The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Major Bombshell : Manifesto For A Post-Materialistic Science :  (Read 187980 times)

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • 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
Yes, top-down causation is a very useful way to view the influence of large-scale or emergent effects on the smaller scales in many systems. It can often radically simplify analysis compared to bottom-up approaches. They are complementary views; you choose according to the context. So what?

I hope you don't think the article is somehow questioning causality itself, because it isn't; you'll need to learn a lot more about quantum mechanics before you can get involved in that debate.
« Last Edit: 05/11/2014 22:19:06 by dlorde »
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • 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).



He goes a step further and explains that just as cross activation in the angular gyrus may be responsible for the sensory experiences like synesthsia, cross activation between other brain areas may be the mechanism behind analogy and metaphors, how we can understand qualitative similarities between very different objects or events.  The ability to understand metaphor can be selectively lost in certain neurological disorders, even though other things like memory or vocabulary remain intact, and people become very literal minded. Even if you tell them something is a proverb or saying, they can only give you a literal interpretation of something like "All that glitters is not gold" or "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."
Ramachandran sees cross activation as a mechanism behind other kinds of imagination and creativity, which Don claims cannot happen in a deterministic brain. Excessive and uncontrolled cross activation might be the cause of bizarre associations in disorders like schizophrenia.
« Last Edit: 06/11/2014 17:57:29 by cheryl j »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg443775#msg443775 date=1415225848]
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
Yes, top-down causation is a very useful way to view the influence of large-scale or emergent effects on the smaller scales in many systems. It can often radically simplify analysis compared to bottom-up approaches. They are complementary views; you choose according to the context. So what?

Well,mainstream materialist science says there is only upward causation, so, materialist science has been delivering a distorted version of the real world (an understatement thus )  : that's what that article is all about .

Quote
I hope you don't think the article is somehow questioning causality itself, because it isn't; you'll need to learn a lot more about quantum mechanics before you can get involved in that debate.

Ho, ho , hold your wild horses , cowboy :

0- I have just brought that article up , in order to show you that even a mainstream materialist scientist does talk about his  own materialist version of top-down causation, since mainstream materialist science says there is only upward causation .

Since there is what can be called top-down causation, after all (we don't need that scientist to know that fact ) , why not assume that consciousness must be the one that's been responsible for that top-down causation  mainly and not the brain , since the materialist theory or model of consciousness is false ?

Not to mention that complex systems do indeed have another kind of top-down causation in relation to their sub-systems indeed ,so, why can consciousness not have a top-down causation in relation to its physical environment , including brain and body ?

I-It never crossed my mind that causality could be questioned (how can science exist , let alone function ,without causation ? ) : i did talk about upward and downward or top-down causation , in my previous posts , didn't i ? The top-down causation i was referring to was quite different from that of the above mentioned article though indeed .

II- There is also what can be called non-mechanical causation , that of consciousness that's a non-physical process thus ,which means that the materialist production theory regarding mind and brain that's just an extension of materialism is thus also false , since materialism is false .

III- The materialist interpretation of quantum theory and the materialist standard model of quantum field theory ,regarding the nature of reality are in fact approximately correct and fundamentally false , since materialism is false , thanks to all those consciousness -related anomalies .
Not to mention the fact that some physicists even say that there is what can be called the most fundamental field of them all : aether which is a non-material field .

P.S.: Even your beloved Caroll says in one of his videos that it is an embarrassment to science that physicists still can't resolve that interpretation or measurement paradox in QM , while you have been making it sound , together with our alancalverd , that the interpretation dilemma or paradox of quantum theory was already solved.






 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
dlorde : See the following : What i call voodoo materialism : magical materialism or materialist new age lol ;


An integration of integrated information theory with fundamental physics :

Adam B. Barrett .

    Sackler Centre for Consciousness Science, Department of Informatics, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK

http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00063/full

Adam B.Barrett tries here to explain what he calls his own reformulation or "improvement " of that integrated information theory regarding the origin nature and function of consciousness you referred to , earlier on , in the sense that consciousness as information  is just a property of matter : property materialism , or rather property dualism like that of David Chalmers,a kindda materialist panpsychism : materialism desperately flirting with dualism, ironically enough .

I thought that materialism says that all is matter ,including the mind .Now, materialists say there is also what can be called information that's just a property of matter that originates from the physical fundamental fields such as electromagnetism : all power plants must be not only conscious , but , conscious exactly like us lol .

Consciousness arises thus from the so-called intrinsic information of the fundamental physical fields , such as  electromagnetism or gravity , from fundamental energy fields : a kindda materialist version of new age lol .

What about the most fundamental field of them all : the aether field that's non -material then ?

The materialist theory or model of consciousness is false , so, materialists cannot but try to come up with such extraordinary or ridiculous or highly speculative theories or models that would fit into materialism, instead of confronting the evidence regarding the intrinsic false nature of materialism : pathetic , not to say tragic-hilarious .



« Last Edit: 06/11/2014 18:41:44 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4726
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Can you name a nonmaterial object that is provably conscious?

Quote
Even your beloved Caroll says in one of his videos that it is an embarrassment to science that physicists still can't resolve that interpretation or measurement paradox in QM , while you have been making it sound , together with our alancalverd , that the interpretation dilemma or paradox of quantum theory was already solved.

The so-called "paradox" lies not in nature, which behaves consistently, but only in the fact that we use two different mathematical models to predict what it will do. It isn't a paradox at all, just a statement that neither model is complete. So what? Both are good enough, which is the best you can say of any model. I have no idea what you are going to eat at your next meal, but I am pretty sure that you will eat, and it will contain either meat or vegetable protein. Paradox, or just a statement that I don't know your food preferences? 
« Last Edit: 06/11/2014 19:04:54 by alancalverd »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • 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).



He goes a step further and explains that just as cross activation in the angular gyrus may be responsible for the sensory experiences like synesthsia, cross activation between other brain areas may be the mechanism behind analogy and metaphors, how we can understand qualitative similarities between very different objects or events.  The ability to understand metaphor can be selectively lost in certain neurological disorders, even though other things like memory or vocabulary remain intact, and people become very literal minded. Even if you tell them something is a proverb or saying, they can only give you a literal interpretation of something like "All that glitters is not gold" or "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."
Ramachandran sees cross activation as a mechanism behind other kinds of imagination and creativity, which Don claims cannot happen in a deterministic brain. Excessive and uncontrolled cross activation might be the cause of bizarre associations in disorders like schizophrenia.

I have read that part,some of it at least  : cross-activation ,instead of cross-wiring of the related neural correlates in question .

If you only  , once , just once , would try to look at all the above from the non-materialist perspective , in the sense that consciousness , the mind and their related subjective inner lives and experiences , creativity ...are non-physical processes that rely on their related physical neural correlates , you would see all that from a totally different perspective or angle  , since the materialist theory or model of consciousness is false , thanks mainly to all those consciousness -related phenomena , but , if you prefer to stick to the materialist false theory of consciousness , no wonder that you would agree with  Ramachandran's interpretations on the subject .

