The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Major Bombshell : Manifesto For A Post-Materialistic Science :  (Read 186094 times)

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: DonQuichotte

 “Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter; we ought rather hail it as the governor of the realm of matter.”End quote .

Chris Carter
If that were true, we have the mind of the amoeba to thank for all prehistoric events. And what about the very early universe, who's consciousness was governor then?

As usual, this logic has a multitude of errors and you should be smart enough to realize it Don. Not only are you perpetrating a hoax upon us, if you truly believe this line of crap, you're perpetrating it upon yourself.
« Last Edit: 08/12/2014 18:03:04 by Ethos_ »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4696
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
dlorde :

Here below will you find the specific quote of Popper within  its specific  context :


THE DREADED INTERACTION PROBLEM :

Quote : "Critics of dualism often question how two fundamentally different properties such as mind and matter could possibly interact (materialist philosopher William Lycan calls this the “dreaded” interaction problem). How can something nonspatial, with no mass, location, or physical dimensions, possibly influence spatially bound matter?

Easy. They don't. "Mind" is an abstract and undefined notion with no specific characteristics and no observable effect on matter. Matter is the very opposite, and it only interacts with matter and energy.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

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




Quote : " Conclusion:
The results suggest that MRCP amplitude during movement execution is a neural correlate of perception of effort. This study was the first to provide direct neurophysiological evidence that MRCP amplitude during movement execution correlates with perception of effort.
This finding supports the corollary discharge theory, which proposes that perception of effort is the conscious awareness of the central motor command to the muscles.
 Further studies using brain imaging and neuropharmacological techniques, are necessary to identify more precisely the brain networks and neurotransmitters underlying perception of effort."End quote

How can they jump from the former to the following ? :


...The conscious awareness of the central motor command to the muscles

How can the CMC be conscious or aware ?

They equate   the neuronal correlates of perception of
effort (CMC ) with the conscious awareness of the   perception of effort itself  .

They started from the following premise to conclude the above :

Quote : "Perception of effort, the conscious sensation of how heavy and
strenuous a physical task is (Borg, 1998), is an important aspect
of our subjective experience of volition.
It is thought that the signal underlying perception of effort arises in the brain from corollary discharges of the central motor command.
This corollary discharge theory suggests that perception of effort should be significantly correlated with the magnitude of central motor command." End quote .

.............

We encounter the same materialistic  logical fallacy or the same materialistic intrinsic false premise :  the mind is just brain activity , since all is matter , including the mind :

They jump from neuronal correlates of the mind to the mind itself by equating the 2 with each other :

Quote : " The prefrontal cortex has long been suspected to play an important role in cognitive control, in the ability to orchestrate thought and action in accordance with internal goals. Its neural basis, however, has remained a mystery. Here, we propose that cognitive control stems from the active maintenance of patterns of activity in the prefrontal cortex that represent goals and the means to achieve them. They provide bias signals to other brain structures whose net effect is to guide the flow of activity
along neural pathways that establish the proper mappings between inputs, internal states, and outputs needed to perform a given task. We review neurophysiological, neurobiological, neuroimaging, and computational studies that support this theory and discuss its implications as well as further issues to be addressed." End quote .



Excerpt from the Conclusion :
Quote : "The theory we have described provides a framework within which to formulate hypotheses about the specific mechanisms underlying the role of the PFC in cognitive control. We have reviewed a number of these, some of which have begun to take explicit form in computational models. We have also provided a sampling of the many questions that remain about these mechanisms and the functioning of the PFC. Regardless of whether the particular hypotheses we have outlined accurately describe PFC function, they offer an example of how neurally plausible mechanisms can exhibit the properties of self-organization and self-regulation required to account for cognitive control without recourse to a “homunculus.”End quote .

How can they equate  the activity of the prefrontal cortex  or the alleged PFC neuronal correlates of cognititive control with the volitional conscious aware cognitive control?

Well, no wonder there , since they already assume ,thanks to their materialism, that the mind , including cognitive control thus , is just brain activity : they start from their materialistic false premise to build their sand castles on it .

That mindful cognitive control does work through its prefrontal cortex correlates does not mean that the former is just the latter , or that they can be equated with each other .

............

Furthermore , we encounter the same materialistic logical fallacy or materialistic fundamental false premise when dealing with  the interpretations of experiments regarding memory ,for example : equating neuronal correlates of  memory ...with the latter, and hence memory is allegedly stored in the brain correlates of memory :

Quantitative neuronal correlates of memory get equated with memory itself ,while the latter  is a matter of qualitative subjective processes that cannot be reduced to or equated with their quantitative neuronal correlates, needless to add , since memory itself as a matter of subjective processes that encompass taste , subjective experiences, meaning , purpose, aesthetics , ethics , morality , ....cannot be quantified or "computed or stored " by their neuronal correlates.

See the following on the subject :

Quote : "THE EVIDENCE FROM NEUROPHYSIOLOGY:

It is commonly assumed today that memories are somehow stored in the brain, and this belief goes back to ancient times. Aristotle, for instance, compared memories with impressions left by seals in wax.

As time has passed, the analogies have been updated—most recently in terms of tape recordings or computer memory stores—yet the basic idea has remained the same. But how well does the neurophysiological evidence support the belief that memories are stored somehow as traces within the brain?
Neuroscientists have tried for decades to locate the sites of memory traces within the brain, and an enormous number of animals have been expended in the attempt.

 The usual process has been to train the animals to perform some task and then cut out parts of their brains to find out where the memories are stored. But even after large chunks of their brains have been removed—in some experiments up to 60 percent—the unfortunate animals can often remember what they were trained to do. Even experiments on invertebrates such as the octopus have failed to locate specific memory traces, leading one researcher to conclude that “memory seems to be both everywhere and nowhere in particular.”

