The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Major Bombshell : Manifesto For A Post-Materialistic Science :  (Read 188119 times)

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Excerpt From "The Biology of Belief ..." By Biologist Bruce Lipton , Chapter 5 : "Biology and Belief " , " Mind over Body " :

Far out man...  ::)


There's no shortage of opinion about Lipton's work:

Epigenetics: It doesn’t mean what quacks think it means (Science-Based Medicine)
Bruce Lipton PhD: Quack, ignoramus
Bruce Lipton: Quack, Creationist, Buffoon, PhD
Choprawoo returns, this time with help from Bruce Lipton
« Last Edit: 11/12/2014 00:44:45 by dlorde »
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
"How the Mind Controls the Body"

From the same above mentioned source and chapter :


Quote : "My insights into how beliefs control biology are grounded in my studies of cloned endothelial cells,
the cells that line the blood vessels. The endothelial cells I grew in culture monitor their world closely and change their behavior based on information they pick up from the environment. When I provided nutrients, the cells would gravitate toward those nutrients with the cellular equivalent of open arms.

When I created a toxic environment, the cultured cells would retreat from the stimulus in an effort to wall themselves off from the noxious agents. My research focused on the membrane perception switches that controlled the shift from one behavior to the other.

The primary switch I was studying has a protein receptor that responds to histamine, a molecule that the body uses in a way that is equivalent to a local emergency alarm. I found that there are two varieties of switches, H1 and H2, that respond to the same histamine signal. When activated, switches with H1 histamine receptors evoke a protection response, the type of behavior revealed by cells in toxin-containing culture dishes. Switches containing H2 histamine receptors evoke a growth response to histamine, similar to the behavior of cells cultured in the presence of nutrients.

I subsequently learned that the body’s system-wide emergency response signal, adrenaline, also has switches sporting two different adrenaline-sensing receptors, called alpha and beta. The adrenaline receptors provoked the exact same cell behaviors as those elicited by histamine. When the adrenal alpha-receptor is part of an IMP switch, it provokes a protection response when adrenaline is perceived. When the beta-receptor is part of the switch, the same adrenaline signal activates a growth response. (Lipton, et al, 1992).

All that was interesting, but the most exciting finding was when I simultaneously introduced both histamine and adrenaline into my tissue cultures. I found that adrenaline signals, released by the central nervous system, override the influence of histamine signals that are produced locally.

 This is where the politics of the community described earlier come in to play. Suppose you’re working in a bank. The branch manager gives you an order. The CEO walks in and gives you the opposite order.
Which order would you follow? If you want to keep your job you’ll snap to the CEO’s order. There is a similar priority built into our biology, which requires cells to follow instructions from the head honcho nervous system, even if those signals are in conflict with local stimuli.

I was excited by my experiments because I believed that they revealed on the single-cell level a truth for multicellular organisms—that the mind (acting via the central nervous system’s adrenaline) overrides the body (acting via the local histamine signal). I wanted to spell out the implications of my experiments in my research paper, but my colleagues almost died from apoplexy at the notion of injecting the body-mind connection into a paper about cell biology. So I put in a cryptic comment about understanding the significance of the study, but I couldn’t say what the significance was.

 My colleagues did not want me to include these implications of my research because the mind is not an acceptable biological concept. Bioscientists are conventional Newtonians—if it isn’t matter, it doesn’t count. The “mind” is a non-localized energy and therefore is not relevant to materialistic biology. Unfortunately, that perception is a “belief” that has been proven to be patently incorrect in a quantum mechanical universe!" End quote .

I don't quite get his point. That cells with the corresponding receptors respond to hormones and other chemical messengers that alter their function? And maintain homeostasis through negative feedback loops? And this is news or proof of the immaterial because....?
 

Offline cheryl j

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

It's hard to explain the qualitative personality and its related morality , memory and other changes that happen to people afflicted with dementia ,Alzheimer ...but that's no conclusive evidence for the materialistic intrinsic belief assumption that consciousness is just brain activity .
See, that's where your logic completely falls apart. The LACK of YOUR explanation for why the immaterial personality changes with biological disease, or immaterial memories disappear, or the change in the quality of subjective experience claimed by the person experiencing it has NOTHING to do with any assumption made by materialists (or Buddhists or Christians or Druids or Scientologists or anyone else you might be attempting to explain your theory to.) The lack of explanations or contradictions in your own theory remain regardless of who the listener is.