Well, as a reductionist materialist neuroscientist , Ramachandran  cannot but reduce consciousness, the mind, memory , synesthesia , creativity , imagination, metaphors, intelligence , aesthetics , the subject inner life in general , and the rest  ...to just neurophysiological processes , that does not mean that he's right : don't take his word for it : that's a matter of interpretation .
That's an argument from authority , sis .You mistake Ramachandran's interpretations for the real thing : you just take his word for it : use your mind then : don't mistake consciousness, the mind and their related processes for their related neural correlates : don't mistake the tree for the forest , so to speak .

How can neurophysiological processes account for all that ? Absurd .

Once again, consciousness or the mind and their related subjective inner lives or experiences , creativity , intelligence , aesthetics , imagination , meaning ....do work through the brain as their physical medium, both ways : they need a healthy physical brain to do that , so, if some related areas  of the brain or if some related neural correlates are damaged , are not functioning properly ....their consciousness , mind ...correlates can't but express themselves accordignly , since they rely on the brain , that does not mean that creativity, intelligence , mental illnesses , metaphors ...are products of the brain : see the difference ?

Otherwise , just tell me , for example, how that deterministic mechanical upward causation from your elementary particles , all the way to your physical brain, through your molecules, cells , organs ....and  how that deterministic mechanical top-down causation about which the above mentioned article from New Scientist talked , how that mechanical top-down causation and mechanical upward causation make you do what you do, type what you do , how do they generate your thoughts , emotions, intelligence , creativity , .....on your behalf ? , without you having any say or choice in the matter , as if you were some sort of a mindless determined mechanical mindless machine, computer or robot .

When you are driving your car , for example , and suddenly you wanna take a turn ,due to this reason or that , what makes you do that ? : just your sub-atomic particles through through the laws of physics all the way up to your brain  ,and back to your hands from your brain through that mechanical determined top-down causation ? The latter that is powered all the way from that so-called intrinsic information of those fundamental physical fields that allegedly do generate your consciousness , via some inexplicable voodoo magic ?

What kindda consciousness is that then anyway ? = a "consciousness" that's just a property of the determined matter ,and that poriginates , allegedly , from the intrinsic information of those physical fundamental fields   such as electromagnetism ? = a determined "consciousness " is no consciousness = a paradox .

Well, since the brain is governed by electromagnetism ...then, your consciousness originates from those physical fundamental fields such as electromagnetism ...= bullshit = materialist bullshit = materialist flirting with dualism and new age = materialist voodoo .

Where is your so-called free will then, for example, without which you can't think , feel , behave , ...consciously : how can electromagnetism create consciousness ? = all power plants ,and all machines that rely on electricity ...must be conscious then, and exactly like the way we are at that , that is : your microwave , tv set , pc , car , refrigerator , ....are conscious thus , and exactly the way you are lol .

This is materialist madness - materialist desperate attempts to rescue their refuted determinism that was replaced by the probabilistic universe , thanks to quantum physics .The latter that has been encountering consciousness all along , ironically enough , consciousness that acts through non-mechanical   causation, that is .

Think about that .




 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Can you name a nonmaterial object that is provably conscious?

Quote
Even your beloved Caroll says in one of his videos that it is an embarrassment to science that physicists still can't resolve that interpretation or measurement paradox in QM , while you have been making it sound , together with our alancalverd , that the interpretation dilemma or paradox of quantum theory was already solved.

The so-called "paradox" lies not in nature, which behaves consistently, but only in the fact that we use two different mathematical models to predict what it will do. It isn't a paradox at all, just a statement that neither model is complete. So what? Both are good enough, which is the best you can say of any model. I have no idea what you are going to eat at your next meal, but I am pretty sure that you will eat, and it will contain either meat or vegetable protein. Paradox, or just a statement that I don't know your food preferences?

Oh, please : Don't try to walk your way around the problem by denying its very existence that has been acknowledged and recognized as such by almost all physicists , the materialist and the non-materialist ones alike :

Stop hiding that skeleton in the closet ,as many physicists do .

Don't shut up and calculate , try to see the far -reaching implications of quantum theory that go way beyond physics to encompass the very nature of the universe itself , including that of yourself, as a human being .

 Even Sean Caroll was honest enough as to admit that fact , by saying that it is an embarrassment to science that the measurement paradox or problem, or the interpretation dilemma of quantum theory has not be solved yet , even though quantum theory is relatively so old now :

Caroll even added that it's pretty ironical that since quantum theory is all about the nature of reality , what can be more important than the nature of reality in science , but , nevertheless , the interpretation paradox of quantum theory has not been solved yet = a paradox = the paradox of the paradox .

In short :

You can't solve the problem by sweeping it under the carpet , by hiding it in your closet or by denying its very existence as such , simply because the far -reaching implications of that problem regarding the very nature of  the universe , of ourselves , including what it means to be a human ,and much more ,  won't go away by themselves : they are way too fundamental and too important to be ignored , denied as such , or set aside : they will continue screaming for a solution, no matter what you would do or say on the subject .

Ironically enough , science is all about trying to explore the nature of the universe , or the nature of reality , through free inquiry , while the most important and successful theory of them all ever ,quantum theory , which is all about the nature of reality has not been solved yet . Isn't that an odd embarrassment to science , to say the least ?

For my part , i stick to the interpretation of quantum theory that's been delivered by Von Neumann school , by all founders of quantum theory , as well as by many other prominent physicists , yesterday and today : that particular interpretation of quantum theory is way more plausible than the rest , and no materialist "hidden variable , decoherence ...theory " desperate attempts to rescue determinism and its materialism will be able to challenge that , on the contrary .
« Last Edit: 06/11/2014 19:57:15 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
In other words :

In total contrast with that materialist voodoo or materialist magical new age , in the form of that so-called integrated information theory , i presume and assume that there might  be what can be called the most fundamental field of them all that has been underlying all laws ,forces and fields of physics , including electromagnetism, gravity , relativity and the rest , that most fundamental field of them all might be ...consciousness, the non -physical and non-local one at that , that is , through probably ...the aether non-material field .

That's way more plausible than that materialist voodoo , in the sense that consciousness allegedly arises from the so-called intrinsic information of the fundamental physical fields such as electromagnetism ... consciousness as just a property of matter bullshit lol

Bye bye materialist so-called standard model of quantum field theory that's highly likely approximately correct and fundamentally ...false , like the classical deterministic  mechanical Newtonian physics were /are .

Time for a new and revolutionary theory , for a new and revolutionary physics , that would have to integrate the non-physical aether field or the non-physical and non-local consciousness as its most fundamental underlying fields that might underlie all laws , forces and fields of physics, including electromagnetism, gravity and the rest   : physics will never be the same again , will not even be called physics , ironically enough .

Physics will be opening its wide doors to a universe or reality way beyond physics .

All sciences in fact , all human knowledge , activity and more will never be the same again .

Awesome ,mind -blowing and breath-taking ...., beyond imagination , that would be , an understatement , you have no idea .

« Last Edit: 06/11/2014 20:21:36 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline cheryl j

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


0- I have just brought that article up , in order to show you that even a mainstream materialist scientist does talk about his  own materialist version of top-down causation, since mainstream materialist science says there is only upward causation .


Wow, you really do have a poor memory. Both dlorde and I have talked extensively about top down control in the past. Go back and re-read the 70 pages in the What on Earth is Consciousness thread.

