The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Major Bombshell : Manifesto For A Post-Materialistic Science :  (Read 186839 times)

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
If you really think about it , guys , you can't but admit that neither the identity theory nor the conscious mental field theory of Libet (the latter that's just the emergent property theory regarding consciousness and its brain ) that's just another version of identity theory anyway lol , you can't but admit that they have been supported by a big zero empirical evidence .No wonder thus .

Only the modern substance dualism and idealist monism are consistent with QM , and can thus remain in the competition regarding the possible theories of consciousness .

Materialism and property dualism ( the latter is just yet another paradoxical form of  materialism and panpsychism in disguise thus )  ,for example , are  incompatible with QM that has been encountering consciousness.

Regarding substance dualism  "dreaded interaction problem " , that has been solved by QM , relatively speaking then , as my many posted excepts on the subject showed, not conclusively , that is ,since consciousness studies are still in their infancy stage .

We might be needing even better physics than QM  to account for consciousness ,as Wigner , for example said .Who knows ?

No wonder thus that William James did predict the fact that classical physics had to be fundamentally false and approximately correct , since they could absolutely not account for consciousness and for its causal effects on matter , brain and body .

Neuroscience thus , for example, must abandon its classical approaches in studying consciousness and its brain through classical physics at least .

P.S.: Von Neumann was maybe the one who was closer to solving the interpretation ,measurement or observation problem in QM , by proving through rigorous maths that there must be a process that might be collapsing the wave function at the end of the measurement chain .A non-physical process ,that is , since all measuring devices , the physical brain , photons ....are material or physical processes that cannot but remain in a superposition state accordingly .He could not think of any other non-physical process than that of the consciousness of the observer ,logically ,since conscious aware observation has to be made anyway , at the end of the measurement chain thus .

P.S.: dlorde :

All materialistic (mis)interpretations of QM are just pathetic desperate attempts to rescue the determinism of  reductionist materialism ,including the MW interpretation of QM,since consciousness is no material process , let alone an emergent phenomena from brain activity  .

The materialistic so-called standard model of quantum field theory has to be thus approximately correct and fundamentally false , in its turn, since materialism is false ,and since it cannot account for consciousness+ since Bell's theorem and its related experiments have challenged the classical locality, classical  realism and classical determinism (not to mention the classical causally closed universe ) upon which materialism was built

Furthermore , all materialistic physiological and psychological "explanations " (away ) of the effects of placebo / nocebo  , of biofeedback training in controlling the autonomic nervous system , of near death experiences , of out of body experiences (the real ones that are not induced by drugs at least ) , the effects of meditation, mindfulness , the materialistic "explanations " (away ) of epigenetics , and of psi phenomena , including remote viewing ....have been refuted .

I can provide you with all those refutations, if you want to .
« Last Edit: 20/12/2014 20:14:29 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
thanks for the concise reply dlord and sorry if i was jumping up on horse that has already been ridden to death, i am just trying to catch up with everyone else.

I hope it's not too annoying explaining to the newbie but could I ask another?
Feel free - it's good to have fresh questions and another viewpoint - this thread is a bit stale!

Quote
As I understand it, although I am probably wrong, The consciousness is a kind of intangible substantial entity that our brains have built or evolution built in order to guide the mind and body through life.

then there is the sub-conscious, a secondary but in no way lesser form of automated guiding tool, that our brains and bodies use to navigate life.

Then we have the mind and that is yet another tool but one that is used by the brain more as a data bank of sorts and also the reference for human emotive responses, learned behaviors and so on.

then there is the housing for these tools, the hardware, the brain, where various chemical and electrical functions (much like a computer) allow us to assemble reality by using these functions in conjunction with the aforementioned tools to create the marvelous machine that is us (humanity).
There aren't really any 'wrong' definitions or meanings for these labels - it's really a moveable feast, with different meanings dependent on context and usage. If there's any field that supports Wittgenstein's idea that meaning is usage, it's this one. What counts is that we try to understand what others are talking about.

