The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Major Bombshell : Manifesto For A Post-Materialistic Science :  (Read 186841 times)

Offline DonQuichotte

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


Once more - how does your non-material consciousness hypothesis account for brain damage causing changes to personality, character, emotion, attention, recognition, understanding, sense of self, focus, and awareness, unless those features are actually all functions of the brain? What is left for this proposed non-material consciousness to do?
Excellent point dlorde,.....If consciousness is somehow extra-dependent from the material character of the brain as Don would have us believe, why would material damage to the physical brain cause relative changes to said consciousness?

Either consciousness is connected directly to the material function of the electro-chemical processes within the physical brain or it is not. You can't have it both ways Don.

The reason I use the term: "extra-dependent" is because none of us believes that consciousness is completely "independent" from the physical brain. However, considering how Don's logic works, he might even believe that.

Who said that consciousness is independent from the brain, let alone that it is completely independent from it ?  Not me, that's for sure .

Read what i said carefully, please : there is a mutual interaction between consciousness and the brain , as they can't function without each other , consciousness and the brain are inseparable, in this life at least , needless to add , and consciousness has to work through its brain as well thus , has to have some sort of interaction with its brain , both ways , the brain as a transceiver (transmitter-receiver ) for consciousness , consciousness interacting with its brain via some sort of a non-mechanical causation  at that , that is,an instantaneous one at that  ,that is ,without any transfer of energy whatsoever ,as QM or just 1 particular interpretation of the latter that's more simple and plausible than the rest shows ....

When you pay attention to something or to someone , when you focus on that , you instantaneously get aware of that.

The conscious awareness part is thus instantaneous without any transfer of energy , the mediating brain in that has to obey the laws of physics of course , needless to add , conscious awareness not .

In short : what you focus on is your reality , almost .What you focus on is what you get : our reality is mostly mental .

Not to mention the fact that  9,99999999...% of the universe is "empty space " ,and the remaining 0,00000000000000001  ... % is "matter " : do the maths  :  "matter " is almost nothing in the universe, to say nothing about its wave / particle duality  , and materialist lunatic scientists tell us that matter produces the mind lol = almost nothing produces the key "component or key building block " of the universe : consciousness which is non-material   and hence undetectable directly ,that is ............

« Last Edit: 28/11/2014 20:58:51 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

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

What do you think about the following ? :

Nassim Haramein's unified theory enters mainstream science!

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1563&mobile=on

99,999999... % of the universe is "empty space " ,while physicists do focus only on the remaining 0,0000000000001 %  "matter " .

Space might be the answer .Nassim Haramein says he has discovered a unifying theory that unifies relativity with QM .

http://resonance.is/event/the-unified-field-theory-of-nassim-haramein-beyond-4/

http://resonance.is/


Or see the video : Don't pay attention to the "sacred " thing in the title : irrelevant :

« Last Edit: 28/11/2014 20:40:09 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

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

Thanks for your posts , appreciate indeed .
Unfortunately enough , no time left to respond to that : duty calls ,sorry.

I have in a way already responded to your posts through those of dlorde and Ethos  here above .

Cheers.
 

Offline cheryl j

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

Similarly , go tell physicists to explain to you why they don't understand QM while using it so successfully .
The fact that we don't know how the non-physical consciousness interacts mutually with its brain is no reason to dismiss the non-physical nature of consciousness : similarly,  nobody understands QM : is that a reason enough to reject it ?
The critical difference would be that QM has predictive ability,  but your theory has none.





[/quote]
 

Offline cheryl j

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

Thanks for your posts , appreciate indeed .
Unfortunately enough , no time left to respond to that : duty calls ,sorry.

I have in a way already responded to your posts through those of dlorde and Ethos  here above .


No, not really. They were pretty simple questions about a theory you've been promoting for quite sometime.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

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

Similarly , go tell physicists to explain to you why they don't understand QM while using it so successfully .
The fact that we don't know how the non-physical consciousness interacts mutually with its brain is no reason to dismiss the non-physical nature of consciousness : similarly,  nobody understands QM : is that a reason enough to reject it ?
The critical difference would be that QM has predictive ability,  but your theory has none.





[/quote]

Yet without the mind , no QM or science .

Without the mind or consciousness ,we can't understand or be aware of the universe .

Better still : QM can never be understood without reference to the mind = they are both inescapably and inseparably intertwined with each other : no silly or insane absurd paradoxical MW interpretation of QM can make that fact go away .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

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

Thanks for your posts , appreciate indeed .
Unfortunately enough , no time left to respond to that : duty calls ,sorry.

I have in a way already responded to your posts through those of dlorde and Ethos  here above .


No, not really. They were pretty simple questions about a theory you've been promoting for quite sometime.

I couldn't resist checking out this forum from work .