There is, however, much evidence that changes can occur in the brains of animals as a consequence of the way they grow up. Experiments with rats have shown that animals raised in an environment with plenty of stimulation and activity have bigger brains than those raised in solitary confinement.
The nervous system is dynamic in its structure, and its development is influenced by its activity.

This consideration has been used in an experiment with chicks in an attempt to localize memory traces in the brain laid down during the learning process. A day after hatching, they were trained to perform a simple task, the effects of which were studied by injecting radioactive substances.

 Greater amounts of these substances were incorporated into nerve cells in a particular region of the left hemisphere of the forebrain in those chicks than in chicks that did not undergo the training.6 In other words, nerve cells in a particular region of the brain showed greater growth and development in chicks that had learned to perform the simple task, but when the region of the forebrain associated with the learning process was removed a day after they were trained, the chicks could still remember what they had learned. The cells that had experienced greater growth and development during the learning process were not necessary for the memory retention. Once again, the hypothetical memory traces have proved to be elusive.
There is another empirical consideration that causes great difficulty for the trace theory of memory.

If memories are somehow stored in brain cells or as modifications of the synaptic connections between them, then the structure of the synapses and the nervous system must remain stable over long periods of time. After all, the time span of human memory is often decades.

Yet as Francis Crick writes: “It is believed that almost all the molecules in our bodies, with the exception of DNA, turn over in a matter of days, weeks, or at the most a few months. How then is memory stored in the brain so that its trace is relatively immune to molecular turnover?”.

Crick’s “solution” is to postulate a mechanism whereby “molecules in the synapse interact in such a way that they can be replaced by new material, one at a time, without altering the overall state of the structure.” His hypothesis involves protein molecules that he endows with a number of unusual properties, but there is no evidence yet that such molecules exist.
We can see from these considerations that the conventional theory of memory traces stored in the brain is in fact an assumption, one that follows from the currently orthodox theory of life, the mechanistic theory, according to which all aspects of life and mind are ultimately explicable in terms of the known laws of physics and chemistry. Results from the experiments mentioned above have not usually called this assumption into question. As one maverick biologist has pointed out:

The conventional response to such findings is that there must be multiple or redundant memorystorage systems distributed throughout various regions of the brain: if some are lost, back-up systems can take over. This hypothesis, invented to account for the failure of attempts to find localized memory traces, follows naturally from the assumption that memories must be stored somehow inside the brain; but in the continuing absence of any direct evidence, it remains more a matter of faith than of fact.

Since the assumption that memories must be stored in the brain follows directly from the mechanistic theory of life, the validity of this theory must be examined and the implications of alternative theories of life for the noncerebral storage of memories must be clearly set forth." End quote .

Chris Carter

.........

"If mind exerts its power over nature by selecting which quantum outcome actually occurs, then our perceived freedom of action is not illusory, for physics as currently conceived regards quantum events as essentially uncaused, unrestrained by prior physical events."
PHYSICIST NICK HERBERT


Regarding the controversial collapse of the wave function and Bell's theorem + the latter's related experiments that proved the existence of "spooky action at a distance " or non-locality or entanglement + introduced the notion of free will in the measurement problem + challenged the existence of the objective reality as such , i refer you to :

The Copenhagen interpretation is still the standard or orthodox one in QM .

http://quantumenigma.com/controversy/

MW interpretation of QM is just a desperate and pathetic attempt to rescue the deterministic materialism .

Alastair Rae , for example, as a proponent of MW theory (theory of interpretation of QM, if you like ) said

that he would prefer the latter ,mainly because he doesn't want to give up reality : a matter of preference.










 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Popper was referring to the non-physical consciousness interacting with the physical brain .
Evidence? the context of the quote might help. As I said, Popper wasn't a substance dualist; he didn't believe in the non-physical in the sense you do.

See the previous page .Popper was the one at least who coined that famous statement of his : "promissory materialism " lol : he was against materialism at least .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
QM has been showing to us all that it  can never be understood without reference to the mind...
That's simply wrong. Have you not watched that MIT 'Introduction to QM' video yet?

That's just a materialistic approach .
It describes what is empirically observed; no more.

Yeah , right : that's why the interpretation or measurement problem of QM does still exist: still not resolved conclusively ,although there is one particular interpretation of QM that's way more plausible and way more simple than the rest : the observer effect interpretation  .

 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg446095#msg446095 date=1418003307]


Blind people do not have to see to apply their mindful volitional effort of attention and action to themselves,to  their brains and to the rest of the physical reality .Their lost sight capacity gets compensated by other abilities .

That isn't what blindsight refers to, which you should know if you are so familiar with his work.

I am not familiar with that part of his work .So what ?

Quote
Humans have two visual pathways from the eyeballs to the higher centers of the brain.  The  evolutionarily older pathway, more prominent in some mammals and reptiles,  goes to the brain stem, and then gets relayed eventually to the higher centers of the brain. The evolutionarily newer pathway goes from the eyeball through the thalamus to the visual cortex of the brain.
In blindsight, the first pathway still works, and some kind of visual information is shared with other parts of the brain, but without the conscious experience of seeing and without the qualia of vision, because the second pathway, or part of the the visual cortex it leads to, doesn’t work.  Patients with blindsight can track objects, avoid obstacles, detect position and movement, sometimes even identify color or orientation (vertical or horizontal) and yet they insist categorically they cannot see - to them it feels like a wild guess, even though they are consistently accurate.

