ,through self-directed neuroplasticity , and therefore  overcome her disabilities ...).


I think those events actually make a lot more sense from a neuroscience perspective than one involving immaterial consciousness. If most or even part of the brain is still functioning adequately, and if neuroplasticity happens (eg cells can form new connections with practice) why shouldn't it be possible for the brain to self diagnosis a problem and do things to try to fix itself or compensate for the damaged area. That's essentially what learning is, even in non-damaged brains.
[/quote]

How ? through materialist inexplicable deterministic mechanical mindless magic ?

Are you the one who learns ,or do your physical brain and atoms through upward deterministic mechanical mindless causation do the work for you ?

There is what can be called downward causation and upward causation : see my post to alancalverd on the subject .

Quote
But if consciousness is some indivisible entity that just "is," what mechanism would allow it to fix part of itself? Or - why should it matter what percentage of the brain, or which areas are still functioning, if immaterial consciousness can just jump in there and fix and transform whatever it needs to? That only makes sense from an anatomical/physiological perspective.

Don't be illogical or inconsistent incoherent :

Consciousness works through healthy brains ,both ways , through upward and through non-mechanical downward causation (= consciousness shapes its environment , including brain and body , through downward non-mechanical causation ,and gets influenced by its environment through the senses to the brain to the mind via upward causation thus )  and hence can't "flow " or express itself through damaged areas of the brain : it can though make the brain's anatomy or structure and physiology change as to take over the functions of some damaged areas of the brain through mindful informed insights , ideas or knowledge and action through the power of the informed determined will : that explains and accounts for all what the materialist production theory cannot either explain or account for like : meditation, mindfulness, placebo , neurofeedback , the power of belief , and other effects .



Quote
The examples you give, about rewiring sensory systems, or one part of the brain compensating for another, actually appear to contradict the argument you are making.

That's a matter of interpretation or  perspective :

The informed determined mind through the power of the will actions can explain that better in fact , through brain exercises or mental training ,... and actions.

If Barbara Arrowsmith Young was not determined and passionate enough about and if she did not believe in the possibility of overcoming her own disabilities through the informed insights she gleaned from the work of Luria  ,as willingly and actively to try to develop brain or mental exercises  that enabled her to change her brain , do you think that her brain would have done all that by itself , if she was lacking that power of the will and knowledge , that determination, that strong belief in the possibility of healing ...?

Come on, get real, Cheryl : we are no mindless determined powerless mechanical computers , machines or robots driven by upward causation , no hardware driven by software : we have a powerful consciousness that both shapes the physical reality, including brain and body ,via non-mechanical downward causation,  and gets  influenced by that upward causation = our "reality " is mostly mental = a product of the mutual "interactions" between consciousness and its environment , including the physical brain and physical body , where consciousness plays a central downward role in shaping them , and gets influenced by them via upward causation .
« Last Edit: 04/11/2014 20:49:15 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
dlorde, alancalverd :

What do you say about the real and major "hidden variable " whose existence has been discovered and proved as such ? : the aether field .That's a real and major game changer , see above .

There is thus no empty space or vacuum .

CERN had also discovered that there is 'something " that can travel faster than the speed of light , after all : neutrinos , to mention just that .
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
I have to finish that part of his book about synesthesia , later on then .
You might be interested to know that there are two areas of the brain (different levels of sensory processing) where colour processing areas are adjacent to the areas processing numbers; in people with number/colour synesthesia, it has been show that in one or other of these areas there is abnormal activity - i.e. when the number area is active, activity can be detected in the adjacent colour area. In other words, there appears to be abnormal crosstalk between these areas. This is thought to be due to connections between them not being pruned as usual during early development (when the vast connectivity of the early brain is massively pruned down as different areas become more specialised).

Quote
Let's dlorde   here try to quantify for us the subjective smell of a flower , the wonder , beauty , ecstacy ....we experience while watching a sunset , while listening to nice music , while watching a breath-taking piece of landscape , while experiencing love , joy , sadness , ....
Why? how do you think quantifying these sensations is going to help your unsupportable assertions?
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Tesla was a real genius : he predicted, among many other scientific achievements of his ,  that neutrinos traveled  faster than the speed of light , as he believed in the existence of aether through which he tried to explain the laws of physics ,including gravity, and hence disagreed with Einstein. CERN did discover that neutrinos do travel faster than the speed of  light , for example : see this and the related short video here below ...
Tesla didn't say that, and if he did think some known particle travelled FTL, he was wrong. There was some brief excitement three years ago when an experiment measured faster than light neutrino speed - the researchers appealed for help to discover the reason for this, and after 6 months of thorough investigation and testing, two equipment flaws were found. Meanwhile, an independent measurement showed neutrinos behaving as expected. You could have discovered this for yourself just by reading the Wikipedia article, but you couldn't even do that minimal research.

If you have any sensible questions about what I've posted up to now, I'll consider them; if you want to make a coherent argument, make it and I'll consider it. Apart from that, I've had my fill of your lazy assertions and careless links.
« Last Edit: 04/11/2014 23:58:35 by dlorde »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4723
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile

CERN had also discovered that there is 'something " that can travel faster than the speed of light , after all : neutrinos , to mention just that .

It turned out, as I suggested, to be a faulty wiring connection. Boring engineering, not bombshell physics.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4723
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile

II- The double slit experiment , or quantum theory, or just 1 particular interpretation of it , revolutionized our classical or conventional conception of the nature of reality and matter


Less of the "our" if you please. Some of us had a proper scientific education and were brought up knowing that quantum mechanics degenerates to classical mechanics on a large scale, but classical mechanics doesn't turn into quantum mechanics on a small scale. So what? It may have been news 100 years ago, but it's elementary school stuff nowadays, and far from "revolutionising" anything, it merely explained a number of puzzling observations.

I've never understood why philosophers get so excited about old ideas, such as quantum mechanics and relativity, that educated people take for granted.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
New Scientist : Time to Turn Cause and Effect on their Heads :  :

The reductionist ideas about causality that pervade science misrepresent the way things happen in the real world, argues physicist George Ellis :

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21929300.400-time-to-turn-cause-and-effect-on-their-heads.html?full=true#.VFpxsWfvZ-w
« Last Edit: 05/11/2014 18:56:14 by DonQuichotte »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

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