Quote
When an individual grows up , he/she undergoes many experiences , learns many things and skills, is exposed to many information from the outside as well as from the inside worlds , exposed to many psychological and other challenges ,traumas ....so, his/her brain and the rest of his /her biology must cope with all that through biological changes , through neuroplasticity or through self-directed neuroplasticity ...

Any evidence for self directed neuroplasticity in babies? How does that work exactly?
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
"How the Mind Controls the Body"

From the same above mentioned source and chapter :


Quote : "My insights into how beliefs control biology are grounded in my studies of cloned endothelial cells,
the cells that line the blood vessels. The endothelial cells I grew in culture monitor their world closely and change their behavior based on information they pick up from the environment. When I provided nutrients, the cells would gravitate toward those nutrients with the cellular equivalent of open arms.

When I created a toxic environment, the cultured cells would retreat from the stimulus in an effort to wall themselves off from the noxious agents. My research focused on the membrane perception switches that controlled the shift from one behavior to the other.

The primary switch I was studying has a protein receptor that responds to histamine, a molecule that the body uses in a way that is equivalent to a local emergency alarm. I found that there are two varieties of switches, H1 and H2, that respond to the same histamine signal. When activated, switches with H1 histamine receptors evoke a protection response, the type of behavior revealed by cells in toxin-containing culture dishes. Switches containing H2 histamine receptors evoke a growth response to histamine, similar to the behavior of cells cultured in the presence of nutrients.

I subsequently learned that the body’s system-wide emergency response signal, adrenaline, also has switches sporting two different adrenaline-sensing receptors, called alpha and beta. The adrenaline receptors provoked the exact same cell behaviors as those elicited by histamine. When the adrenal alpha-receptor is part of an IMP switch, it provokes a protection response when adrenaline is perceived. When the beta-receptor is part of the switch, the same adrenaline signal activates a growth response. (Lipton, et al, 1992).

All that was interesting, but the most exciting finding was when I simultaneously introduced both histamine and adrenaline into my tissue cultures. I found that adrenaline signals, released by the central nervous system, override the influence of histamine signals that are produced locally.

 This is where the politics of the community described earlier come in to play. Suppose you’re working in a bank. The branch manager gives you an order. The CEO walks in and gives you the opposite order.
Which order would you follow? If you want to keep your job you’ll snap to the CEO’s order. There is a similar priority built into our biology, which requires cells to follow instructions from the head honcho nervous system, even if those signals are in conflict with local stimuli.

I was excited by my experiments because I believed that they revealed on the single-cell level a truth for multicellular organisms—that the mind (acting via the central nervous system’s adrenaline) overrides the body (acting via the local histamine signal). I wanted to spell out the implications of my experiments in my research paper, but my colleagues almost died from apoplexy at the notion of injecting the body-mind connection into a paper about cell biology. So I put in a cryptic comment about understanding the significance of the study, but I couldn’t say what the significance was.

 My colleagues did not want me to include these implications of my research because the mind is not an acceptable biological concept. Bioscientists are conventional Newtonians—if it isn’t matter, it doesn’t count. The “mind” is a non-localized energy and therefore is not relevant to materialistic biology. Unfortunately, that perception is a “belief” that has been proven to be patently incorrect in a quantum mechanical universe!" End quote .

I don't quite get his point. That cells with the corresponding receptors respond to hormones and other chemical messengers that alter their function? And maintain homeostasis through negative feedback loops? And this is news or proof of the immaterial because....?

Reread that , Cheryl , and see this on the subject :

Libet Benjamin-Can Conscious Experience Affect Brain Activity ?:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imprint.co.uk%2Fpdf%2FLibet.pdf&ei=Ls-JVMaiGYavU9vKgNAF&usg=AFQjCNH8Wham7kVuYqgUOVRlxbQ-yOON4w&sig2=h2AYHzF83ffqfG-yXYE8YA&bvm=bv.81456516,d.d24
 

Offline DonQuichotte

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


In other words : What we take for granted as reality or as the physical universe thus might be just a mental illusion .


That might be true if I were the only observer Don. But I'm not! I have support from millions of other people that experience the same observations. And this is why we test and observe and qualify those observations as genuine realities. The only other conclusion one could draw is that we are alone in our illusions and may be ourselves, nothing more than an illusion.

So humanity is left with a decision. Do I believe what I observe or do I invent my own reality. I think you'll remember what I said the latter course leads one to, it's called insanity. So you have a choice Don as each and everyone of us also has. Accept the evidence of observation or declare your very existence as an illusion.