Ok. And ?

Quote
There are several reasons why Ramachandran found all of this interesting. One is, that these patients allowed him to compare vision with
Quote
consciousness to vision without consciousness & qualia, and see how they differed, or what consciousness added. The evidence from his experiments suggests that without consciousness and qualia, a person cannot use visual information to make choices in which the response to a stimulus is open-ended - that is, when there is a vast variety of responses possible in reaction to stimulus. One biological function of qualia, according to Ramachandran, is it that qualia allows an image to be held in working memory long enough for the executive function to work with it, assign meaning or significance based on a myriad of associated information from other parts of the brain.

I told you so, didn't i ? He reduces consciousness or qualia and vision to just biological processes ,doesn't he ? .

As a materialist , he cannot but assume that brain activity and the rest of biology is all what there is in living organisms like ours  ,so consciousness and the rest gotta be just material processes .
How can he jump from the quantitative to the qualitative like that by equating between the 2 ? : simply because he sees no distinction between the 2 = they are all just material processes.


Quote
The problem with brilliant neuroscientists like Ramachandran from which i have learned a lot , the problem of those kinds of scientists is that they try to make the empirical evidence fit into their a-priori held materialistic false beliefs or premises , instead of the other way around , instead of following the evidence wherever it might take them( as Von Neumann and many other prominent scientists did/do) , by misinterpreting the empirical evidence materialistically .As a materialist thus , Ramachandran cannot but a -priori assume that the mind is a product of the brain or just brain activity , and hence volitional effort of attention also is .

Quote
You can criticize Ramachandran for not considering a supernatural or immaterial explanation (while also failing to provide the immaterial mechanism yourself) but his interpretations lead to more testable hypothesizes, more experimental designs, and more information about how things work, etc. Yours lead no where.That was my point about the shaman reference. Your automatic attribution of every mental process and aspect of consciousness to the immaterial prevents any further exploration or insight into the process, and has no explanatory power.

You did not get what i was saying : i am not rejecting the man's work , just his underlying materialistic theory of consciousness+ the fact that materialists like himself do reduce the whole universe , including ourselves , to just material processes  .
Ramachandran like any other materialist scientists reduces consciousness to just brain activity : this materialist claim has been supported by a big zero empirical evidence ,and yet materialists do continue building all their sand castles on their false materialistic intrinsic claim that all is matter , including the mind thus  .

Furthermore , the non-materialistic conception of nature that embraces both the material and the immaterial in nature alike , needless to add , and its related theories  of consciousness have been supported by a little army of scientists and philosophers ...as the subject matter of this thread , if you haven't noticed yet ,

As for the rest of your speculations, see the previous page then .
Even thought we talked all about the above previously on the lengthy consciousness thread and through this thread as well via countless relevant informed excerpts of books and other and more on the subject , you , guys , do still behave and think as if i have never provided you with any relevant info or evidence on the subject .

Do i have to start all over again , over and over again ? Don't think so .


« Last Edit: 08/12/2014 19:48:05 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg446121#msg446121 date=1418036913]
You can criticize Ramachandran for not considering a supernatural or immaterial explanation (while also failing to provide the immaterial mechanism yourself) but his interpretations lead to more testable hypothesizes, more experimental designs, and more information about how things work, etc. Yours lead no where.That was my point about the shaman reference. Your automatic attribution of every mental process and aspect of consciousness to the immaterial prevents any further exploration or insight into the process, and has no explanatory power.
The problem for Don is that not only does his hypothesis have no explanatory or predictive power, but it has no supporting evidence; which, of course, is why researchers like Ramachandran don't need to consider it -


Sure about that ? Your intentional selective amnesia is tragic -hilarious "

http://www.opensciences.org/about/manifesto-for-a-post-materialist-science

Quote
they simply follow the evidence they have, finding no need to invoke redundant magical entities.


lol H I L A R I O U S :

What evidence is there for the materialistic intrinsic fundamental claim that all is matter , including the mind then ? = a big zero .

If the dogmatic materialists would really follow the evidence ,they would be ceasing to be materialists lol, in the first place to begin with , instead of equating their materialistic false belief or world view, ideology ,conception of nature ,  19th century philosophy that was built upon the fundamentally false classical physics ,  instead of thus equating materialism with ...science by turning the latter into a materialistic one ,as that has been the case for relatively so long now and counting .....


Quote
And, as has already been said, the quantum theory Don has currently latched onto, much like a drunk clinging to a lamp post - more for support than illumination - actually does the opposite, not only providing no support for his idea, but actively contradicting it by illuminating the fields and forces available for everyday interaction with the brain (basically the electromagnetic field alone). Regardless of how he tries to force his preferred interpretation to fit his hypothesis, his hypothesis doesn't have a mechanism because quantum field theory behind the interpretation tells us there is, and can be, no such mechanism... His current response of ignoring or dismissing all 'materialist approaches' is the equivalent of a child stuffing his fingers in his ears and shouting "La la la la la, I can't hear you!".

For your info : Great scientific minds physicists and other scientists+ other philosophers ...yesterday and today supported/support the observer effect interpretation of QM.
The Copenhagen interpretation is still the standard or orthodox one so far , while other competing interpretations of QM like that insane MW one are too ....(fill in the blanks then : multiple choices ) to be taken seriously .
 
Quote
I can't wait to see what else he'll find to scrape from the bottom of his immaterial barrel!

Nothing that your dogmatic  materialistic key hole version of reality can account for , let alone explain lol
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
My own version of  "Aliens visiting earth ,and studying humans" story  lol :

"They are made of ...meat ." reported the chief of the aliens team sent to earth to his superior back home .