Not all materialists/Naturalists are reductionists, and there is no contradiction in the idea of the whole constraining the parts. Feed back loops are a prime mechanism for this and rife in biology. 

Top down control in the brain is already known to function in decision making processes.  There is a wealth of two way tracts, up and down communication in the brain, and I am not referring to sensory/motor tracts in the nervous system, but those involved in the processing of information in the brain.
Complex information that is represented at higher stages of processing influences - changes the outcome - the processes occurring at antecedent stages.

 "The role of top-down influences is then to set the cortex in a specific working mode according to behavioral requirements that are updated dynamically. In effect, these ideas reverse the central dogma of sensory processing, with a flow of information from higher- to lower-order cortical areas playing a role equal in importance to the feedforward pathways. The construction of a subjective percept involves making the best sense of sensory inputs based on a set of hypotheses or constraints derived by prior knowledge and contextual influences. Conversely, the top-down expectations and hypotheses are set by feedforward information, the sensory evidence. Under this view, there is no starting point for information flow.” (Gilbert and Sigman, journal Neuron)


Quote

Since there is what can be called top-down causation, after all (we don't need that scientist to know that fact ) , why not assume that consciousness must be the one that's been responsible for that top-down causation  mainly and not the brain , since the materialist theory or model of consciousness is false ?

Not necessarily. As the author points out, there is no place in the loop you can point to and say, the stimulus is here, the response is there. There is no point in the flow of information that you can designate as the cause or the effect. What's already going on in the brain changes what it pays attention to, what it ignores, how it perceives, and processes information, and makes certain responses somewhat more likely than others. What's already going on the brain is the result of expectations, hypotheses based on past experience, as well as emotions/body state etc.

  It doesn't require any immaterial kick start.
« Last Edit: 07/11/2014 03:50:12 by cheryl j »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Well,mainstream materialist science says there is only upward causation...
No, it doesn't. As the article points out, top-down causation has always been around in the sciences of systems, particularly emergent systems, - biological, environmental, geological, cosmological, sociological, meterological, physical, and more. Bottom-up causality finds more utility in explaining function in closed systems, constrained contexts, narrow scales & scopes, or limited levels of abstraction. Top-down causality is more useful in explaining the influence of systems on their constituents, involving open systems, broad contexts, multiple levels of abstraction, emergence, feedback, etc. Top-down causality is an emergent feature of bottom-up causality.

The popular and media emphasis has tended to be on bottom-up causality because applying the scientific method at lab scales encourages focus on it, by involving simplification, contextual isolation, the removal of extraneous influences, limiting scales, scopes and levels of abstraction, etc. This has led to a  public sense that the larger scale systems sciences are somehow less scientific because those criteria are less obviously evident (e.g. they may come at the data analysis stage).

Quote
... why not assume that consciousness must be the one that's been responsible for that top-down causation  mainly and not the brain... ?
Because it's not relevant. Whether you have a dualist or monist view, top-down causation is important to understand how the system operates. The dualist view makes it impossible to explain with either bottom-up or top-down causality because of the interaction 'firewall'. The monist view allows bottom-up and top-down causality viewpoints to cross over around the neural network level, the interface between neuroscience and behavioural science.

Quote
I-It never crossed my mind that causality could be questioned (how can science exist , let alone function ,without causation ? )
I'll leave you to google it. There's a whole band-wagon of woosters who think acausality is just what they need to prove their pet theory is right - you'll fit right in.

Quote
There is also what can be called non-mechanical causation , that of consciousness that's a non-physical process.
There's no such thing.

Quote
P.S.: Even your beloved Caroll says in one of his videos that it is an embarrassment to science that physicists still can't resolve that interpretation or measurement paradox in QM , while you have been making it sound , together with our alancalverd , that the interpretation dilemma or paradox of quantum theory was already solved.
Not at all - you haven't been listening. I always make a point of explaining that there are multiple interpretations of QM, including the null option, 'shut up and calculate'. The theory itself is solid though.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Physics will be opening its wide doors to a universe or reality way beyond physics .

All sciences in fact , all human knowledge , activity and more will never be the same again .

Awesome ,mind -blowing and breath-taking ...., beyond imagination , that would be , an understatement , you have no idea .

Gosh,  the physics of a reality way beyond physics; that makes sense (not).

I can't wait... don't forget to let us know when you've got something useful to show us  ::)
« Last Edit: 06/11/2014 22:53:15 by dlorde »
 

Offline cheryl j

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


If you only  , once , just once , would try to look at all the above from the non-materialist perspective , in the sense that consciousness , the mind and their related subjective inner lives and experiences , creativity ...are non-physical processes that rely on their related physical neural correlates , you would see all that from a totally different perspective or angle  , since the materialist theory or model of consciousness is false , thanks mainly to all those consciousness -related phenomena , but , if you prefer to stick to the materialist false theory of consciousness , no wonder that you would agree with  Ramachandran's interpretations on the subject .


It's not about "sticking" to something, or a preferring it, as in wanting it to be true. And believe me, I really have to tried to view it from your perspective, if only because you seem so totally convinced of it, that I feel compelled to try to figure out why you do.

There's just this huge gaping lack of an explanation for how your immaterial "thing" operates or acts causally, which I find completely pointless, as well as the fact that it adds no insight into any particular detail about consciousness experience or human behavior.

Do you understand what I mean by that? Your immaterial theory doesn't tell me anything specific about perception, optical illusions, hallucinations. It doesn't explain anything about memory or why memories fade, or false memories. It doesn't tell me anything about the origin or acquisition of language.  It doesn't tell me anything about the developmental stages of babies. It has nothing to say about attention, why or how we manage to ignore extraneous information, and focus on certain things. It tells me nothing about the reasons for addictions or compulsive behavior, autism or dementia. It tells me nothing about how we sense the passage of time or make judgements about spacial relationships. It tells me nothing about how or why our mental experience or ability is different from other animals. I could go on and on - there are thousands of interesting questions about mental activity, and your theory contributes absolutely nothing concrete or specific to their answers. With your model, all mental activity just inexplicably "happens" in some vague, undetectable way.

Secondly, your dismissal of neural correlates to consciousness as some kind of irrelevant coincidence or epiphenomenon stretches credibility, in my eyes. It's like claiming that the changes in my muscles when I take up weight lifting has nothing to do at all with my increase in strength; the sliding of actin and myosin filaments isn't really contracting the muscles, it just coincidentally happens at the same time, a "by product" of the process.
 
This month's issue of Scientific American has an article about the effect of meditation on plasticity in the brain, brain mass, and conscious experience. But their findings make no sense with your interpretation. If meditation is just an action of immaterial conscious will, why would it need to cause physical changes in the brain in order to facilitate other changes in immaterial, conscious will? Do you see how that interpretation makes absolutely no sense?




« Last Edit: 07/11/2014 05:58:12 by cheryl j »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4726
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile

Don't shut up and calculate , try to see the far -reaching implications of quantum theory that go way beyond physics to encompass the very nature of the universe itself , including that of yourself, as a human being .