I have already responded to your posts through those of dlorde and Ethos .
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
We should all start from what we know , not otherwise : we know that consciousness is not a product of the brain (how can it be ? )
The only thing we know is what our observations reveal. The observations (including those given above) are entirely consistent with, and support the hypothesis that consciousness is a product of brain activity. Any competing hypothesis must also at least be consistent with and account for what we observe.

Your introduction of a non-material consciousness appears entirely redundant given the observations above, and you seem incapable of providing any plausible explanation or reason why it is necessary - just the unsupported assertion that something indescribable, unknown, inexplicable, and undetectable must nevertheless interact with our brains in some unknown and inexplicable way that is indistinguishable from no interaction at all. It's so far beyond useless it's 'not even wrong'.

Hitchen's Razor is appropriate: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
We should all start from what we know , not otherwise : we know that consciousness is not a product of the brain (how can it be ? )
The only thing we know is what our observations reveal. The observations (including those given above) are entirely consistent with, and support the hypothesis that consciousness is a product of brain activity. Any competing hypothesis must also at least be consistent with and account for what we observe.

Your introduction of a non-material consciousness appears entirely redundant given the observations above, and you seem incapable of providing any plausible explanation or reason why it is necessary - just the unsupported assertion that something indescribable, unknown, inexplicable, and undetectable must nevertheless interact with our brains in some unknown and inexplicable way that is indistinguishable from no interaction at all. It's so far beyond useless it's 'not even wrong'.

Hitchen's Razor is appropriate: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Bullshit , sorry .

Positivism holds no water either .

This wiki link of yours is almost a good description of Graziano's theory :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

Well, since i am working , i will just repost the following :

99,9999999999999 ..% of the universe,including you and me,  is made of 'empty space " and the rest is "matter " , not to mention "matter's" wave/particle duality , and you are telling me that almost nothing  (matter )  produces the key feature of the universe which is undetectable ,directly , that is : consciousness : You gotta be kidding me : even a kid wouldn't buy that .(Don't misuse this latter metaphorical  analogy for your own materialistic purposes , in the sense that kids believe in imaginary friends and other myths .)





Once more - how does your non-material consciousness hypothesis account for brain damage causing changes to personality, character, emotion, attention, recognition, understanding, sense of self, focus, and awareness, unless those features are actually all functions of the brain? What is left for this proposed non-material consciousness to do?
Excellent point dlorde,.....If consciousness is somehow extra-dependent from the material character of the brain as Don would have us believe, why would material damage to the physical brain cause relative changes to said consciousness?

Either consciousness is connected directly to the material function of the electro-chemical processes within the physical brain or it is not. You can't have it both ways Don.

The reason I use the term: "extra-dependent" is because none of us believes that consciousness is completely "independent" from the physical brain. However, considering how Don's logic works, he might even believe that.

Who said that consciousness is independent from the brain, let alone that it is completely independent from it ?  Not me, that's for sure .

Read what i said carefully, please : there is a mutual interaction between consciousness and the brain , as they can't function without each other , consciousness and the brain are inseparable, in this life at least , needless to add , and consciousness has to work through its brain as well thus , has to have some sort of interaction with its brain , both ways , the brain as a transceiver (transmitter-receiver ) for consciousness , consciousness interacting with its brain via some sort of a non-mechanical causation  at that , that is,an instantaneous one at that  ,that is ,without any transfer of energy whatsoever ,as QM or just 1 particular interpretation of the latter that's more simple and plausible than the rest shows ....

When you pay attention to something or to someone , when you focus on that , you instantaneously get aware of that.

The conscious awareness part is thus instantaneous without any transfer of energy , the mediating brain in that has to obey the laws of physics of course , needless to add , conscious awareness not .

In short : what you focus on is your reality , almost .What you focus on is what you get : our reality is mostly mental .

Not to mention the fact that  9,99999999...% of the universe is "empty space " ,and the remaining 0,00000000000000001  ... % is "matter " : do the maths  :  "matter " is almost nothing in the universe, to say nothing about its wave / particle duality  , and materialist lunatic scientists tell us that matter produces the mind lol = almost nothing produces the key "component or key building block " of the universe : consciousness which is non-material   and hence undetectable directly ,that is ............

« Last Edit: 28/11/2014 21:52:02 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Bullshit , sorry .
LOL!  [:o)]

Nice argument  ::)
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Bullshit , sorry .
LOL!  [:o)]

Nice argument  ::)
Pretending that he's sorry is a bit disingenuous IMHO. I'll submit that 99% of his copied and pasted crap is indeed bullshit. And I will not pretend to be sorry for calling him out on it.
« Last Edit: 28/11/2014 23:42:41 by Ethos_ »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4704
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
alancalverd :

What do you think about the following ? :

Nassim Haramein's unified theory enters mainstream science!