His superior : " What ? Machines made of meat ? What about the signals they have been sending ?  They can't be sent from ...meat ."

Chief : -" No , they have built machines or devices for that . "

Superior : -" Machines built machines ? Do they have brains at least ? "

C- Yes indeed , but their brains are made of meat too .
S- made of meat ? How come ?

C-I am telling you their brains are made of meat .

S- So, machines were built by meat ?

C- Yes , that's what i am telling you .

S- Sentient meat , i hope .

C- Yes, sentient meat .

S- How can mechanistic  meat be sentient ?

C- We abducted some specimens of them and studied them .Yes, they are sentient beings , but ,they are made of meat , even their brains are  .

S- Wait a minute : did you find nothingelse than meat in their brains or bodies ?

C- We studied their brains and bodies , and guess what ? : they seemed at first to be just their  brains .

S- Seemed ? What do you mean ?

C- You know : we wanted to get firsthand report from their subjective  consciousness ,so, we asked them to tell us how they experience that through their own words.

S- And ?

C-It is a curious and long tale .

S- Tell me that tale anyway .
C-Well, they say that there has been a particular dominating view on the subject that assumes that all is matter , including the mind .

S- Absurd

C- Yes, but the majority of their scientists believe in it .

S- I thought they were rational creatures .

C- You know reason and belief don't go so often hand in hand .

S- I know , but you were telling me that their science has been saying that everything is matter .Is their science a belief ? Come on .Makes no sense .

C- Well, it's a bit more complicated than that , but their science has become a belief indeed ,ironically enough , a dogmatic one too .
We went back in time to study their ancient civilizations , beliefs , history ...and guess what ?

S- What ? You're making me more curious than ever .This is s strange tale .

C- It's just starting to get weirder than ever . Their ancient civilizations, cultures , beliefs ...used to believe in ...souls .

S-Souls ? What is that ?

C- Immaterial part of their being .

S- Immaterial ? What does that mean anyway ?

C- I'll tell you , just wait . They believed in many things like in the existence of the immaterial soul , spirit or whatever , but some of them were also materialists even during ancient times .In short , a new major force or method was discovered and applied : science .They used it and found out about the fact that most ,if not all , of what their church used to tell them about the universe  and themselves was false .

S- They discovered evolution ?

C- Oh , yes ,and a lot more , like classical physics .They discovered that the universe was governed by laws, immutable laws .

S- What ? How could they combine that with evolution ?

C- It just starts to get interesting : the dominating world view of the moment saw its chance delivered to it on a silver plate by a certain Newton . The latter's classical physics are  deterministic and make no room for souls .One guy prior to Newton was by the way so afraid of their church's inquisition that he left the soul or mind or whatever to the church ,and the physical reality , whatever the latter might mean, to their science .He was called Descartes.

S- What ? They have separate parts the mind of which is powerless without any causal powers ? What kindda mindless creatures are those ?

C- Yes or so they thought at least , untill some weird German came along : Max Planck ,who paved the way for what they call the quantum revolution .

S- You mean that primitive belief  of ours ?

C-Indeed .

S-They still have a long way to go then .They are in fact just in the primitive stage ,despite their alleged evolution .

C- Well, they see that in a quite different light .They think they have almost all figured it out . In short : there has been what can be called some dissident scientists of theirs, philosophers too who have been distancing themselves from that mainstream childish materialism of theirs .

S- Oh, interesting .Good to see that they can progress .But they do it rather slowly via many backsteps as well .

C- The new dissidents against the mainstream scientific priesthood have been stumbling upon many weird powers of their minds , so, they concluded that minds can't be material anyway . The prevailing wisdom calls them names, mocks them, ridicules them , and more ,and say that they are trying to bring science back to the medieval times.

S- What a foolish species .

C- Indeed , but they never stop investigating and resisting the status-quo , some of them at least .

S- Enough ,I have more important things to attend to .This species is too ignorant , too arrogant , too irrational , too violent , too self-centered to pay any attention to it yet .They can't be trusted with our wisdom and knowledge .They can't handle that either , they would just misuse it . Never return to that planet again .It contains the very seeds of its ultimate destruction through ignorance , arrogance , egocentrism, greed , self-importance ...

lol



 





« Last Edit: 08/12/2014 21:06:27 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Here below will you find the specific quote of Popper within  its specific  context :
LOL! Seriously?

There's no quote from Popper there, and in particular no mention of what you posted earlier as a Popper quote.

It appears to be a verbatim excerpt from 'Science and the Near-Death Experience' by Chris Carter, including a physical description of an aspect of Popper's metaphysics - which basically repeats my explanation: that Popper wasn't a substance dualist but an interactionalist ("we are faced, not with a plurality of substances... <but a> pluralism of different interacting explanatory principles"), specifically physical fields and forces, and the bodies on which they act ("we have interaction between the four known and very different forces, and between forces and physical bodies"). More specifically, "the action of bodies upon bodies is mediated by fields — by gravitational and electrical fields. Thus like does not act upon like, but bodies act first upon fields, which they modify, and then the modified field acts upon another body."

He presumably wasn't aware they're all aspects of underlying quantum fields, but at a higher level it's not an unreasonable model. However, it's all 'modern physics'; forces, fields, and matter. All material.

Didn't you even read it before posting it? It's nothing to do with your magical immaterial consciousness dualism - an if Carter thinks so, he's an even bigger idiot than I thought - or have you now backtracked down to the level of the shaman who says quantum field theory itself is the work of spirits? Is that your thesis now, that QFT is non-physical, immaterial? That would be a delicious irony  ;D
« Last Edit: 08/12/2014 22:28:36 by dlorde »
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
MATERIALIST THEORIES OF MIND:

Let's go back to basics , guys :
Materialists have been building all their sand castles on their intrinsic fundamental false premise....