Exactly. That's what physics is about - how everything works and what it is made of. So far, we haven't seen anything that isn't made of material stuff, and doesn't work the same way as everything else.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
"The End of Materialism ...." By Charles T.Tart :


Wake up, guys : materialism is false , and must be thus kicked out of science :


http://blog.paradigm-sys.com/about-dr-tart/the-end-of-materialism/
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
"The End of Materialism ...." By Charles T.Tart :Wake up, guys : materialism is false , and must be thus kicked out of science : http://blog.paradigm-sys.com/about-dr-tart/the-end-of-materialism/
Unsupported assertion and a link plugging some Tart's book are of no value or interest whatsoever.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg443826#msg443826 date=1415337327]


If you only  , once , just once , would try to look at all the above from the non-materialist perspective , in the sense that consciousness , the mind and their related subjective inner lives and experiences , creativity ...are non-physical processes that rely on their related physical neural correlates , you would see all that from a totally different perspective or angle  , since the materialist theory or model of consciousness is false , thanks mainly to all those consciousness -related phenomena , but , if you prefer to stick to the materialist false theory of consciousness , no wonder that you would agree with  Ramachandran's interpretations on the subject .


It's not about "sticking" to something, or a preferring it, as in wanting it to be true. And believe me, I really have to tried to view it from your perspective, if only because you seem so totally convinced of it, that I feel compelled to try to figure out why you do.

Well, good to know that you can think outside of the materialist key hole box .
But, fact is , you have been assuming , like all materialists have been doing , that materialism was / is "true", or that materialism is 'scientific "  , while there is no such a thing in science ,as the truth , science that's not about the truth either , not to mention that materialism is just a world view , a belief = unscientific ,per definition , like all beliefs are by the way , but, not all beliefs are necessarily false , as materialism most certainly is without a shadow of a doubt, that is  , once again .

You have been starting from a false premise , that materialism , or the materialist theory of the nature of reality, and all its extensions , including the materialist theory or model of consciousness are "true " .

Science is not about any world view or belief such as materialism , even though science has been materialist = has been basically based on the false  materialist 19th century ideology ,secular religion , philosophy , conception of nature  ...as a response to the supremacy and absolute authority of the medieval church .

Science is all about methodology , epistemology and free inquiry .Science that's all about dispelling and refuting all those dogmas and falsehood such as those of materialism, ironically enough .

How can electromagnetism or the rest of neurophysiology account for or produce , let alone explain consciousness, the mind and their related anomalies and processes ? ????

All those materialist computational or other materialist theories on the subject are too magical and too unscientific to be taken seriously .

Consciousness itself, the mind and their related processes and anomalies are evidence enough for the falsehood of materialism ,so, when science encounters or stumbles upon anomalies like that , it has to question its prevailing wisdom of the moment or meta/ paradigms .

As a non-westerner , i don't really need that to reject materialism a -priori , i must add , since materialism has been just an Eurocentric world view ( NOT universal, not even remotely close thus ) , philosophy , conception of nature , ideology ...that was built upon the approximately correct and fundamentally false deterministic mechanical classical Newtonian world view .The latter that has been superseded by quantum theory .

The problem is all yours , as westerners , who have been taking materialism for granted as science or as the scientific world view , for relatively so long now , without question, not to mention that it is the problem also of all those non-westerners who have been doing the same  .

You have thus to try to undo that materialist brainwash , conditioning or indoctrination .

I know it's hard to undo just that , but , you can try at least .

Quote
There's just this huge gaping lack of an explanation for how your immaterial "thing" operates or acts causally, which I find completely pointless, as well as the fact that it adds no insight into any particular detail about consciousness experience or human behavior.

(PEAR and many non-materialist scientists have been developing models of consciousness, remember ) .

When Planck stumbled upon that anomaly of his (just an analogy ) that paved the way to the birth of QM , he did not sit back and argue like you have just did here above . He tried to explain that anomaly ,and he had no choice but to reject that classical Newtonian world view as a result .

Once again , materialism is false , mainly because it cannot account for consciousness , so, the nature of reality is not  exclusively material, and hence  the whole universe cannot be explained just by material processes .

At the other hand , quantum theory , or just 1 particular interpretation of it , says that consciousness as a non-physical process shapes its environment , including the physical brain and body , through instantaneous energyless action ,and that our "reality " is mostly a mental construct = the product of the mutual "interactions " between consciousness and its environment = our "reality " is psycho-physical = mind and matter are inseparable = the observer is inseparable from the observed = whenever we try to observe or look at the objective reality , we sort of change it via our minds = consciousness and the mind are the key components or key "building blocks " of the universe , so , the physical brain and body + the rest of their environment are shaped by consciousness and the mind , mostly thus .

In short :

What we mistake for the objective reality is mostly a mental construct, despite the objective side of the latter without which there could be no science , knowledge in general , let alone survival or progress of our species ...

Quote
Do you understand what I mean by that? Your immaterial theory doesn't tell me anything specific about perception, optical illusions, hallucinations. It doesn't explain anything about memory or why memories fade, or false memories. It doesn't tell me anything about the origin or acquisition of language.  It doesn't tell me anything about the developmental stages of babies. It has nothing to say about attention, why or how we manage to ignore extraneous information, and focus on certain things. It tells me nothing about the reasons for addictions or compulsive behavior, autism or dementia. It tells me nothing about how we sense the passage of time or make judgements about spacial relationships. It tells me nothing about how or why our mental experience or ability is different from other animals. I could go on and on - there are thousands of interesting questions about mental activity, and your theory contributes absolutely nothing concrete or specific to their answers. With your model, all mental activity just inexplicably "happens" in some vague, undetectable way.

That's not my theory , but a hard fact you have to try to deal with .

PEAR and many non-materialist scientists have been developing models of consciousness , remember .

Why do you think that the non-physical and non-local nature of consciousness, the mind and their related processes can't tell us anything about the above ? What makes you say that ?

On the contrary , acknowledging the real non-physical and non-local nature of those processes would put science and humanity on the right path to try to explain our very human nature and that of the universe .

We can integrate all what science has been telling us about our physical side , including brain and body , and about the physical reality in general , with the non-physical non-local nature of consciousness, the mind and their related processes , in such ways as to try to understand them better .

And since the physical brain  is just a medium for consciousness, the mind and their related processes , both ways , that would account for and try to explain all those consciousness -related anomalies and much more .

And the fact that consciousness and the mind are non-physical and non-local does not mean we should discard studying the brain, body and the rest of the physical environment,needless to add  .

We are both physical and mental  or spiritual beings , so .

We depend on our physical environment thus , including the physical brain and body , so, whatever knowledge , insights ...we would gather about the physical reality ,that can tell us a lot about ourselves and this universe , improve our lives ,societies and much more , needless to add , but , reducing all that to just material processes is a far-reaching and devastating distortion of our reality ,since science should try to tell us about the nature of ourselves and this universe with which we interact , in order to understand ourselves and the universe we inhabit , otherwise , science would just be delivering approximately correct and fundamentally false knowledge about all that ,and hence loose its credibility and reliability as a valid source of knowledge .

Quote
Secondly, your dismissal of neural correlates to consciousness as some kind of irrelevant coincidence or epiphenomenon stretches credibility, in my eyes. It's like claiming that the changes in my muscles when I take up weight lifting has nothing to do at all with my increase in strength; the sliding of actin and myosin filaments isn't really contracting the muscles, it just coincidentally happens at the same time, a "by product" of the process.
 