Science chooses to take all reasonable information either observed by experiment or understood thru mathematics. It's all the evidence we have to judge this world by. And if, as you speculate, it's only an illusion, all the conclusions we will ever be able to draw from those illusions are also nothing more than only illusions! So why draw any conclusions at all?

I prefer the reality that is in agreement with others of my own kind and the world around me.

The so-called physical reality,including the physical brain and body thus ,  is the one that might be an illusion , an elaborate persistent  useful one that feels ,sounds , looks , tastes ,.... appears to be real lol, not the mind : QM says thus the very opposite of what materialism has been saying : Bell's theorem and its related experiments corroborated that fact clearly : 

I was just saying that QM has been showing to us that what we call reality or the physical reality might be an illusion, a mental one and more  :

Bell's theorem and its related experiments corroborated that and more  :

Ethos :

Source : "Quantum Enigma , Physics encounters consciousness : "

http://quantumenigma.com/

"According to Bell:
In his arguments with Bohr, Einstein was wrong in all the details.
Bohr understood the actual manipulation of quantum mechanics much better than Einstein. But still, in his philosophy of physics and his idea of what it is all about and what we are doing and should do, Einstein seems to be absolutely admirable. . . . [T]here is no doubt that he is, for me, the model of how one should think about physics."

.......


"Bell’s theorem and the experiments it fostered are responsible. They
did more than confi rm the weird predictions of quantum theory. The
experiments showed that no future theory could ever explain our actual
world as a “reasonable” one. Any correct future theory must describe a world in which objects do not have properties that are separately their own, independent of their “observation.” In principle, that applies to all objects. Even to us?"

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

Bell’s theorem has been called “the most profound discovery in science in
the last half of the twentieth century.” It has rubbed physics’ nose in the weirdness of quantum mechanics. Bell’s theorem and the experiments it stimulated answered what was supposedly a “merely philosophical question” in the laboratory. We now know Einstein’s “spooky actions” actually exist. Even events at the edge of the galaxy instantly influence what happens at the edge of your garden. We quickly emphasize that such influences are undetectable in any normally complex situation.Nevertheless, What are now called “EPR-Bell influences,” or entanglement, now get attention in industrial laboratories for their potential to allow incredibly powerful computers. They already provide the most secure encryption for confidential communication. Bell’s theorem has renewed interest in the foundations of quantum mechanics, and dramatically displays physics’ encounter with consciousness."

..........

.."When the experiments were done, Bell’s inequality was violated. Assumptions of reality and separability yielded a wrong prediction in our actual world.

Bell’s straw man was knocked down, as Bell expected it would be. Our world therefore does not have both reality and separability. It’s in this sense, an “unreasonable” world.
We immediately admit not understanding what the world lacking “reality” might mean. Even what “reality” itself might mean. In fact, whether or not reality is indeed required as a premise in Bell’s theorem is in dispute.
However, we need not deal with that right now.

 For our derivation of a Bell inequality, we assume a straightforward real world. Later, when we discuss the consequences of the violation of Bell’s inequality in our actual world, we’ll define a “reality” implicitly accepted by most physicists. It will leave us with a strangely connected world."

P.S : My emphasis : In short :

What we take  for granted as the physical universe or physical reality, through our mindful perception of it at least , might be just a mental construct of ours = the universe might be ...mental .

In other words : What we take for granted as reality or as the physical universe thus might be just a mental illusion .

I can't even imagine what that means .I can't even picture that or imagine that .Who can ?

That sounds insane to all of us indeed , but that's what QM has been saying anyway : Bell's theorem and its related experiments just supported and proved that fact more clearly than ever before .

Don't leave your mind to ...materialism then, Ethos lol , like Descartes did by leaving (  his) the mind to the church , metaphorically speaking then  lol .Use it to grasp the above and more .Your mind is not powerless .It is powerful , more powerful than you can ever imagine, you have no idea ,my friend Ethos .

That turns all what materialistic science has been saying about the origin of the universe , the origin of life , the evolution of life ...upside down, to say the least .

Welcome to the "real " world .Cheers.