I see the mind as what the brain does (excluding the low-level automatic body management stuff); the 'mental faculties' in general. It can be awake, asleep, conscious, unconscious, focused, unfocused, emotional, etc. Consciousness is a particular state of mind, a mode of brain operation, typically involving (in humans) awareness, responsiveness, a sense of self, a sense of agency and control, etc. The subconscious is where the bulk of the activity occurs, updating the consciousness with significant events on a 'need to know' basis. Subconscious processing (System 1 thought) involves multiple highly parallel processes of which we are not aware, producing fast one-shot results; conscious processing (System 2) provides a scratchpad or workspace where these results can be held, manipulated and sent for further System 1 processing. This deliberative System 2 thinking is slow, sequential, and effortful, and we are consciously aware of it.

Beyond this, interpretations vary wildly, but it seems clear, from medical and experimental evidence, that consciousness isn't quite what it seems to be; the sense of self is explicitly constructed from the mapping & integration of a number of sensory streams (hence OBEs), and the sense of agency is largely retrospective - we become aware of decisions & actions by subconscious processes and have the sense they were consciously made.

I currently see consciousness having a monitoring and coordinating role with the subconscious processes, using their processing facilities for resolving non-trivial problems, forward planning, controlling social interaction, etc.   I see the aware self as a simplified, idealised model of the system (the mind as a whole), used in planning and 'what-if' scenarios, and playing the role of an interface for social interaction - a kind of social avatar or representative. As a model and representative of the whole system, it must be given a sense of agency or it would feel like a helpless passenger, and a sense of self awareness arises out of the constructed sense of self and the reflective need to model its own behaviour (e.g. in forward planning).

Quote
As mr. quichotte pointed out, how do we explain instances where people have outer body experiences?

I have heard a bit on the subject and there are all sorts of ideas about it but has there ever been a definite answer?  ???
The evidence suggests the OBEs are due to anomalous functioning of the area(s) of the brain dealing with the location component of the sense of self. Streams of sensory information from eyes, ears (balance), and proprioception (position of arms & legs, skin touch sensors, etc) are used to maintain a dynamic sense of location and orientation. This is part of what is called Multisensory Integration. If you mess with these data streams, you can cause problems, for example, if balance information from the ears conflicts with information from the eyes, you may become disoriented or nauseous. If you mess with visual information and touch information you can get identification errors, e.g. the rubber hand illusion; this is a minor example of the Body Transfer Illusion (bear with me!), where, using a similar technique you can be deceived into thinking you are in a different body entirely.

If you mess with the brain areas where this sensory integration occurs and the sense of location is generated, you can get all kinds of weird effects, including the sense of being located outside the body (often above it, for some reason), or having no bodily boundaries and being located everywhere (psychoactive drugs may do this - giving a sense of 'cosmic consciousness'). Most OBEs occur under extreme circumstances of stress, pain, oxygen deprivation, influence of drugs, seizures, epilepsy, etc., where there is likely to be some impairment to general levels of consciousness, and even partial dream state. In these circumstances, visual imagery may be constructed to match the sensation, either from existing knowledge and expectations or from scratch (e.g. floating above the scene of the accident or operating theatre, or floating through an alien landscape). It's not clear exactly when these images and experiences actually occur, as they are always recalled after the fact; there may be components from prior to losing consciousness and/or as consciousness returns. Partial memories and gaps may be filled in and elaborated on recall. OBEs of varying intensity have been artificially generated by stimulating areas of the brain with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS).

Quote
... how can anyone say for certain that this is not some kind of telekinetic response to death?
Or as Don says a force not yet found?
People who are dead don't report any experiences (people commonly report they died or were declared clinically dead, but these days it's generally an exaggeration for their heart stopping temporarily, or just an example that the clinical assessment of death isn't 100% reliable). Nevertheless, when death is a possibility, there is often severe physiological or mental stress, which could be expected to generate anomalous experiences.

As for telekinesis, there is no convincing evidence for it, despite over a hundred years of attempts to find some (although many fraudsters have been exposed), and no plausible mechanism (the brain barely produces enough electrical potential to be detectable by sensitive EEG electrodes on the scalp). The clincher is that our best physical model of the world (quantum field theory) tells us there are no unknown fields or forces that are long range enough and strong enough to significantly interact with matter at human scales (see The Higgs Boson and the Fundamental Nature of Reality for fascinating details).

Bear in mind also that there are probably Nobel prizes and a whole new field of serious research awaiting any scientists who can demonstrate reliable and repeatable instances of telekinesis, or any 'paranormal' phenomena, and millions of dollars in prize challenge awards from skeptic organizations. There is also a whole industry generating revenue from unproven paranormal claims.