Who said that ? See above .
The scientific knowledge regarding how the physical brain , body and the rest of the physical reality , not to mention regarding nature and the rest of the universe ,work  is a great achievement for humanity and an important part of understanding ourselves and this universe , but , to reduce all the latter to just material processes is not only false , but also an unscientific thing to do , to say the least thus .


Quote
This month's issue of Scientific American has an article about the effect of meditation on plasticity in the brain, brain mass, and conscious experience. But their findings make no sense with your interpretation. If meditation is just an action of immaterial conscious will, why would it need to cause physical changes in the brain in order to facilitate other changes in immaterial, conscious will? Do you see how that interpretation makes absolutely no sense?

The brain does not change itself through brain exercises (who's doing that ? , the brain or you ? ) , neurofeedback, palcebo/ nocebo effects , meditation, learning , activity , mindfulness, beliefs  ....you do , through your conscious will that shapes your brain and body , not the other way around .

Not to mention the role of the unconscious as well in all that ,and that of the laws of physics in general .

It's materialism that makes no sense , to say the least...

The fact that we have a limited perception , that we are easily deceived by our perception through our senses , the existence of optical illusions, hallucinations, mental illnesses , the effects of meditation , learning and the rest  on our brains and bodies ...can be better explained by assuming that your consciousness, unconsciousness , the mind , the physical brain through the laws of physics , get shaped by their mutual interactions with each other and with the rest of their environment .

That's a whole system , so, when some parts of it get affected  , altered ...the whole system suffers accordingly , if the system can't cope with that through adaptation ...or due to irreversible damage ...

So, all parts of the system must be studied scientifically , the physical and the non-physical ones alike , in a holistic synthetical way , not through reductionism that reduces everything to just material processes .

Inter-disciplinary feedbacks and studies from all sciences must deliver a holistic synthesis , and materialist reductionism must be expelled from science , as scientists must stop assuming that psychology is just applied biology , biology is just applied chemistry , and chemistry is just applied physics ...

http://www.opensciences.org/
« Last Edit: 07/11/2014 20:18:47 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

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

You're lousy readers of that New Scientist''s article :

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21929300.400-time-to-turn-cause-and-effect-on-their-heads.html?full=true#.VF0v-WfvZ-y

Maybe , you haven't even read that article .I don't know .

Well, if Mohammed can't go to the mountain, the mountain will have to come to Mohammed :

Quote :

"The reductionist ideas about causality that pervade science misrepresent the way things happen in the real world.

LOOK at the complex world around you. There's a basic assumption that the things you see – be it humans, computers or trees – can ultimately be boiled down to the behaviour of the particles they are composed of. Biology is determined by chemistry, which is in turn governed by the underlying physics. Much of modern science is rooted in this bottom-up, reductionist view of cause and effect, which has been an excellent way of explaining many phenomena. But can all things be understood just by looking at their constituent parts?.

Consider a computer. You want to type a document, so you press the keys to give the sequence of letters "I love this machine because it is so obedient". Electrons in the transistors in the central processing unit obligingly flow in such a way as to make these letters appear on the screen. The underlying physics – governed by the Schrödinger equation for electrons and Maxwell's equations for the electromagnetic field – doesn't control what happens. On the contrary, the physics obligingly does your bidding by making electrons flow to the screen in precisely the right way to achieve your desired outcome. That's top-down causation from your brain to the fingers that press the keys, then down to the level of electrons flowing in the processor and onwards to the screen.


And what about the way that social influences act on the brain? If you are brought up in an English-language environment, for example, society shapes your neural connections in such a way as to let you think in English. This is the result of top-down causation from the social environment to the synaptic connections in your brain.

Physicists don't usually think in terms of top-down causation, as they tend to assume that everything flows from micro to macro scales, but neuroscientists must in order to make sense of brain processes such as vision. As Chris Frith explains in his book Making Up the Mind, what we see is determined by what our brains predict we ought to see, rather than simply by the signals reaching our brain from the retina.

Indeed, this kind of causation is all around when you look for it. For example, it's a central feature of Darwinian evolution. The brown bear, Ursus arctos, is brown because it lives in Canadian forests. The specific sequences in its genes have been selected through evolution so that brown fur will be the outcome of developmental processes. Its polar cousin Ursus maritimus has different sequences in its genes that give it white fur, which is better for survival in the Arctic. The environment is a key feature influencing genetic structure. It obviously makes sense to label this a top-down effect. The gene sequence didn't make the polar environment white – the flow of causation went the other way.

Indeed, this kind of causation is all around when you look for it. For example, it's a central feature of Darwinian evolution. The brown bear, Ursus arctos, is brown because it lives in Canadian forests. The specific sequences in its genes have been selected through evolution so that brown fur will be the outcome of developmental processes. Its polar cousin Ursus maritimus has different sequences in its genes that give it white fur, which is better for survival in the Arctic. The environment is a key feature influencing genetic structure. It obviously makes sense to label this a top-down effect. The gene sequence didn't make the polar environment white – the flow of causation went the other way.


I first became aware of top-down causation through the work of Dennis Sciama, a key figure in modern cosmology, who outlined how cosmology influences local physical laws. My ideas developed through conversations with biochemists and philosophers, and since then it has become clear to me how ubiquitous and important top-down causation is. It is also a counter to strong reductionist ideas, which I believe misrepresent the way causation works in the real world. As scientists focus more on the emergence of complexity, taking this into account will become increasingly important.



Top-down causation provides a foundation for genuine emergence, where complex systems with new kinds of behaviour emerge from combinations of simple ones. It also underlies how entities such as computers and brains can have causal power in their own right, despite being made up of transistors or neurons, themselves made of molecules comprised of protons, neutrons and electrons. When my muscles do what I want them to do, it is because signals from my brain have genuine causal powers: they coordinate the way electrons move in my muscles.


However, many reductionists say that in the end, this is nothing but disguised bottom-up effects, because the physics at the bottom is causally closed: there is nothing but interactions between particles such as protons and electrons at that level, leaving no room for any other causal effect and no causal slack to allow top-down effects to take place.


This is mistaken. Firstly, it omits the crucial way in which a higher-level structure channels lower-level interactions. Paradoxically, when the wiring in a computer constrains the motion of electrons, this creates new possibilities that do not exist when the electron flow is unconstrained, as in a charged plasma. Such constraints underlie emergence of higher-level computational capacities. What then occurs depends on what software is loaded into the computer. The physics makes things happen, but the context determines what will happen.


Secondly, such critics are thinking in terms of the billiard-ball model that was so successful in the kinetic theory of gases: unchanging lower-level entities with fixed behaviour interact with each other through deterministic laws, and so determine higher-level behaviour. The pressure of the gas results from the motion of molecules, for instance. But that's not what happens in biology, or in quantum physics. The lower-level entities are not unchanging: context affects their nature and shapes how they behave. A neutron decays in about 15 minutes when free, but lasts for billions of years when bound in a nucleus.