Once again :

The so-called physical reality,including the physical brain and body thus ,  is the one that might be an illusion , an elaborate persistent  useful one that feels ,sounds , looks , tastes ,.... appears to be real lol, not the mind : QM says thus the very opposite of what materialism has been saying : Bell's theorem and its related experiments corroborated that fact clearly : 
« Last Edit: 11/12/2014 20:11:01 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg446346#msg446346 date=1418268260]

It's hard to explain the qualitative personality and its related morality , memory and other changes that happen to people afflicted with dementia ,Alzheimer ...but that's no conclusive evidence for the materialistic intrinsic belief assumption that consciousness is just brain activity .
See, that's where your logic completely falls apart. The LACK of YOUR explanation for why the immaterial personality changes with biological disease, or immaterial memories disappear, or the change in the quality of subjective experience claimed by the person experiencing it has NOTHING to do with any assumption made by materialists (or Buddhists or Christians or Druids or Scientologists or anyone else you might be attempting to explain your theory to.) The lack of explanations or contradictions in your own theory remain regardless of who the listener is.

Let me first remind you of the fact that we're still almost in total darkness regarding how the mind works through the brain, not to mention that we still do not know much about the brain itself , let alone about the mind  : see how many theories of consciousness that  are out there , none of which can pretend to have the final word on the subject , not even remotely close :

http://www.imprint.co.uk/jcs.html

Second : materialistic theories of consciousness should be either partly or totally eliminated from the list of competitive theories of consciousness, simply because materialism is certainly false , mainly because it cannot account for consciousness, let alone explain it , and since consciousness is irreducible to brain activity .

Third : both psychological and biological disorders + the "external " environment , to mention just that , can affect the brain ,and hence the expression of consciousness through it ,the brain as a transceiver for  consciousness and the mind .

But fact is : Conscious Experience can affect Brain Activity : too :

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imprint.co.uk%2Fpdf%2FLibet.pdf&ei=fdyJVIakDsfvUKfegKAG&usg=AFQjCNH8Wham7kVuYqgUOVRlxbQ-yOON4w&sig2=Cc0h5V0ekX4ql3EE1-k-Pg&bvm=bv.81456516,d.d24


Schwartz' excerpts might have also explained to you that psychological disorders such as OCD can trigger biological and neurophysiological ones, for example , which alter the consciousness of the OCD patients .

The latter can try to 'fix " that by being aware of the biological and psychological nature of OCD , and hence can try to rewire their brains through self-directed neuroplasticity via therapy or via informed trained self-help , and hence change their minds accordingly .

So, diseases like Alzheimer , dementia ...can alter the brain in significant ways that express themselves at the level of consciousness accordingly : the multiple damages to the neuronal correlates of memory , to the neuronal correlates of self-identity or personality .....cannot thus but alter consciousness at those levels ,since consciousness has to work and express itself through its neuronal correlates .

Try to do an experiment at home , by trying to reverse-engineer your tv set , radio ....to see what happens next lol

Depending on the kind of damage to those devices you might trigger , or depending on their specific malfunctions , you might get sound without images ,and vice versa , or double images ,weird images , weird sound ...or nothing at all : blank tv or mute radio ...

Would that mean that tv or radio do produce their sounds or sounds-images ?

The problem with the latter analogy is that  the transmitting stations, satellites , broadcasting channels and the receiving devices are all material or physical + they are separate from each other : the inseparable mind and the brain , on the other hand , are 2 different processes in kind ,and the brain is both a receiver and a transmitter (transceiver ) : the physical brain transmits a storm of "information " from both the 'external " environment through the senses , as well as from within the inner biology to the mind , while reacting to the corresponding feedbacks from  the mind + to those concerning the psychological inner experiences ...not to mention to the unconscious stream of info and feedbacks ...

Take all the above into consideration and more ,and you might be able to come up with a scientific theory of consciousness that might be worthy of a Nobel prize and beyond .

Good luck with  that .Don't forget to mention me,as your muse ,  in your eventual Nobel prize ceremony speech lol


Quote
Quote
When an individual grows up , he/she undergoes many experiences , learns many things and skills, is exposed to many information from the outside as well as from the inside worlds , exposed to many psychological and other challenges ,traumas ....so, his/her brain and the rest of his /her biology must cope with all that through biological changes , through neuroplasticity or through self-directed neuroplasticity ...

Any evidence for self directed neuroplasticity in babies? How does that work exactly?

Who was talking about any self-directed neuroplasticity of babies ? lol , even though educators , parents ...can induce neuroplasticity for babies lol : can direct their neuroplasticity ,as our environments do that to our brains via our experiences , learning , adaptation , social communication  ...