I'll look at the theory when you have produced some experimental  evidence. This is a science chatroom.
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Here's a simple question for anyone interested. Setting the "complete" or all inclusive consciousness enchilada  aside for a moment, do you consider the sensory processes - seeing, hearing, smelling and tasting, touching, and orientation in space - to be material processes? Do they have any immaterial component?

A slightly different take on things:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/feeling-our-way/201401/consciousness-explained
 

Offline DonQuichotte

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

Here is a totally different conception of the mind-brain relationship ( In total contrast with that outdated and refuted mindless Skinner's behaviorism that used to deny the very existence of consciousness or the mind as such .) , that's consistent with the available data , that has been scientifically demonstrated as well ,that's close to our own awareness of our daily experiences  and it does work too  : i have tried it myself with success :  The non-materialist cognitive psychology or therapy :

Excerpt From " The Mind and The Brain " By Jeffrey Schwartz and Sharon Begley : Epilogue :

Quote :

"It is telling that the Decade of the Brain, as (the first) President Bush designated the 1990s, had that name rather than the Decade of the Mind. For it was in the brain rather than the mind that scientists and laypeople alike sought answers, probing the folds and crevasses of our gray matter for the roots of personality and temperament, mental illness and mood, sexual identity and even a predilection for fine food.

In my own profession of neuropsychiatry, this attitude is encapsulated in the maxim “For every twisted thought, a twisted molecule.” Any mood, preference, or behavior once ascribed to the way we were raised, or even to freely willed volition, instead came to be viewed as the child of our genes and our neurotransmitters, over which we had little, if any, control.
The brain, to be sure, is indeed the physical embodiment of the mind, the organ through which the mind finds expression and through which it acts in the world.

Within the brain, ensembles of neurons represent the world beyond, recording both the perceptions of our five senses and the world of mind alone: internally generated imagery produces no less real and measurable a neuronal activation than images of the outside world. But the brain is more than a reflection of our genes. As we saw in Chapter 3, the paltry 35,000 or so genes in the human genome fall woefully short of the task of prescribing the wiring of our 100-trillion-synapse brain. The brain is therefore shaped by and etched with the traces of our experiences—the barrage of sensory stimulation that our peripheral nerves pass along to our brain, the skills we acquire, the knowledge we store, the patterns our thoughts and attention make. All these, and much more, leave their mark.
A mere twenty years ago neuroscientists thought that the brain was structurally immutable by early childhood, and that its functions and abilities were programmed by genes. We now know that that is not so.

 To the contrary: the brain’s ensembles of neurons change over time, forming new connections that become stronger with use, and letting unused synapses weaken until they are able to carry signals no better than a frayed string between two tin cans in the old game of telephone. The neurons that pack our brain at the moment of birth continue to weave themselves into circuits throughout our lives. The real estate that the brain devotes to this activity rather than that one, to this part of the body rather than that one, even to this mental habit rather than that one, is as mutable as a map of congressional districts in the hands of gerrymanderers. The life we lead, in other words, leaves its mark in the form of enduring changes in the complex circuitry of the brain—footprints of the experiences we have had, the actions we have taken. This is neuroplasticity. As Mike Merzenich asserted, the mechanisms of neuroplasticity “account for cortical contributions to our idiosyncratic behavioral abilities and, in extension, for the geniuses, the fools, and the idiot savants among us.”

Yet even this perspective assumes a brain more passive than we now understand it to be. It reflects an outdated, classical-physics view of the relationship between mind and matter. For above and beyond the “cortical contributions” to our uniqueness are the choices, decisions, and active will that both propel our actions and, through directed mental force, shape our very brain circuitry.

In the decade since Merzenich’s insight, our appreciation of the power of neuroplasticity to reshape the brain has only deepened. We now know that the circuits of our minds change when our fingers fly over the strings of a violin; they change when we suffer an amputation, or a stroke; they change when our ears become tuned to the sounds of our native language and deaf to the phonemes of a foreign one. They change, in short, when the flow of inputs from our senses changes. This much, the Silver Spring monkeys showed us. But the brain—true to its role as the place where Descartes’s two realms, the material and the mental, meet and find expression—reflects more than the changing inputs from the body.

 Neuronal circuits also change when something as gossamer as our thoughts changes, when something as inchoate as mental effort becomes engaged—when, in short, we choose to attend with mindfulness. The power of attention not only allows us to choose what mental direction we will take. It also allows us, by actively focusing attention on one rivulet in the stream of consciousness, to change—in scientifically demonstrable ways—the systematic functioning of our own neural circuitry.

The passive side of mental life, which is generated solely and completely by brain mechanisms, dominates the tone and tenor of our day-to-day, even our second-to-second, experience. During the quotidian business of daily life, the brain does indeed operate very much as a machine does. The brain registers sensory information, processes it, connects it with previously stored sensory experience, and generates an output. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that this much of life is nothing but the brain’s going its merry way, running on default awareness.