But things are even more radical than this. Sometimes the lower-level entities only exist because of the nature of the higher-level structures. This is the case for all symbiotic relationships, where the partners are unable to survive when separated. They can only exist in the context of the interacting whole. An example from physics is the Cooper pairs that underlie superconductors. These are pairs of electrons that would normally repel each other. But the lattice structure of the metal gets distorted by the electron charges in such a way that it modifies the interaction, and the electrons form bound pairs. So the existence of the entities that enable superconductivity (Cooper pairs) is due to the nature of the context (the metallic lattice). This is why it is impossible to deduce superconductivity in a purely bottom-up way, as emphatically pointed out by physicist Robert Laughlin in his 1998 Nobel prize lecture.

Also, during the process of evolution, adaptive selection deletes lower-level elements, leaving behind only those better suited to higher-level purposes – genes coding for greater strength, for example. This deletion of unsuitable entities is the way order arises from disorder. It is central to biology but it also occurs in physics, for instance when optical filters cut out unwanted polarised light.

The case for top-down causation seems to me to be pretty conclusive, but not everyone agrees. Even today many scientists concur with the bottom-up, reductionist view strongly expressed by the late Nobel prize-winning biochemist Francis Crick in his book The Astonishing Hypothesis: "You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules."

However, hard-line reductionists would question why Crick assigned causal powers to nerve cells when their behaviour is no more than that of the electrons that convey neural signals. If you really believe in bottom-up causation, you can't assign causal powers to an intermediate level like this – it's the electrons that are doing the real work, or perhaps not even electrons but superstrings, fundamental building blocks of matter predicted by string theory. The higher levels like electrons and neurons are mere passengers carried along by this underlying causation.

But neuroscientists believe that neurons do indeed do real work. This is only possible if they act to channel and control the flow of electrons in neural axons – that is, if top-down causation takes place from the neuron to the electron level. And if that is so, the case for top-down causation is vindicated." End quote .


George Ellis is a cosmologist at the University of Cape Town, South Africa, focusing on general relativity and the structure of the universe. He co-authored the seminal 1973 book The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time with Stephen Hawking.


P.S.: Since consciousness is part of the system , and a non-physical process at that , that is , that has been proven as such by many consciousness -related anomalies ' studies ( http://www.opensciences.org/ )  , and since the materialist assumption that consciousness is just a material process is false , then why can't consciousness have a top-down causation also , a non-mechanical one at that , that is , since all complex systems do have top-down causation in relation to their sub-systems , and since quantum theory , or just 1 most plausible interpretation of it at least , says that consciousness plays a central and key role in shaping the physical reality ...

How can you, folks, deny the very fact that your own consciousness, mind and their related processes can have top-down causation on your own brain and body , not to mention on the rest of the physical reality , since you do experience that fact daily , through your own daily decision-making and more that affect both your brains bodies ,and the rest of your environment , including your loved ones , co-workers , ....while your above mentioned non-physical processes also get influenced , in their turn , by their environment ,as mentioned above , including by your senses , brains and bodies  through the laws of physics  ......Not to mention  the role of the unconscious in all that ? 






« Last Edit: 07/11/2014 21:12:20 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
However, many reductionists say that in the end, this is nothing but disguised bottom-up effects, because the physics at the bottom is causally closed: there is nothing but interactions between particles such as protons and electrons at that level, leaving no room for any other causal effect and no causal slack to allow top-down effects to take place.

Quote from the above displayed article thus .


That  hard-core reductionist assumption that the physics at the bottom at the level of sub-atomic elementary particles thus is causally closed , or that the universe is causally closed , has been just the legacy of classical physics upon which materialism was built .
A false assumption that was refuted by QM that shows that consciousness can shape the physical reality through non-mechanical instantaneous energyless causation ...or just  by  1 interpretation of quantum theory at least , that's way more plausible than the rest .
« Last Edit: 07/11/2014 21:26:37 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4726
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile

That  hard-core reductionist assumption that the physics at the bottom at the level of sub-atomic elementary particles thus is causally closed , or that the universe is causally closed , has been just the legacy of classical physics upon which materialism was built .


What you deride as materialism is built on observation. What is your hobbyhorse made of?
 

Offline dlorde

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

You're lousy readers of that New Scientist''s article
Ad-hominem insults only detract from your assertions. The NS article is a popular-interest piece, and exaggerates accordingly. The hard-core reductionists mentioned in the article are no more representative of the scientific community than the hard-core fringe who believe consciousness collapses the wave function.

Top-down and bottom-up causality are different ways of looking at exactly the same processes. That some people choose to keep one eye shut changes nothing.

Maybe a trivially simple example will help you understand. Consider Conway's Game of Life; if you want to discover whether a particular cell will change state and when that will occur, you can use bottom-up or top-down methods. Using bottom-up methods, you have to iterate through the cycles, potentially indefinitely, until either the state changes or you die of old age. Using top-down methods, you can examine the patterns of cell states on the grid and predict in advance whether a particular cell will change state and when it will do so, just by knowing how the patterns develop.

However, CGL is a perfectly deterministic system about which you have complete knowledge, so bottom-up methods can, in principle, get you the answers, given enough time. Real life isn't usually like that. Many large-scale real-world systems are complex, and may be sensitively dependent on initial conditions (i.e. have chaotic characteristics). It is often impossible to measure all the contributing factors with sufficient precision or resolution to make reliable bottom-up predictions, so top-down analysis is often more productive & predictive.

I refer you to my previous post for a partial list of fields where this is often the case.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
The Mental Universe By Richard Conn Henry:

Source : Nature , Vol 436|7 July 2005.


The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things..

Historically, we have looked to our religious leaders to understand the meaning of our lives; the nature of our world.

With Galileo Galilei, this changed. In establishing that the Earth goes around the Sun, Galileo not only succeeded in believing the unbelievable himself, but also convinced almost everyone else to do the same.
 This was a stunning accomplishment in ‘physics outreach’ and, with the subsequent work of Isaac Newton, physics joined religion in seeking to explain our place in the Universe.

The more recent physics revolution of the past 80 years has yet to transform general public understanding in a similar way. And yet a correct understanding of physics was accessible even to Pythagoras.
According to Pythagoras, “number is all things”, and numbers are mental, not mechanical. Likewise, Newton called light “particles”, knowing the concept to be an ‘effective theory’ — useful, not true.

As noted by Newton’s biographer Richard Westfall: “The ultimate cause of atheism, Newton asserted, is ‘this notion of bodies having, as it were, a complete, absolute and independent reality in themselves.’” Newton knew of Newton’s rings and was untroubled by what is shallowly called ‘wave/particle duality’.

The 1925 discovery of quantum mechanics solved the problem of the Universe’s nature. Bright physicists were again led to believe the unbelievable — this time, that the Universe is mental. According to Sir James Jeans: “the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine.
Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter... we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter.” But physicists have not yet followed Galileo’s example, and convinced everyone of the wonders of quantum mechanics.
As Sir Arthur Eddington explained: “It is difficult for the matter-of-fact physicist to accept the view that the substratum of everything is of mental character.”

In his play Copenhagen, which brings quantum mechanics to a wider audience,Michael Frayn gives these word to Niels Bohr: “we discover that... the Universe exists... only through the understanding lodged inside the human head.” Bohr’s wife replies, “this man you’ve put at the centre of the Universe — is it you, or is it Heisenberg?” This is what sticks in the craw of Eddington’s “matter-of-fact” physicists.