I said ,as a response to RD , that the brains of kids can't cope with growing up unless they can benefit from the intrinsic neuroplasticity , when he said why do brains need plasticity if memory and the mind are not in the brain ....
Got the pic , lady painter ?
« Last Edit: 11/12/2014 18:30:43 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Excerpt From "The Biology of Belief ..." By Biologist Bruce Lipton , Chapter 5 : "Biology and Belief " , " Mind over Body " :

Far out man...  ::)


There's no shortage of opinion about Lipton's work:

Epigenetics: It doesn’t mean what quacks think it means (Science-Based Medicine)
Bruce Lipton PhD: Quack, ignoramus
Bruce Lipton: Quack, Creationist, Buffoon, PhD
Choprawoo returns, this time with help from Bruce Lipton

Of course .He's not a materialist ,so .
Lipton does flirt with new age sometimes, for example and more , but that's no reason to reject all his work , is it ?

Materialist biologists are even worse than new age lunatics lol even : they reduce life to just mechanical deterministic mindless material processes .
 

Offline cheryl j

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

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4728
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile

Of course .He's not a materialist ,so .
Lipton does flirt with new age sometimes, for example and more , but that's no reason to reject all his work , is it ?


The important question is  whether there is any reason to accept any of it. Just one example, please, of a nonmaterialist prediction that was more accurate than a materialist one. Surely one example isn't too much to expect of your "major bombshell" - or is it just a damp fart?
 

Offline DonQuichotte

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


Reread that , Cheryl , and see this on the subject :

Libet Benjamin-Can Conscious Experience Affect Brain Activity ?:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imprint.co.uk%2Fpdf%2FLibet.pdf&ei=Ls-JVMaiGYavU9vKgNAF&usg=AFQjCNH8Wham7kVuYqgUOVRlxbQ-yOON4w&sig2=h2AYHzF83ffqfG-yXYE8YA&bvm=bv.81456516,d.d24
Intentional Inhibition How the "Veto Area Exerts" Control.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19072994

As all materialist scientists , Libet cannot but equate brain activity with that of the mind (identity theory = all is brain ) , including the mindful veto power of volition : what a waste of  such a brilliant mind who denied the very causal efficacy of his own mind lol and the latter 's very ...existence as such = a paradox (The logical limit of deterministic reductionist materialism at the level of consciousness at least , is that it must be an illusion, an evolutionary useful brain simulation  that feels real lol : there is no other way they can try to "account for or explain " the very existence of the feeling of conscious awareness , the latter that's not just a matter of feeling anyway , needless to add . ) :

It is not the brain "veto-area" that exerts control .It is the  mindful volitional effort that does that through the former = the 2 are not identical , and hence cannot be equated with each other : David Cooper would agree with me on that much at least .

Those guys from my above displayed Libet  link to you are totally confused and stuck within their a -priori held materialistic beliefs regarding the nature of consciousness at least , the poor lads  : they can't but try to make their false and paradoxical materialism fit into the empirical evidence , instead of the other way around , although they  do acknowledge  sometimes the fact that equating brain activity with that of the mind is nonsense : ( They can't admit that the mindful volitional effort of attention and action  through the conscious aware veto power does not have to obey the laws of physics .)

Quote from the above mentioned source :

"...So, what can we make out of all this? Velmans points out that a physical reductionism, that proposes the conscious experience is identical with neural activity, is not acceptable.

Yet, he assumes that the processes giving rise to conscious experience follow deterministic physical laws. Velmans then offers the view that the unconscious neural processes that lead to a conscious wish to act could be regarded as an expression of free will, because we feel that we have free choice and control over the act.

Clearly, such a view does not represent a genuine free will. The voluntary act is, in this view, not free of the inexorable adherence to deterministic physical processes. In this view, the feeling of an independent freedom of choice and control is merely an illusion.....
" End quote .

In short :

They can't but resort to concluding that free will , subjective experience , the mind ....are just illusions that feel real though like Graziano said .The latter is the one who pushes the materialistic logic to its logical paradoxical limits as it should be done indeed : that's what one gets when one starts from one's major false premise upon which one builds all one's sand castles : 

Graziano is the kindda Hume of materialism lol, Hume that was bold enough as to push the logic  of Locke's empiricism to its logical paradoxical limits ,while Locke was never bothered by the fact that he was inconsistent , illogical , incoherent and irrational sometimes as long as his faulty empiricism would deliver some practical results , so pragmatic was he .But then again , even modern scientific pragmatism is no synonymous of being right .