As in  "Let's go back to my original rant that materialism is false, and ignore your responses to anything I've said."
Quote


Quote : " It follows from this that mind has no causal role in nature but is at most merely a useless by-product produced by the brain...."


A straw man argument by Carter, as usual.

 I can't actually name any neuroscientist who believes that consciousness is just a useless epiphenomenon. Maybe there is one, but none that I've read, even  Dennett.

Ramachandran definitely does not consider consciousness and qualia an epiphonomena. And I think he is right in that we will likely gain the most insight into consciousness and qualia by looking at what functional benefit they provide, in comparison to automatic, subconscious processing (which makes up most of neural processing.)

In his discussion of blindsight patients and the function of qualia in vision he says:

"There is some physiological evidence for such a connection between qualia and memory.Goodale has reported a certain type of ‘blindsight’ patient who can correctly rotate an envelope to post it in a horizontal or a vertical slot, even though he does not consciously perceive the slot’s orientation and cannot tell you whether the slot is vertical or horizontal (Milner & Goodale, 1995). But if the room lights are switched off just before he puts the letter in, ‘he’ forgets the orientation of the slot almost immediately and is unable to get the letter in. This suggests that the unconscious ‘dorsal
stream’ visual system which discerns orientation and affects arm movements accordingly is not only devoid of qualia but also does not have memory; it is the ‘ventral stream’ visual system that is conscious and has memory. We would maintain that the reason the qualia-laden ventral system has memory is because it is involved in making choices based on perceptual representations. In contrast, the system without qualia engages in continuous real-time processing running in a tightly closed loop
and consequently doesn’t need memory—it is not involved in the making of choices.

This suggests a testable prediction: in patients with blindsight, and in Goodale’s visual zombie, if you give the patient a choice, the system should go haywire. Not only should it not have short-term memory as Goodale showed, but also it should be incapable of making choices. For example if the person is asked to mail a letter and shown two orthogonal slots simultaneously, he should fail, being unable to choose between the two (or alternatively, the system might always go for the first one it
detects). This is consistent with the Crick-Koch view that the neurons which project to the frontal lobes are the qualia neurons because, obviously, the frontal lobes are important for the execution of choices. We would argue, however, that what we think of as the choice itself is really the work of a limbic executive system consisting of the amygdala, anterior cingulate cortex, and other areas, and that the frontal lobes are needed only for fully working out the long-range implications and possible alternatives
which the decision entails, and for dealing with complications arising as the decision is executed (more on this in the final section)."


In addition to blindsight, Ramachandran discusses the qualia of pain in the response to injury. When you touch something hot or sharp, you withdraw your hand before the you are conscious of the sensation of pain. There is only one possible immediate out put to that stimulus - withdraw, now, - and pain is not required for the reflex arc to achieve that output.  Ramachandran argues that the qualia of pain is linked to other, additional, slower pathways where there is either the opportunity for, or the necessity of, making a choice - whether to attempt the same movement again or not, change position, run away, put ice on the injury, etc.

He has other interesting ideas about the function of qualia, as do other neuroscientists  (but since Don is convinced it has nothing to do with the brain or neuroscience, it is probably of no use or interest to him.) But the function of qualia and consciousness may provide an answer to philosophers like Chalmers, whose entire dualist argument rests on the concept of philosophical zombies. This sort of research suggests that a zombie without consciousness could not function as we do, and could not be like us in every way except consciousness.





« Last Edit: 09/12/2014 01:06:54 by cheryl j »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
How can they jump from the former to the following ? :

...The conscious awareness of the central motor command to the muscles

How can the CMC be conscious or aware ?
ROFL! Slight reading comprehension error there; they're not talking about a 'Central Motor Command' like some kind of military transport control centre, they're talking about an instruction to the muscles (a motor command) that originates centrally. Central motor command == command to the muscles from the centre.

In other words, they're talking about being consciously aware of commands to the muscles as a result of 'corollary discharge', i.e. the other pathways are activated, including feedback to higher levels that brings that command activity to conscious awareness.

I'm beginning to see why you get the wrong end of the stick so often...

Quote
How can they equate  the activity of the prefrontal cortex  or the alleged PFC neuronal correlates of cognititive control with the volitional conscious aware cognitive control?
That's what the whole paper is about! If it's a bit technical for you, I strongly recommend that you read 'Self Comes to Mind' by Antonio Damasio, which will give you the technical (but tech-lite) background, and then Stanislas Dehaene's 'Consciousness and the Brain', which gives an readable integrated overview.

Quote
That mindful cognitive control does work through its prefrontal cortex correlates does not mean that the former is just the latter , or that they can be equated with each other .
As has been said before, using other analogies, you may think a watch is operated by spirits before you open the back, peer inside, and start poking at the contents, but when you've traced the main path of cogs from the spring to the hands, and noted what happens when the spring has unwound or a cog breaks, you no longer need to invoke spirits to explain it. You may not understand the whole mechanism or the exact principles behind the escapement, but you can see the general principles and organisation; and only fool or a man with something important to lose would continue to insist that spirits power the spring or allow the cogs to turn, or control the escapement. You've been sounding like a man with something important to lose for some time now.