Discussing the play, John H. Marburger III, President George W. Bush’s science adviser, observes that “in the Copenhagen interpretation of microscopic nature, there are neither waves nor particles”, but then frames his remarks in terms of a non-existent “underlying stuff ”. He points out that it is not true that matter “sometimes behaves like a wave and sometimes like a particle... The wave is not in the underlying stuff; it is in the spatial pattern of detector clicks...

We cannot help but think of the clicks as caused by little localized pieces of stuff that we might as well call particles. This is where the particle language comes from.
 It does not come from the underlying stuff, but from our psychological predisposition to associate localized phenomena with particles.”
In place of “underlying stuff ” there have been serious attempts to preserve a material world — but they produce no new physics, and serve only to preserve an illusion.

Scientists have sadly left it to nonphysicist Frayn to note the Emperor’s lack of clothes: “it seems to me that the view which [Murray] Gell-Mann favours, and which involves what he calls alternative ‘histories’ or ‘narratives’, is precisely as anthropocentric as Bohr’s, since histories and narratives are not freestanding elements of the Universe, but human constructs, as subjective and as restricted in their viewpoint as the act of observation.”
Physicists shy from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics.

 A common way to evade the mental Universe is to invoke ‘decoherence’ — the notion that ‘the physical environment’ is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in ‘Renninger-type’ experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The Universe is entirely mental.
In the tenth century, Ibn al-Haytham initiated the view that light proceeds from a source, enters the eye, and is perceived.
This picture is incorrect but is still what most people think occurs, including, unless pressed, most physicists.

To come to terms with the Universe, we must abandon such views. The world is quantum mechanical: we must learn to perceive it as such.
One benefit of switching humanity to a correct perception of the world is the resulting joy of discovering the mental nature of the Universe. We have no idea what this mental nature implies, but — the great thing is — it is true. Beyond the acquisition of this perception, physics can no longer help. You may descend into solipsism, expand to deism, or something else if you can justify it — just don’t ask physics for help.

There is another benefit of seeing the world as quantum mechanical: someone who has learned to accept that nothing exists but observations is far ahead of peers who stumble through physics hoping to find out ‘what things are’. If we can ‘pull a Galileo,’ and get people believing the truth, they will find physics a breeze.
The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy. ■



Richard Conn Henry is a Professor in the Henry A. Rowland Department of Physics and Astronomy, The Johns HopkinUniversity, Baltimore, Maryland 21218, USA.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

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

That  hard-core reductionist assumption that the physics at the bottom at the level of sub-atomic elementary particles thus is causally closed , or that the universe is causally closed , has been just the legacy of classical physics upon which materialism was built .


What you deride as materialism is built on observation. What is your hobbyhorse made of?

On which observation is materialist built then , according to you then ? = zero .


Materialism is just a belief , a philosophy , a 19th century ideology , a false conception of nature, a world view that was rather built upon the mechanical classical deterministic Newtonian world view  that was superseded by quantum theory ...and since the classical Newtonian world view is false , then , materialism is also false .

While science is all about methodology and epistemology , the naturalistic ones at that , that is .

And there is nothing intrinsic in the naturalistic scientific methodology that prevents it from going beyond materialism thus.

Naturalistic science and its scientific naturalistic methodology that can even  be  non -materialistic  : dualist , idealist,and even theist  .....

There can be even what can be called the theistic naturalistic science and its naturalistic theistic methodology , not just the atheistic naturalistic materialistic ones .
 

Offline cheryl j

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

And there is nothing intrinsic in the naturalistic scientific methodology that prevents it from going beyond materialism thus.
There's nothing that prevents it all. That's exactly the point. You're free to conduct whatever experiments about telekinesis or consciousness fields or life after death or astrology or homeopathy or angels or ghosts that you like. No one is stopping you, and naturalistic methodology should be completely applicable to any such experiment. 
Quote


There can be even what can be called the theistic naturalistic science and its naturalistic theistic methodology , not just the atheistic naturalistic materialistic ones .
Again, absolutely.  Just provide proponents of naturalism with incontrovertible evidence of a God, and they'll have no problem with it at all. What could be easier or more straight forward?

 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg443897#msg443897 date=1415454155]
dlorde, Cheryl :

You're lousy readers of that New Scientist''s article
Ad-hominem insults only detract from your assertions. The NS article is a popular-interest piece, and exaggerates accordingly. The hard-core reductionists mentioned in the article are no more representative of the scientific community than the hard-core fringe who believe consciousness collapses the wave function.

That's no ad-hominem attack , just a fact , deduced from your own replies on the subject .

A popular piece was that ? I don't think so .

Materialism does require reductionism, so, those materialists who claim they are non-reductionists are deluding themselves .



Quote
Top-down and bottom-up causality are different ways of looking at exactly the same processes. That some people choose to keep one eye shut changes nothing.

Different ways of looking at the same processes ? Like saying it' s raining ,and water is evaporating ?  lol

 I think those hard-core reductionists are right , in the sense that deterministic reductionistic materialism can't intrinsically but not allow any kind of top-down causation .

It all comes down to the weird exotic dances and cloudy "rituals " of sub-atomic particles , or in fact to all those underlying fundamental physical fields .

Atoms made everything up lol, (Cheryl ) almost thus : physical fundamental fields or rather super strings were /are the ones who made everything up in fact .  lol

Did you forget about the fact  how  the materialistic reductionistic so-called standard model of quantum field theory can apply to the macro -world , including to our large -scale everyday world ? , and hence  rules out any top-down causation of consciousness and its related phenomena processes or anomalies ...psi phenomena ...

How can any sort of top-down causation for that matter , including the physical ones , like that of the brain , be allowed by the  almighty omnipotent standard model then ?

Think about that .

Quote
Maybe a trivially simple example will help you understand. Consider Conway's Game of Life; if you want to discover whether a particular cell will change state and when that will occur, you can use bottom-up or top-down methods. Using bottom-up methods, you have to iterate through the cycles, potentially indefinitely, until either the state changes or you die of old age. Using top-down methods, you can examine the patterns of cell states on the grid and predict in advance whether a particular cell will change state and when it will do so, just by knowing how the patterns develop.

According to reductionist materialism, that top-down causation cannot but be that fundamental bottom-up causation in disguise ,all the way down to strings, or to the not-yet-discovered underlying ghosts aliens  ...that might be underlying all fundamental physical fields,laws or forces  ... .

How can reductionist materialism allow any top-down causation for that matter ?

Materialists just integrate new evidence into their materialistic deterministic reductionist materialist world view , in order to go around the incompatible character of that new evidence with materialism, like when materialists say that free will can exist in a deterministic world  (Absurd paradox ) , or like when materialists try to rescue their refuted determinism that was shattered by the notion of probabilistic universe that was delivered by quantum physics , or like when materialists talk about information as a property of matter .

Regarding the latter , materialists just try to incorporate information into their materialistic deterministic reductionistic world view ,while materialism was all about claiming that all is matter and  energy ,so, when the existence of life and other information was discovered , like in the case of DNA ... then, materialists try to make that fit into materialism , by claiming that information is an intrinsnic property of matter or of those physical fundamental fields = materialist voodoo . Where does that information come from , in the first place to begin with ? What is its nature ?