 The kind of attention-driven neuroplasticity that Merzenich and his team documented occurs during a mere fraction of our normal experience (more, perhaps, if we are young, and spend many of our waking hours in formal and informal learning); the kind of focused effort that Taub’s stroke patients exert is the exception rather than the rule. In general, even the rigorous practice of mindfulness takes up but a few hours in the day of all but the most dedicated practitioners. And even in these cases, when attention is brought to bear, the content of our conscious experience remains largely determined by the inner workings of the brain. But the content of our character does not, for the amount and quality of attention we focus on this or that aspect of our passive experience as it arises are determined by an active process—one for which brain mechanisms alone provide insufficient explanation. In treating OCD, the capacity to distinguish between passive and active mental processes has turned out to be clinically crucial. When an obsessive thought or compulsive urge enters a patient’s mind, the feelings of fear and anxiety it generates are biologically determined. But, as clinical data and PET scans show, patients can willfully change the amount and quality of attention that they focus on those cerebrally generated feelings of anxiety and stress, changing in turn the way the brain works.

The willful focusing of attention is not only a psychological intervention. It is also a biological one. Through changes in the way we focus attention, we have the capacity to make choices about what mental direction we will take; more than that, we also change, in scientifically demonstrable ways, the systematic functioning of neural circuitry. Nowhere is this more clear than among patients with OCD who practice the mindfulness-based Four Step therapy. By Refocusing attention in a mindful fashion, patients change their neurochemistry.

How? By volitional effort, which is effort of attention. Though OCD symptoms may be generated, passively, by the brain, the choice of whether to view those symptoms as “me” or “OCD,” whether to become ensnared by them or to focus on a nonpathological behavior, is active. That choice is generated by a patient’s mind, and it changes his brain. Mindfulness, as applied in the Four Steps, alters how the connections between the orbital frontal cortex and the caudate nucleus function. The power of attention, and thus the power of mind, reshapes neural circuitry and cortical maps—and does so by means of what I call Directed Mental Force. We now have a scientific basis for asserting that the exercise of the will, the effort of attention, can systematically change the way the brain works.

 The act of focusing attention has both clinical efficacy (in the treatment of patients besieged by troubling neuropsychiatric symptoms) and biological efficacy (in its power to change the underlying chemistry of the brain). Mind, we now see, has the power to alter biological matter significantly; that threepound lump of gelatinous ooze within our skulls is truly the mind’s brain.
Our will, our volition, our karma, constitutes the essential core of the active part of mental experience. It is the most important, if not the only important, active part of consciousness.

We generally think of will as being expressed in the behaviors we exhibit: whether we choose this path or that one, whether we make this decision or that. Even when will is viewed introspectively, we often conceptualize it in terms of an externally pursued goal. But I think the truly important manifestation of will, the one from which our decisions and behaviors flow, is the choice we make about the quality and direction of attentional focus. Mindful or unmindful, wise or unwise—no choice we make is more basic, or important, than this one.

At the end of the nineteenth century, William James recognized that the array of things we can attend to is determined passively by neural conditions—but the amount of attention an aspect of consciousness receives after it has caught our mental eye is determined by active mental processes, by what he called “spiritual force.” One’s choice of what aspect of experience to focus on is an expression of the active part of mental life. “This strain of attention is the fundamental act of will,” James observed in Psychology: A Briefer Course. This active component can contribute as much as, and even more than, cerebral conditions in determining where and how attention is directed, and certainly what kind of attention—mindful or unmindful, wise or unwise, diligent or default—is engaged. The feeling that we can make more or less mental effort, as we choose, is not an illusion.

 Nor is the sense that we have the power to decide, from one moment to another, which aspect of consciousness to attend to. In this critical respect, Jamesian psychology, Buddhist philosophy, and contemporary physics are in total accord. Whereas the contents of consciousness are largely determined by passive processes, the amount and type of attention we pay to those contents are subject to active input via willful mental effort. Cerebral conditions may determine the nature of what’s thrown into our minds, but we have the power to choose which aspects of that experience to focus on.

The brain may determine the content of our experience, but mind chooses which aspect of that experience receives attention. To repeat: “Volitional effort is effort of attention,” James said. And attention—holding before the mind that which, if left to itself, would slip out of consciousness—is the essential achievement of will. This is why effort of attention is, it seems to me, the essential core of any moral act.
What does mind choose to attend to? Buddhist philosophy offers one avenue to understanding this.

 The traditional practice of Buddhist meditation is based on two broad categories of mental activity: samatha, translated as “calmness,” “tranquillity,” or “quiescence” and vipassana, or “insight.” In the beginning stages of training in samatha, attention plays a crucial role by focusing on a single tranquil object, such as the surface of a calm lake or the sensation of breath passing through the nose. The goal is to develop the level of concentration required for attaining a quality of Bare Attention that is steady, powerful, and intense enough to achieve vipassana.