Quote
Furthermore , we encounter the same materialistic logical fallacy or materialistic fundamental false premise when dealing with  the interpretations of experiments regarding memory ,for example : equating neuronal correlates of  memory ...with the latter, and hence memory is allegedly stored in the brain correlates of memory :

Quantitative neuronal correlates of memory get equated with memory itself ,while the latter  is a matter of qualitative subjective processes that cannot be reduced to or equated with their quantitative neuronal correlates, needless to add , since memory itself as a matter of subjective processes that encompass taste , subjective experiences, meaning , purpose, aesthetics , ethics , morality , ....cannot be quantified or "computed or stored " by their neuronal correlates.
When you can delete a memory by blocking the neurons where you think it is stored, and restore it by feeding in a recording of the activity of those neurons, when stimulating or suppressing specific areas produces specific changes in all those properties, it's entirely reasonable to assume, in the absence of any indication to the contrary, that those areas perform those functions.

Quote
See the following on the subject :

Quote : "THE EVIDENCE FROM NEUROPHYSIOLOGY:
...
If memories are somehow stored in brain cells or as modifications of the synaptic connections between them, then the structure of the synapses and the nervous system must remain stable over long periods of time. After all, the time span of human memory is often decades.

Yet as Francis Crick writes: “It is believed that almost all the molecules in our bodies, with the exception of DNA, turn over in a matter of days, weeks, or at the most a few months. How then is memory stored in the brain so that its trace is relatively immune to molecular turnover?”.

Chris Carter
I was right - Carter is a bigger idiot than I thought. Our whole bodies remain relatively stable over long periods of time, not just our nervous systems. At the same time, they are also incredibly dynamic - particularly our nervous system - millions or billions of neural connections are being made or broken every second, just as billions of cells throughout the body die and are replaced every day, yet somehow the pattern of our structure and our memory remains fairly intact (although episodic memory is seriously labile and unreliable). Either Carter wrote his piece twenty years ago, or he's failed to keep up with the subject he's writing about - he's way behind the current state of knowledge about the neurophysiology of memory.

 

Offline cheryl j

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


 "For Beauregard, this raises questions: “If physics fails to support biology, which discipline should rethink its position—physics or biology?


It doesn't always work that way. A good example is Penrose. Even with the assistance of anesthesiologist Hammeroff in developing his theory of quantum consciousness, they were sent back to the drawing board  multiple times when neuroscientists showed that aspects of their theory were not compatible with the empirical evidence about the structure of neurons or microtubules.
Stapp didn't have that problem, as he just ignored the interaction problem and the origin of his conscious agency, and neuroscience entirely, and not surprisingly, is irrelevant.



 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
The Copenhagen interpretation is still the standard or orthodox one in QM .

http://quantumenigma.com/controversy/

I think you'll find the authors of that book are not supportive of the 'conscious collapse' version of the Copenhagen interpretation:
Quote from: Kuttner & Rosenblum
In the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, observation takes place, for all practical purposes, as soon as the microscopic quantum object encounters the macroscopic screen. Other interpretations of quantum mechanics, attempting to go beyond practical purposes, consider observation to be more involved with the actual conscious experience of the experimental result.

They see the mainstream Copenhagen interpretation as a 'practical' one, rather than especially meaningful; in notes to the book they say:
Quote from: Kuttner & Rosenblum
Back when I studied quantum mechanics in graduate school it was generally implied that Copenhagen resolved all philosophical problems, that Copenhagen is the “right” interpretation... I can’t quite remember why we so blithly accepted the “collapse of the wavefunction”–everywhere, instantaneously.

and in a Physics Today article, they say:
Quote from: Kuttner & Rosenblum
The Copenhagen interpretation is, of course, all we need to describe the world for all practical purposes. And for a physics class, practical purposes are all that generally matter. But a physics student confronting someone inclined to take the implications of quantum mechanics to unjustified places will find Copenhagen’s for-all-practical-purposes treatment an ineffective argument.
Note: By 'unjustified places', they mean conscious collapse.

In a review of the book, Professor Richard Conn Henry (himself an advocate of the subjective universe) says, about their treatment of QM interpretations:
Quote
Copenhagen. The “majority” interpretation, for decades. Not really an interpretation at all, but rather a (clearly non-physical) segregation of the world into the microscopic (in which there is reality, but it is observer-created reality), and the macroscopic (which was taken to be real). A human observer is not needed; a geiger counter will do just fine. Our authors [Kuttner & Rosenblum] correctly point out that the advance of technology now forces retreat from this increasingly untenable “interpretation.”
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8122
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
... How then is memory stored in the brain so that its trace is relatively immune to molecular turnover? ...

Quote from: timeshighereducation.co.uk
... a few of the body's cell types endure from birth to death without renewal, and this special minority includes some or all of the cells of the cerebral cortex ...
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/198208.article
 

Offline cheryl j

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




Quote : " Conclusion:
The results suggest that MRCP amplitude during movement execution is a neural correlate of perception of effort. This study was the first to provide direct neurophysiological evidence that MRCP amplitude during movement execution correlates with perception of effort.
This finding supports the corollary discharge theory, which proposes that perception of effort is the conscious awareness of the central motor command to the muscles.
 Further studies using brain imaging and neuropharmacological techniques, are necessary to identify more precisely the brain networks and neurotransmitters underlying perception of effort."End quote

How can they jump from the former to the following ? :


...The conscious awareness of the central motor command to the muscles

How can the CMC be conscious or aware ?

They equate   the neuronal correlates of perception of
effort (CMC ) with the conscious awareness of the   perception of effort itself  .