There is indeed top-down causation in complex systems in relation to their sub-systems , but ,that's a fact that's incompatible with the reductionist deterministic materialistic world view, no matter what kindda or how many sexy strip-tease  dances, gymnastics  or performances  you're trying to accomplish  on the subject to deny that fact .

Quote
However, CGL is a perfectly deterministic system about which you have complete knowledge, so bottom-up methods can, in principle, get you the answers, given enough time. Real life isn't usually like that. Many large-scale real-world systems are complex, and may be sensitively dependent on initial conditions (i.e. have chaotic characteristics). It is often impossible to measure all the contributing factors with sufficient precision or resolution to make reliable bottom-up predictions, so top-down analysis is often more productive & predictive.

I thought that the whole universe was / is quantum "mechanical " , in the probabilistic sense , a probabilistic universe , not to mention that the Von Neumann's quantum "mechanical " world was all about the non-mechanical top-down causation of consciousness , from outside of the laws of physics , and hence the universe is not  causally closed .

See : " The Mental Universe " above displayed article from Nature : that's a totally different version of the notion of quantum "mechanical " universe from that of deterministic materialism .

Real life is usually not like that indeed . Materialist models are just approximations that might turn out to have not much to do with reality , since they exclude the most important component or "building block " of the universe from their speculations : consciousness : talking about your "...we have complete knowledge of .." assertion , ironically enough,since cells and other complex systems might be also ...conscious, their own degree of consciousness  .

Biologist Bruce Lipton ,biochemist  James A.Shapiro , and others do talk about the hypersensitivity and "awareness " of cells , for example, in relation to their environment , and how biological information is crucial in that ,and in the "hierarchical" organization of the cell ...

Quote
I refer you to my previous post for a partial list of fields where this is often the case.

Like the fundamental physical electromagnetic fields from which consciousness arises ? lol : why did i not detect the  major  fact that my tv set , microwave , car , pc , cell phones , fridges....are conscious , silly me .

I see now how they have been playing silly tricks on me , consciously thus , the bastards ,

That's a real bombshell you've just targeted my head , or rather my mind with : my mind is blown away , as a result .  lol
« Last Edit: 08/11/2014 18:45:19 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg443910#msg443910 date=1415468990]

And there is nothing intrinsic in the naturalistic scientific methodology that prevents it from going beyond materialism thus.
There's nothing that prevents it all. That's exactly the point. You're free to conduct whatever experiments about telekinesis or consciousness fields or life after death or astrology or homeopathy or angels or ghosts that you like. No one is stopping you, and naturalistic methodology should be completely applicable to any such experiment. 

Funny Straw man arguments again,and red herrings as well , to mention just that  .

Kafkaian subjective stuff again .

You still don't get what naturalism means , sis , (odd) despite your misplaced sarcasm , derision, or irony : the latter can't help you hide  your obvious ignorance about the former .

( Naturalism ,as it clearly implies , means , in short : within nature : there is nothing beyond, or other than nature as the nature of reality,so, all naturalistic forms of science ,and all naturalistic forms of the scientific methodology and epistemology , be it the materialist , dualist , idealist or even theistic ones must deliver naturalistic explanations of the universe : see my post regarding that ,from Encyclopedia Britannica   .)

The mainstream materialist "scientific world view " , or 'consensus ", rejects a -priori any non-materialist scientific world view , research, experiments , approaches , let alone evidence on the subject .

The real science and the real scientists are thus materialist science and the materialist scientists  only : that implicit or explicit claim was even repeated explicitly,and even in those explicit terms also (Real science , real scientists ...)  by your earlier link from rationalwiki regarding the work of non-materialist neuroscientist Mario Beauregard who relied on that of physicist Henry P.Stapp ...

Better still : even your earlier provided link to that materialist conference : " Moving naturalism forward " , where the champions of hard core materialist scientism in science (Dennett , Dawkins ...) were taking a part in it , was just a desperate materialistic attempt to reduce naturalism or naturalistic science and naturalistic methodology and epistemology to just the materialist ones , ironically enough . lol

Worse : many scientists who dare to think outside of the materialist key hole box , by challenging 1 or more of its entrenched dogmas like that of Darwinism , have been persecuted , their careers and reputations ruined ,and much more : This is no conspiracy theory , but hard facts :


Not to mention how the work of biologist Sheldrake and the man behind it have been treated by mainstream materialist science , scientific journals , the media ....to mention just that poor lad .

Quote
Quote
There can be even what can be called the theistic naturalistic science and its naturalistic theistic methodology , not just the atheistic naturalistic materialistic ones .
Again, absolutely.  Just provide proponents of naturalism with incontrovertible evidence of a God, and they'll have no problem with it at all. What could be easier or more straight forward?

You haven't done your homework well ,regarding what naturalism implies , sis, once again  .

The majority of scientists today are materialists first , and scientists only second : anything that might contradict or disprove, refute the 'scientific " materialism, would be a -priori rejected as some sort of pseudo-science at best , and supernatural medieval non-sense at worse .

Any attempts to try to explain the universe in no exclusive material processes terms , would be a -priori rejected .

Only material processes can explain the universe , according to the materialist mainstream dogma that pretends to be 'scientific " thus .

Any attempts to challenge the mainstream materialist "scientific " dogma that the universe can be reduced to just material processes thus ,would be a -priori rejected .

Consciousness on earth at least lol, and all its related processes and anomalies are perfectly natural in fact , not supernatural, including psi and other phenomena thus  .

That said :

Naturalistic science or its naturalistic methodology , be it materialist , dualist , idealist or theist , have to be naturalistic , needless to add = there is nothing beyond or other than nature as the nature of reality .

Theistic science is no synonymous thus of involving God in science , let alone of trying either to prove or disprove the existence of God , needless to add .

But ,then again , there is nothing intrinsic in  science or in its methodology , let alone  in  its evolving epistemology, that prevents it from going beyond nature itself, if some scientist would ,some day , stumble upon or discover that the nature of reality goes beyond nature ,since science is all about methodology and epistemology that can be restricted by no naturalistic or other philosophy, world view , conception of nature ....from the last century or the next .

Better still : The very non-physical and non-local nature of consciousness itself is evidence enough against the naturalistic philosophy that was developed in the last century .

Otherwise , just tell me how can nature account for or "produce " consciousness ?

Atheist Thomas Nagel tried to find a "solution " to the above , without much success ,needless to add,  the poor lad : he just resorted to concluding that nature might be intrinsically conscious and teleological from the very start of it lol : that conscious life and purpose were intrinsic "properties " of nature ,from the very beginning, waiting to emerge ,later on, thus   : this magic of Nagel sounds like that of the materialism he was trying to refute , ironically enough : consciousness is just a property of matter.

And then, afterwards , as if he was aware of his above mentioned own non-sensical belief assumption , he said that any future alternatives to materialism in science might turn out to be false , in their turn as well, who knows , and then he concluded in that book of his by saying :

" The human will to believe is inexhaustible "


« Last Edit: 08/11/2014 19:59:50 by DonQuichotte »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

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