Buddhist philosophy teaches that the power of habit can greatly increase the functional effects of the power of karma (which in Buddhist philosophy always means volitional action). Thus the great monk-scholar Ledi Sayadaw (1846–1923) states that “habituating by constant repetition” causes the effects of the subsequent karma to “gain greater and greater proficiency, energy and force—just as one who reads a lesson many times becomes more proficient with each new reading.” The will has powers that, at least in the West, have been radically underestimated in an ever more technological and materialist culture.

The Law of Karma holds that actions have consequences, and its stress on the vital importance of the state of the will can serve as a counterweight to the materialist bent of Western society, one that has become too credulous about the causal power of material conditions over the human mind. We have been blinded to the power of will to direct attention in ways that can alter the brain. Perhaps, as the discoveries about the power of directed mental effort systematically to alter brain structure and function attract public awareness, we will give greater weight, instead, to the role of volition.

The discovery that the mind can change the brain, momentous as it is both for our image of ourselves and for such practical matters as helping stroke patients, is only the beginning. Finally, after a generation or more in which biological materialism has had neuroscience—indeed, all the life sciences—in a chokehold, we may at last be breaking free. It is said that philosophy is an esoteric, ivory-tower pursuit with no relevance to the world we live in or the way we live. Would that that had been so for the prejudice in favor of biological materialism and its central image, Man the Machine.

But biological materialism did, and does, have real-world consequences. We feel its reach every time a pharmaceutical company tells us that, to cure shyness (or “social phobia”), we need only reach for a little pill; every time we fall prey to depression, or anxiety, or inability to sustain attention, and are soothed with the advice that we merely have to get our neurochemicals back into balance to enjoy full mental health. Biological materialism is nothing if not appealing.

We need not address the emotional or spiritual causes of our sadness to have the cloud of depression lift; we need not question the way we teach our children before we can rid them of attention deficit disorder. I do not disparage the astounding advances in our understanding of the biochemical and even genetic roots of behavior and illness. Some of those discoveries have been made by my closest friends. But those findings are not the whole story.

 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Though a substantial majority of the scientists who have done the work leading to those findings agree that there is significantly more to the story than just biology, there has been, up to now, a morbid silence surrounding the moral vacuum created by a worldview dominated by materialist preconceptions. I vividly recall a conversation in which one close and prominent colleague of mine was bemoaning the fact that, according to the dominant materialist view of science, his love for his wife could be explained “solely in terms of the biochemistry of my brain and my viscera.” But, because he is a true gentleman who shuns controversy, nothing he does or says in his professional life would give any hint of this demurral. It is my sincere hope that an evolving neurobiology of Directed Mental Force will help rectify this situation.
Human beings are only partially understandable when viewed as the product of material processes.

 Human beings think, make judgments, and exert effort on the basis of those judgments and  in so doing change the material aspects of both their inner and outer worlds in ways that defy the narrow categories of materialist modes of analysis. Understanding our capacity to systematically alter our own neurobiology requires welcoming such concepts as choice and effort into the vocabulary of science. In this new century, questions about the mind-brain interface will become increasingly important as we try to understand how humans function in fields ranging from medicine to economics and political science. Knowing that the mind can, through knowledge and effort, reshape neurobiological processes must powerfully inform that effort.

It is the perspective of what we might call biological humanism, not biological materialism, that fits with the findings of neuroplasticity. It’s a mental striving, not a deterministic physical process, that best describes the clinical data on directed neuroplasticity. This may seem to be wishful, even reckless, thinking; after all, to pronounce oneself a skeptic on the subject of biological determinism is to court ridicule, to risk being tarred with the brush of “nonscientific thinking” or even “New Age nonsense.”

 But it seems to me that what we have learned about neuroplasticity and, especially, selfdirected neuroplasticity—even this early in our understanding—is that our physical brain alone does not shape our destiny. How can it, when the experiences we undergo, the choices we make, and the acts we undertake inscribe a diary on the living matter of our cortex? The brain continually refines its processing capacities to meet the challenges we present it, increasing the communicative power of neurons and circuits that respond to oft-received inputs or that are tapped for habitual outputs. It is the brain’s astonishing power to learn and unlearn, to adapt and change, to carry with it the inscriptions of our experiences, that allows us to throw off the shackles of biological materialism, for it is the life we lead that creates the brain we have. Our new understanding of the power of mind to shape brain can advance not only our knowledge, but also our wisdom. Radical attempts to view the world as a merely material domain, devoid of mind as an active force, neglect the very powers that define humankind.

The reality of the mind-shaped brain encourages a cultural climate in which scientific research not only yields advancements in our knowledge, but also adds to our wisdom as an evolving species. By harnessing the power of Directed Mental Force we may yet live up to our taxonomic designation and truly become deserving of the name Homo sapiens.