Consciousness and the mind + all their related processes are just illusory useful evolutionary simulations computed by the brain : illusions that feel real though : the feeling of pain , for example, is an illusion that feels real though lol ....

Instead of confronting the fact that the core assumption of materialism is false and hence has been supported by a big zero evidence  : all is matter , including the mind , they try to elude that fact by trying to make the empirical evidence fit into their a -priori held materialistic beliefs regarding the nature of consciousness and that of the mind (just material processes , just the product of brain activity : equating between consciousness and its neuronal correlates lol : identity theory .) ,which delivers tragic -hilarious pathetic materialistic "results " lol
 

Offline DonQuichotte

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

Of course .He's not a materialist ,so .
Lipton does flirt with new age sometimes, for example and more , but that's no reason to reject all his work , is it ?


The important question is  whether there is any reason to accept any of it. Just one example, please, of a nonmaterialist prediction that was more accurate than a materialist one. Surely one example isn't too much to expect of your "major bombshell" - or is it just a damp fart?

lol Hi, Alan : predictions lol : you're obsessed by that .Play or listen to some Jazz when that obsession  gets overwhelming .Kidding .

The non-physical and non local nature of consciousness in its mutual interactions with its 'outer  "and  inner  environments, including the physical brain,   is the one that can account for and explain the following at least and  more  :

All the material,  physiological and psychological materialistic "explanations " of the following do hold no water whatsoever , and have been refuted as well :

-The measurement problem in QM ,above all .
-Mindful conscious aware Volitional effort of attention and action through its related neuronal correlates .... .
-Placebo/ Nocebo  effects
-Psi phenomena
-Near death experiences
- Mindful informed active Biofeedback training to control the autonomic nervous system ,stress , heart's beats ...
-The mindful causal effects of meditation, mindfulness ...
-Self-directed neuroplasticity
- Epigenetics
To mention just the above .
« Last Edit: 11/12/2014 19:29:18 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline cheryl j

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


It is not the brain "veto-area" that exerts control .It is the  mindful volitional effort that does that through the former = the 2 are not identical , and hence cannot be equated with each other : David Cooper would agree with me on that much at least .


I'm not sure he would. There is nothing about control or decision making that is necessarily related to feeling and qualia.
 

Offline cheryl j

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

Of course .He's not a materialist ,so .
Lipton does flirt with new age sometimes, for example and more , but that's no reason to reject all his work , is it ?


The important question is  whether there is any reason to accept any of it. Just one example, please, of a nonmaterialist prediction that was more accurate than a materialist one. Surely one example isn't too much to expect of your "major bombshell" - or is it just a damp fart?

lol Hi, Alan : predictions lol : you're obsessed by that .Play or listen to some Jazz when that obsession  gets overwhelming .Kidding .



Yeah, a lot of scientists have a thing for all that experimenty stuff and predictions. Who knew.

So just take one thing from your list above and provide a detailed, falsifiable, immaterial explanation for it with a prediction.
« Last Edit: 11/12/2014 19:38:22 by cheryl j »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg446389#msg446389 date=1418326345]

Of course .He's not a materialist ,so .
Lipton does flirt with new age sometimes, for example and more , but that's no reason to reject all his work , is it ?


The important question is  whether there is any reason to accept any of it. Just one example, please, of a nonmaterialist prediction that was more accurate than a materialist one. Surely one example isn't too much to expect of your "major bombshell" - or is it just a damp fart?

lol Hi, Alan : predictions lol : you're obsessed by that .Play or listen to some Jazz when that obsession  gets overwhelming .Kidding .



Yeah, a lot of scientists have a thing for all that experimenty stuff and predictions. Who knew.

Predictions are not the only criterion for scientific knowledge or theories, models ...
What predictions can evolution,for example,  deliver ? for the future ?
When one is constantly obsessed by just that prediction part ,that's a kindda imbalance .

Quote
So just take one thing from your list above and provide a detailed, falsifiable, immaterial explanation for it with a prediction.

Reread what i said carefully then ,Cheryl .
Once again : non-materialistic science does embrace both the material and immaterial in nature ,needless to add .
God...


 

Offline DonQuichotte

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


It is not the brain "veto-area" that exerts control .It is the  mindful volitional effort that does that through the former = the 2 are not identical , and hence cannot be equated with each other : David Cooper would agree with me on that much at least .