They started from the following premise to conclude the above :

Quote : "Perception of effort, the conscious sensation of how heavy and
strenuous a physical task is (Borg, 1998), is an important aspect
of our subjective experience of volition.
It is thought that the signal underlying perception of effort arises in the brain from corollary discharges of the central motor command.
This corollary discharge theory suggests that perception of effort should be significantly correlated with the magnitude of central motor command." End quote .


I don't think they are equating the perception of effort with volition. You are the one assuming the action and the feeling about it are one and the same. The perception of effort  is the feeling or qualia associated with a physical or mental task that is difficult. Not unlike any other feeling - curiosity, confidence or satisfaction of figuring out an answer, surprise, doubt or worry that you may have over looked something, confusion, relief, etc.


« Last Edit: 09/12/2014 16:24:35 by cheryl j »
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: DonQuichotte
MW interpretation of QM is just a desperate and pathetic attempt to rescue the deterministic materialism .
What is "MW interpretation"? If you were saying that it's "theory of interpretation of QM" then that makes no sense to me.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote from: DonQuichotte
MW interpretation of QM is just a desperate and pathetic attempt to rescue the deterministic materialism .
What is "MW interpretation"? If you were saying that it's "theory of interpretation of QM" then that makes no sense to me.

That's the many worlds interpretation of QM then .What' s this fuss of yours all about then ?
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg446169#msg446169 date=1418077445]
Here below will you find the specific quote of Popper within  its specific  context :
LOL! Seriously?

There's no quote from Popper there, and in particular no mention of what you posted earlier as a Popper quote.

It appears to be a verbatim excerpt from 'Science and the Near-Death Experience' by Chris Carter, including a physical description of an aspect of Popper's metaphysics - which basically repeats my explanation: that Popper wasn't a substance dualist but an interactionalist ("we are faced, not with a plurality of substances... <but a> pluralism of different interacting explanatory principles"), specifically physical fields and forces, and the bodies on which they act ("we have interaction between the four known and very different forces, and between forces and physical bodies"). More specifically, "the action of bodies upon bodies is mediated by fields — by gravitational and electrical fields. Thus like does not act upon like, but bodies act first upon fields, which they modify, and then the modified field acts upon another body."

He presumably wasn't aware they're all aspects of underlying quantum fields, but at a higher level it's not an unreasonable model. However, it's all 'modern physics'; forces, fields, and matter. All material.

Didn't you even read it before posting it? It's nothing to do with your magical immaterial consciousness dualism - an if Carter thinks so, he's an even bigger idiot than I thought - or have you now backtracked down to the level of the shaman who says quantum field theory itself is the work of spirits? Is that your thesis now, that QFT is non-physical, immaterial? That would be a delicious irony  ;D


Don't be silly : Carter just used that specific Popper's quote in relation to the fact that not only likes can act upon likes , in a nutshell ,so, any  processes don't have to be like each other in kind to interact with each other , simply put ,if you push that logic of Popper to its limits at least .

That's why i told you to see that specific quote within its specific context , and that's why i posted the prior quotes before it as well  .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

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




Quote : " Conclusion:
The results suggest that MRCP amplitude during movement execution is a neural correlate of perception of effort. This study was the first to provide direct neurophysiological evidence that MRCP amplitude during movement execution correlates with perception of effort.
This finding supports the corollary discharge theory, which proposes that perception of effort is the conscious awareness of the central motor command to the muscles.
 Further studies using brain imaging and neuropharmacological techniques, are necessary to identify more precisely the brain networks and neurotransmitters underlying perception of effort."End quote

How can they jump from the former to the following ? :


...The conscious awareness of the central motor command to the muscles

How can the CMC be conscious or aware ?

They equate   the neuronal correlates of perception of
effort (CMC ) with the conscious awareness of the   perception of effort itself  .

They started from the following premise to conclude the above :

Quote : "Perception of effort, the conscious sensation of how heavy and
strenuous a physical task is (Borg, 1998), is an important aspect
of our subjective experience of volition.
It is thought that the signal underlying perception of effort arises in the brain from corollary discharges of the central motor command.
This corollary discharge theory suggests that perception of effort should be significantly correlated with the magnitude of central motor command." End quote .


I don't think they are equating the perception of effort with volition. You are the one assuming the action and the feeling about it are one and the same. The perception of effort  is the feeling or qualia associated with a physical or mental task that is difficult. Not unlike any other feeling - curiosity, confidence or satisfaction of figuring out an answer, surprise, doubt or worry that you may have over looked something, confusion, relief, etc.

I did formulate my answer to that specific PDF relating to the perception of effort rather clumsily, i must admit  : I will reformulate it this way then ,as follows :

They say that the perception of effort is just the conscious awareness of the motor command to the muscles : the latter triggers the former : the conscious aware perception of effort is just the discharge of the motor command to the muscles , a discharge that arises in the brain that is = conscious aware perception of effort is just the result  of its correlated brain activity that triggers a discharge to the motor command to the muscles = they don't say exactly  how  the conscious aware perception of effort  does rise from  that related brain discharge to the motor command to the muscles , or as David Cooper would put it :

where is the mechanism in the system that triggers conscious awareness of the perception of effort or pain : or how the discharge from the brain to the motor command to the muscles is "translated " into the conscious aware perception of effort or pain ...What mechanism takes care of that ,what mechanism would allow us to jump from the one to the other .

In short : that's just a materialistic approach that equates brain activity and its related motor commands to the muscles with the conscious aware perception of effort .

« Last Edit: 09/12/2014 17:57:15 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg446175#msg446175 date=1418083049]


 "For Beauregard, this raises questions: “If physics fails to support biology, which discipline should rethink its position—physics or biology?


It doesn't always work that way.