I began, in Chapter 1, with an exploration of the dilemma posed by the notion of a mind’s arising from matter, and with Descartes’s separation of nature into the material and the mental. Cartesian dualism served science well, at first: by ceding matters of the spirit to men of the cloth, it got the Church off the back of science, which for centuries afterward was perceived as less of a threat to religion’s domain than it would otherwise have been (pace, Galileo). But Cartesian dualism was a disaster for moral philosophy, setting in motion a process that ultimately reduced human beings to automatons.

 If all our actions, past and present, can be completely understood as the passive results of machinelike physical mechanisms, without acknowledgment of the existence of consciousness, much less will, then moral responsibility becomes meaningless. If our conscious thoughts matter nothing to the choices we make, and the behavior we engage in, then it is difficult to see how we are any more responsible for our actions than a robot is. That’s why the question of whether the mind is capable of real activity (and thus capable of generating a physically effective mental force) is, at its core, an ethical one. “I cannot understand the willingness to act, no matter how we feel, without the belief that acts are really good and bad,” James wrote in The Dilemma of Determinism. The notion that the mind and the attention it focuses are merely passive effects of material causes, he wrote, “violates my sense of moral reality through and through.”

But this conflict between science and moral philosophy vanishes like fog in the light of dawn if, instead of continuing to apply to minds and brains a theory of matter and reality that has been superseded—that is, classical physics—we adopt the most accurate theory of the world advanced so far: quantum theory. In quantum theory, matter and consciousness do not stare at each other across an unbridgeable divide. Rather, they are connected by well-defined and exhaustively tested mathematical rules.

 “Quantum theory,” says Henry Stapp, “rehabilitates the basic premise of moral philosophy. It entails that certain actions that a person can take are influenced by his stream of consciousness, which is not strictly controlled by any known law of nature.” A quantum theory of mind, incorporating the discoveries of nonlocality and the Quantum Zeno Effect, offers the hope of mending the breach between science and moral philosophy. It states definitively that real, active, causally efficacious mind operates in the material world.

The shift in understanding inspired by neuroplasticity and the power of mind to shape brain undermines the claim of materialist determinism that humans are essentially nothing more than fleshy computers spitting out the behavioral results of some inescapable neurogenetic program. “The brain is going to do what the brain was always going to do,” say the materialists. Both modern physics and contemporary neuroscience reply that they are wrong. The teachings of faith have long railed against the perils of the materialist mind-set. Now neuroscience and physics have joined them at the barricades.

 The science emerging with the new century tells us that we are not the children of matter alone, nor its slaves. As we establish ourselves in the third millennium, the Law of Karma elaborated so eloquently by Gotama five hundred years before the first millennium still resonates: “All Beings are owners of their Karma. Whatever volitional actions they do, good or evil, of those they shall become the heir." " End quote .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Here's a simple question for anyone interested. Setting the "complete" or all inclusive consciousness enchilada  aside for a moment, do you consider the sensory processes - seeing, hearing, smelling and tasting, touching, and orientation in space - to be material processes? Do they have any immaterial component?

A slightly different take on things:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/feeling-our-way/201401/consciousness-explained

lol : Nothing is explained .


Odd that you try to revive that old refuted and mindless corpse of Skinner's behaviorism, Cheryl : are you that desperate ?

You might "succeed " in doing just that , since there is now what can be called the "scientific technological ability to reverse the process of death itself lol " : (Got that book in question too ) : It wouldn't be possible to  resuscitate behaviorism though , since it was dead and buried a long time ago : unless you are Jesus lol, you can't do that :

http://www.amazon.com/Erasing-Death-Science-Rewriting-Boundaries-ebook/dp/B0089LOFWG



See also above : an excerpt from "The mind and the brain " By Jeffery Schwartz and Sharon Begley : fascinating read and an excellent conception of the mind -brain relationship that's consistent with the available evidence , that has been demonstrated scientifically , that restores our "lost" confidence in the reality of causal volition through informed trained and active focus ,and it does work as well , believe me + much more .

That said :

The working of the physical brain through the senses to the mind and back is not the one that "generates " the feeling or state of awareness,does it ? 

Not to mention that many aspects of our behavior or perception fall outside of consciousness ,partly or totally then,  like when you are driving your car while engaging in a discussion with your passenger(s) , like when while talking to someone at a party and suddenly your hear your name mentioned by some people to  whom you were not talking (you get aware of that fact only afterwards , after hearing it ...) + We don't know much about how our unconsciousness shapes our conscious or unconscious behavior : have you ever experienced sleep-walk, for example, or have you seen a relative , a friend...experience that , while the person who experiences that is not  able to recall that event afterwards when getting awake ? Are you aware of  the subliminal nature of unconsciousness ? ....