I'm not sure he would. There is nothing about control or decision making that is necessarily related to feeling and qualia.

D.Cooper most certainly would : that's the central part of his arguments ,if you haven't noticed that yet already : in the sense : what part of the system exactly and what specific mechanism involved in it that makes it aware conscious or self-aware self-conscious : the related brain activity does not provide the answer , as equating brain activity  with conscious awareness (identity theory ) is just materialistic inexplicable magic .

Mindful volitional effort of attention and action through the veto power that cannot be equated with its neuronal correlates , is a matter of ....mindful conscious aware ... intention   and action , not a matter of feeling .
« Last Edit: 11/12/2014 19:59:22 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline cheryl j

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


I said ,as a response to RD , that the brains of kids can't cope with growing up unless they can benefit from the intrinsic neuroplasticity , when he said why do brains need plasticity if memory and the mind are not in the brain ....
Got the pic , lady painter ?

Yes, you answered his question by saying babies need neuroplasticity because they need neuroplasticity.
 

Offline cheryl j

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


It is not the brain "veto-area" that exerts control .It is the  mindful volitional effort that does that through the former = the 2 are not identical , and hence cannot be equated with each other : David Cooper would agree with me on that much at least .


I'm not sure he would. There is nothing about control or decision making that is necessarily related to feeling and qualia.

Mindful volitional effort of attention and action through the veto power that cannot be equated with its neuronal correlates , is a matter of ....mindful conscious aware ... intention   and action , not a matter of feeling .

Then ask him.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

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


I said ,as a response to RD , that the brains of kids can't cope with growing up unless they can benefit from the intrinsic neuroplasticity , when he said why do brains need plasticity if memory and the mind are not in the brain ....
Got the pic , lady painter ?

Yes, you answered his question by saying babies need neuroplasticity because they need neuroplasticity.

lol

Babies' brains are not formed completely  yet ,not even remotely close thus , they are just in the process of being "completed " , so, they are extremely plastic ,way more than those of adults , needless to add .



 

Offline DonQuichotte

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

What particular word , concept , sentence or whatever exactly can't  you understand from the following ? :

Conscious aware observation has to be made anyway , at the end of the measurement chain, as Von Neumann said ,so .

Source : "Quantum Enigma , Physics encounters consciousness : "

http://quantumenigma.com/

"According to Bell:
In his arguments with Bohr, Einstein was wrong in all the details.
Bohr understood the actual manipulation of quantum mechanics much better than Einstein. But still, in his philosophy of physics and his idea of what it is all about and what we are doing and should do, Einstein seems to be absolutely admirable. . . . [T]here is no doubt that he is, for me, the model of how one should think about physics."

.......


"Bell’s theorem and the experiments it fostered are responsible. They
did more than confi rm the weird predictions of quantum theory. The
experiments showed that no future theory could ever explain our actual
world as a “reasonable” one. Any correct future theory must describe a world in which objects do not have properties that are separately their own, independent of their “observation.” In principle, that applies to all objects. Even to us?"

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

Bell’s theorem has been called “the most profound discovery in science in
the last half of the twentieth century.” It has rubbed physics’ nose in the weirdness of quantum mechanics. Bell’s theorem and the experiments it stimulated answered what was supposedly a “merely philosophical question” in the laboratory. We now know Einstein’s “spooky actions” actually exist. Even events at the edge of the galaxy instantly influence what happens at the edge of your garden. We quickly emphasize that such influences are undetectable in any normally complex situation.Nevertheless, What are now called “EPR-Bell influences,” or entanglement, now get attention in industrial laboratories for their potential to allow incredibly powerful computers. They already provide the most secure encryption for confidential communication. Bell’s theorem has renewed interest in the foundations of quantum mechanics, and dramatically displays physics’ encounter with consciousness."

..........

.."When the experiments were done, Bell’s inequality was violated. Assumptions of reality and separability yielded a wrong prediction in our actual world.

Bell’s straw man was knocked down, as Bell expected it would be. Our world therefore does not have both reality and separability. It’s in this sense, an “unreasonable” world.
We immediately admit not understanding what the world lacking “reality” might mean. Even what “reality” itself might mean. In fact, whether or not reality is indeed required as a premise in Bell’s theorem is in dispute.
However, we need not deal with that right now.

 For our derivation of a Bell inequality, we assume a straightforward real world. Later, when we discuss the consequences of the violation of Bell’s inequality in our actual world, we’ll define a “reality” implicitly accepted by most physicists. It will leave us with a strangely connected world."