Biology remains mostly stuck within the fundamentally false classical physics , while physics has moved beyond the latter to QM : clearly quantum physics is not the one that has to rethink its position, does it ?

And since reductionist materialism just assumes that psychology is just applied biology, biology just applied chemistry , chemistry just applied physics , then biology and neuroscience at least must rethink their position, not physics .


Quote
A good example is Penrose. Even with the assistance of anesthesiologist Hammeroff in developing his theory of quantum consciousness, they were sent back to the drawing board  multiple times when neuroscientists showed that aspects of their theory were not compatible with the empirical evidence about the structure of neurons or microtubules.


Really ? Empirical evidence has been showing , indirectly that is , that consciousness is a non-physical non-local process , while materialists like your above mentioned ones keep on believing in their false materialistic version of consciousness upon which they have been building all their sand castles .It is thus irrelevant that they did rethink some of the sub-claims of their so-called quantum theory of consciousness (The latter is allegedly just the magical result of all those sexy dances vibrations oscillations of ensemble of neurons in the microtubules ) ,since their major claim or major premise upon which they have been building their theory has been that consciousness is just brain activity .

In short : no matter how many empirical or other improvements they would try to apply to their theory , it will  always be false , since it has been built upon their major materialistic false premise : consciousness is just brain activity , just a material process .

Quote
Stapp didn't have that problem, as he just ignored the interaction problem and the origin of his conscious agency, and neuroscience entirely, and not surprisingly, is irrelevant.

What are you talking about ? How do you know that ?Didn't we go through all that , on many occasions ?

Stapp based his quantum theory of consciousness on the non-mechanical instantaneous causal efficacy  of consciousness ,without any transfer of energy whatsoever ,on the physical brain through the observer effect interpretation of QM, at the level of calcium ions through the quantum Zeno effect ( Volitional effort of attention can maintain and sustain certain brain states in place , like when certain regularly observed or measured sub-atomic processes do not decay as a result , and thus remain in their initial state .) ,as well as through Hebb's law that states that neurons that fire together wire together : Schwartz ' non-materialist successful cognitive psychology or 4-steps therapy is based upon all the above and more , and it has been proved to work empirically : scanned brains of patients who underwent that therapy , before and after the therapy thus , showed significant changes in their brains accordingly through self-directed neuroplasticity .

« Last Edit: 09/12/2014 18:25:49 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: DonQuichotte
What' s this fuss of yours all about then ?
Given what it meant I retract the statement.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote from: DonQuichotte
What' s this fuss of yours all about then ?
Given what it meant I retract the statement.

Ok, thanks . Don't worry about it .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
... How then is memory stored in the brain so that its trace is relatively immune to molecular turnover? ...

Quote from: timeshighereducation.co.uk
... a few of the body's cell types endure from birth to death without renewal, and this special minority includes some or all of the cells of the cerebral cortex ...
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/198208.article

Regardless of whether or not that minority of cells of the cerebral cortex thus get renewed or not , the brain is an ever changing theater thanks to neuropalsticity and self-directed neuroplasticity .

Better still : the assumption that the mind and its memories ...are just brain activity , and hence  memories can be stored in the brain....is just a materialistic extension of the materialistic fundamental intrinsic claim that all is matter , including the mind = no empirical evidence .

Furthermore , can you care to enlighten us about how such qualitative subjective memories that are a matter of qualitative subjective experiences , taste , preferences , aesthetics , morality , ethics , ...can you tell us how they can be quantified or computed by the related or correlated quantitative brain activity ?, let alone stored  : how can the qualitative arise from the quantitative then ? And how can the latter compute quantify or store the former ? : what makes you make that inexplicably magical jump then ?
Right , materialism does that to you , not empirical evidence .
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8122
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
... can you care to enlighten us about how such qualitative subjective memories that are a matter of qualitative subjective experiences , taste , preferences , aesthetics , morality , ethics ... can you tell us how they can be quantified or computed by the related or correlated quantitative brain activity ?

 Brain-damaged individuals can undergo a personality change,
becoming aggressive and/or libidinous
...

Quote from: caring.com
... some people with AD [ Alzheimer's Disease] do things that are totally uncharacteristic of personality before the disease. Swearing (yes, even precious sweet elderly ladies!), spitting, becoming socially inept and impulsive with inappropriate words or actions, and sexual advances may appear for some folks.
https://www.caring.com/questions/dementia-and-personality-change

 So their moral judgement has been modified by deactivation [destruction] of part of their brain .

And of course persons suffering from dementia lose their memory. 
« Last Edit: 09/12/2014 19:22:42 by RD »
 

Offline cheryl j

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


Furthermore , can you care to enlighten us about how such qualitative subjective memories that are a matter of qualitative subjective experiences , taste , preferences , aesthetics , morality , ethics , ...can you tell us how they can be quantified or computed by the related or correlated quantitative brain activity ?, let alone stored  : how can the qualitative arise from the quantitative then ? And how can the latter compute quantify or store the former ? : what makes you make that inexplicably magical jump then ?
Right , materialism does that to you , not empirical evidence .

You can't expect anyone to explain all neuroscience in two or three paragraphs. Look at how long that one article is on the prefrontal cortex, which is just a description of their model and cites dozens and dozens of papers that performed the individual experiments on which their model is based.

When you get backed into a corner, you start demanding "Explain this! Explain that! Explain these 20 or 30 other things," already convinced that if you don't know of any explanation, and Chris Carter doesn't know of any explanation, it probably doesn't exist, or isn't possible.

So, which of those things that you mentioned above would you like to investigate and discuss next in some kind of meaningful detail? Ethics? Preferences? Aesthetics? Something else?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

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