Even though he's a materialist scientist , this guy has some interesting things to say on the subject : when one can filter materialist non-sense from it though : (got both the book and audiobook in question ) :

http://www.amazon.com/Subliminal-Your-Unconscious-Rules-Behavior/dp/0307472256

Or just watch the video :


You have to take the following comment on the video with a significant piece of salt too lol :

Quote : "Every aspect of our mental lives plays out in two versions: one conscious, which we are constantly aware of, and the other unconscious, which remains hidden from us. Over the past two decades researchers have developed remarkable new tools for probing the unconscious, or subliminal, workings of the mind. This explosion of research has led to a sea change in our understanding of how the mind affects the way we live. As a result, scientists are becoming increasingly convinced that how we experience the world--our perception, behavior, memory, and social judgment--is largely driven by the mind's subliminal processes and not by the conscious ones, as we have long believed."  End quote .

P.S.: You said earlier on that since i think that consciousness remains intact after brain damage , brain diseases , genetic defects , ....and that it just doesn't get through , how come then that the related consciousness aspects of the victims of those calamities are not experienced by those victims ?

Well : it all depends on what kindda brain injury , disease , ...that those victims suffer from ,and since consciousness and the brain are inseparable , so, any damage to the brain affects the experience of the related aspects of consciousness , but , there are cases of people who were diagnosed as  being in a vegetative state after a car crash or something like that ,and whose extensive brains' damage was confirmed , but nevertheless , when they were scanned by fMRI scans while being asked to try to picture themselves playing tennis or exploring the rooms and furniture of their homes ....., scientists discovered that their related brain regions were activated in the same way that happens to healthy people who would try to picture the above .

As technology gets more advanced , maybe scientists will be able to detect any awareness, if any , in comatose cases , vegetative states ...Alzheimer patients ...Who knows ?

Not to mention that there are also disorders of consciousness , not just those of the brain .
« Last Edit: 29/11/2014 20:08:17 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

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

What do you think about the following ? :

Nassim Haramein's unified theory enters mainstream science!


I'll look at the theory when you have produced some experimental  evidence. This is a science chatroom.

Check it out then : seems original, mathematically solid ,and makes a lots of physics' sense as well , or just watch that entertaining and educative video of his where he talks about his theory , equations and more .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg445474#msg445474 date=1417217389]
Bullshit , sorry .
LOL!  [:o)]

Nice argument  ::)


Well, that was not all what i said .See above .
Your positivism is as "water-proof" as any other ideology , belief or world view is , as "water -proof " as materialism is ,for example + There is absolutely and certainly no empirical evidence whatsoever for any of those materialist so-called theories or models of consciousness, needless to add .

Better still, consciousness , the mind and their  related anomalies and processes that can never be accounted for intrinsically, let alone be explained , by materialism, are the ones that have been breaking the false neck or backbone  of materialism by proving it to be false .

On the other hand , there is plenty of indirect empirical evidence that has been supporting the hypothesis of the  non-physical and non-local nature of consciousness .......

See the posted excerpt above to our lovely, charming and sympathetic Cheryl .
« Last Edit: 29/11/2014 18:40:08 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
On the other hand , there is plenty of indirect empirical evidence that has been supporting the hypothesis of the  non-physical and non-local nature of consciousness .......

Great! - so with that evidence you should be able to tell me what this non-physical and non-local consciousness is doing that the brain doesn't do anyway (as evinced by the brain damage examples I provided earlier).

We now know the brain generates personality, character, emotion, attention, recognition, understanding, sense of self, focus, and awareness - because we know the structures and pathways involved, we know that interfering with them in specific ways and at various scales causes correspondingly specific changes in the generated characteristics. So once again, I ask you:

What else is there for your non-physical, non-local consciousness to do? what do you think it does that the brain isn't demonstrably doing itself?

If you can't answer that, why on Earth do you think it's necessary?

 
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
On the other hand , there is plenty of indirect empirical evidence that has been supporting the hypothesis of the  non-physical and non-local nature of consciousness .......

Great! - so with that evidence you should be able to tell me what this non-physical and non-local consciousness is doing that the brain doesn't do anyway (as evinced by the brain damage examples I provided earlier).

We now know the brain generates personality, character, emotion, attention, recognition, understanding, sense of self, focus, and awareness - because we know the structures and pathways involved, we know that interfering with them in specific ways and at various scales causes correspondingly specific changes in the generated characteristics. So once again, I ask you:

What else is there for your non-physical, non-local consciousness to do? what do you think it does that the brain isn't demonstrably doing itself?

If you can't answer that, why on Earth do you think it's necessary?

See the above displayed excerpt then .
 