« Last Edit: 17/12/2014 20:49:06 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

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

Your false reductionist deterministic materialism has got it all backward lol : see above .

Materialism is the universe upside down lol ,so to speak .
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
But fact is : Conscious Experience can affect Brain Activity ...

Really? hmm, I wonder why that might be - what would be the simplest explanation?

How about, conscious experience is brain activity?

Next...
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
I was just saying that QM has been showing to us that what we call reality or the physical reality might be an illusion, a mental one and more
Ah, no. That would be solipsism - it doesn't work. And you'd be arguing with figments of your imagination, which also doesn't work.

Quote
QM says thus the very opposite of what materialism has been saying : Bell's theorem and its related experiments corroborated that fact clearly : 
Lol! no, they didn't. They changed our understanding of it. Reading is good, but you need to try a little more understanding.


One has to admire the childish enthusiasm with which you latch on to every new idea you encounter and read into it whatever you can find or twist to fit your worldview.
 

Offline cheryl j

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


Third : both psychological and biological disorders + the "external " environment , to mention just that , can affect the brain ,and hence the expression of consciousness through it ,the brain as a transceiver for  consciousness and the mind .
There's no evidence at all that the brain is a transceiver, or for non local consciousness existing outside the brain, not that it  keeps you from using the same silly radio analogy again and again.

Quote
Schwartz' excerpts might have also explained to you that psychological disorders such as OCD can trigger biological and neurophysiological ones, for example , which alter the consciousness of the OCD patients .
You never did bother to answer the question of how the faulty brain circuitry manufactures the "deceptive thoughts," but "true thoughts" can only be the product of the immaterial. Again, for the past year you've been saying that no kind of thought, no kind of subjective experience, no experience involving qualia can be generated by the brain.

Are hallucinations also "deceptive qualia" produced by faulty circuits? Why would the brain be capable of generating qualia, only when it’s broken, but be unable to, when its not broken. Or to use your tv anaology, how does a broken TV set create a news program that doesn’t exist, but be unable to create one (only broadcast) when its working properly? It shouldn’t be able to generate anything, according to your theory, because TV sets don’t create programs, and brains do not generate thoughts or qualia. Or have you changed your mind?
Quote
The latter can try to 'fix " that by being aware of the biological and psychological nature of OCD , and hence can try to rewire their brains through self-directed neuroplasticity via therapy or via informed trained self-help , and hence change their minds accordingly .
Again, why would would the immaterial mind need to cause a physical change in the brain to cause another change in the immaterial mind? Shouldn't the immaterial mind be able to simply change its own immaterial thoughts? Isn't that free will?
Quote
So, diseases like Alzheimer , dementia ...can alter the brain in significant ways that express themselves at the level of consciousness accordingly : the multiple damages to the neuronal correlates of memory , to the neuronal correlates of self-identity or personality .....cannot thus but alter consciousness at those levels ,since consciousness has to work and express itself through its neuronal correlates .
If the mind is dependent on the brain for its proper functioning and relys on the brain for an undistorted experience of consciousness itself, what does the immaterial contribute at all?
« Last Edit: 12/12/2014 06:19:15 by cheryl j »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
If the mind is dependent on the brain for its proper functioning and relys on the brain for an undistorted experience of consciousness itself, what does the immaterial contribute at all?
Precisely. The mind can then be seen as an aspect of brain activity. And once the influence(?) of the immaterial is reduced to the level of quantum mechanics, we can just deal with quantum mechanics.
« Last Edit: 12/12/2014 10:15:58 by dlorde »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4728
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile

Predictions are not the only criterion for scientific knowledge or theories, models ...

They are what distinguishes science from bullshit.

Quote
What predictions can evolution,for example,  deliver ? for the future ?

Evolution is an observation, not a hypothesis.  However you can use the hypothesis that evolution is inevitable, to predict that the future won't look like the past. Then you breed some mice, or humans, and to nobody's surprise, they don't look exactly like both of their parents. Which is at least logically consistent.

Quote
When one is constantly obsessed by just that prediction part ,that's a kindda imbalance .
between what and what? Between science and bullshit? Well, yes. But what benefits has bullshit ever brought to humanity? Perhaps you don't give much weight to the elimination of smallpox or the invention of the machine you are looking at right now, or maybe you have an immaterial computer, car, toothbrush....in which case please let us see it.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

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