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Is there any purpose to life ? Don't worry , these depressing nihillistic and desperate materialist lunatics tell you that you don't even have a life , you're just an app :


Is Life an Illusion ? :

http://yournewswire.com/is-life-an-illusion/




Oh , yeah , wait a sec : We are just star dust of course , just star nuclear waste lol :  (while the universe is made of 99,999999... % "empty space " , and the remaining 0,00000000...1 % is "matter " ,not to mention the latter's wave/particle duality ...) :

dlorde :

I remember Jim Al - Khalili saying that we are just stars' nuclear waste at the end of his BBC "Atom " videos lol

There is nothing charming about the following in fact :

We Are All  Stardust: Connected: A Charming Stop-Motion Papercraft Music Video Inspired by the Universe:   

 A depressing nihillistic and desperate materialist form of new age lol

http://www.brainpickings.org/2013/12/09/connected-luke-dick-music-video/
« Last Edit: 29/11/2014 19:55:54 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Great! - so with that evidence you should be able to tell me what this non-physical and non-local consciousness is doing that the brain doesn't do anyway (as evinced by the brain damage examples I provided earlier).

We now know the brain generates personality, character, emotion, attention, recognition, understanding, sense of self, focus, and awareness - because we know the structures and pathways involved, we know that interfering with them in specific ways and at various scales causes correspondingly specific changes in the generated characteristics. So once again, I ask you:

What else is there for your non-physical, non-local consciousness to do? what do you think it does that the brain isn't demonstrably doing itself?

If you can't answer that, why on Earth do you think it's necessary?

See the above displayed excerpt then .

Which excerpt of what? I'm asking you what you think your supposed non-physical, non-local consciousness does, and why you think it's necessary.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Great! - so with that evidence you should be able to tell me what this non-physical and non-local consciousness is doing that the brain doesn't do anyway (as evinced by the brain damage examples I provided earlier).

We now know the brain generates personality, character, emotion, attention, recognition, understanding, sense of self, focus, and awareness - because we know the structures and pathways involved, we know that interfering with them in specific ways and at various scales causes correspondingly specific changes in the generated characteristics. So once again, I ask you:

What else is there for your non-physical, non-local consciousness to do? what do you think it does that the brain isn't demonstrably doing itself?

If you can't answer that, why on Earth do you think it's necessary?

See the above displayed excerpt then .

Which excerpt of what? I'm asking you what you think your supposed non-physical, non-local consciousness does, and why you think it's necessary.

Well, my posted excerpt to Cheryl here above of course from "The mind and the brain " by Jeffrey Schwartz and Sharon Begley, that can explain all that to you better than i can do .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Guys :
You can't access the full version of this  following amazing article of the new scientist unless you subscribe to the latter :

Quantum weirdness: The battle for the basis of reality :

It shatters our view or perception of what reality might be :

http://www.newscientist.com/articleimages/mg21929282.100/0-quantum-weirdness-the-battle-for-the-basis-of-reality.html?utm_source=NSNS&utm_medium=SOC&utm_campaign=hoot&cmpid=SOC|NSNS|2014-GLOBAL-hoot

Here below you can download  its full PDF version for free though :

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CD4QFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwileshare.com%2Fuploads%2FQuantum_weirdness__The_battle_for_the_basis_of_reality_-_physics-math_-_05_August_2013_-_New_Scientist.pdf&ei=_yl6VK_-NYLjywO31IDgBQ&usg=AFQjCNEK6mmejb-U2urIkiaTeiQ5gGAKDw&sig2=m8pmVcJRWsCuFwFUK-B4gw
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Well, my posted excerpt to Cheryl here above of course from "The mind and the brain " by Jeffrey Schwartz and Sharon Begley, that can explain all that to you better than i can do .
Seriously? You do know neuroplasticity is an entirely material property, right? it occurs as a result of changes in the firing patterns of groups of neurons. You're aware you can't just 'will' yourself to know stuff and have new abilities, right? You have to actually learn the stuff, you have to practice, repeatedly exercise those neural circuits so they change and grow (much in the way a muscle will change & grow with exercise).

The 'will' to learn stuff and do the practice is just as material - a result of your low-level drives and biases filtered and modified by the higher level processes based on life experience and reflective feedbacks.

None of that stuff requires any non-physical or non-material influences; you can certainly describe it all in terms of non-material processes, and in a top-down causal sense, if that helps you understand the high level behaviour, but those processes and emergent interacting patterns of activity are all expressions of physical, material neuronal activity.

Nor is there any reason to believe, or evidence to suggest, that exotic quantum physics is involved or necessary, although it is conceivable that QM might help optimize critical paths (as in photosynthesis or avian navigation).

Looking for a non-physical, non-local consciousness, you're just chasing redundant phantasmic figments. You're not in a dark room looking for a black cat; neuroscience has turned the light on and there's no cat there; a few dark shadows, perhaps, but nowhere for a cat to hide. If you take off your dark glasses, you can see that for yourself.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length