Wonderful response, dlorde. Excellent summary!
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
You're deliberately trying to play some nasty tricks here :
Deliberately asking you to clarify your gnomic utterances. Nasty if you were hoping they'd be accepted without question - but they have to at least make superficial sense for that.

Quote
There is not much 'difference " between the identity theory and between emergent property theory regarding consciousness and its brain  indeed anyway
Different ways of viewing the same thing.

Quote
... blah ...
OK; do let me know when 'Post-Materialistic Science' produces something useful or interesting. Anything at all.
 

Offline alancalverd

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

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


I understand every word. It's bunkum. See reply #890 above.

Try to address  that specific post of mine then ,or rather try to refute it lol


"Conscious aware observation has to be made anyway , at the end of the measurement chain,"

Why "has to be made"? Only if a sentient being wants to know the answer. But the interactions we use for measurement are exactly the same as those that go on elsewhere in the universe where there are no sentient beings, and apparently have always gone on, long before any sentient being evolved.

If you believe that your observation, at the end of a series of events that began several billion years ago (and was more recently mediated by other sentient beings) is what determined all those events, you are insufferably vain or completely insane.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Wonderful response, dlorde. Excellent summary!
Thanks Cheryl, much appreciated.

I thought domkarr could use a summary to save the torture of trawling through the thread!
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Only the modern substance dualism and idealist monism are consistent with QM , and can thus remain in the competition regarding the possible theories of consciousness .

Materialism and property dualism ( the latter is just yet another paradoxical form of  materialism and panpsychism in disguise thus )  ,for example , are  incompatible with QM that has been encountering consciousness.
No; not even wrong.

Quote
Regarding substance dualism  "dreaded interaction problem " , that has been solved by QM
Lol - in a sense; as QFT eliminates substance dualism.

Quote
P.S.: dlorde :

All materialistic (mis)interpretations of QM are just pathetic desperate attempts to rescue the determinism of  reductionist materialism ,including the MW interpretation of QM,since consciousness is no material process , let alone an emergent phenomena from brain activity  .
So you keep banging on. Are you hoping to bore us into agreement?

Quote
The materialistic so-called standard model of quantum field theory has to be thus approximately correct and fundamentally false , in its turn, since materialism is false ,and since it cannot account for consciousness+ since Bell's theorem and its related experiments have challenged the classical locality, classical  realism and classical determinism (not to mention the classical causally closed universe ) upon which materialism was built
Modern views of materialism are built on QFT (QM). I thought you might cling to the classical formulation, which is why I suggested substituting Physicalism. But on reflection, given your penchant for pigeon-holing and stereotyping by philosophical genre rather than by actual argument, I'm only responding to arguments based on what I post.

Quote
Furthermore , all materialistic physiological and psychological "explanations " (away ) of the effects of placebo / nocebo  , of biofeedback training in controlling the autonomic nervous system , of near death experiences , of out of body experiences (the real ones that are not induced by drugs at least ) , the effects of meditation, mindfulness , the materialistic "explanations " (away ) of epigenetics , and of psi phenomena , including remote viewing ....have been refuted .

I can provide you with all those refutations, if you want to .
Yes, please do provide all those refutations.
 

Offline cheryl j

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

As mr. quichotte pointed out, how do we explain instances where people have outer body experiences?

I have heard a bit on the subject and there are all sorts of ideas about it but has there ever been a definite answer?  ???
for instance how can anyone say for certain that this is not some kind of telekinetic response to death?
Or as Don says a force not yet found? 

Even as I wrote that I felt a bit like a fool for bringing it up as i have trouble dealing with something i cannot prove. but I'm seeking to catch up with the conversation and find better understanding of the topic, not to throw doubt on anyone and certainly I don't think I need to fuel the conversation  ;D

It's not an unreasonable question at all.

I think I’ve seen maybe two psi studies in my life that sounded credible, or at least appeared to be good faith efforts to report the data accurately and control for other variables and bias. Its difficult to explain, though, why a phenomena that some claim is common place and interacts with us in every day life, would be so damn difficult to nail down, when physics is quite adept at identifying all kinds of  interactions that are weak, or of very short duration, or rare, or sensitive to interference, or extremely far away. It also doesn’t make sense to me why the paranormal should be so elusive and capricious, and the data at the very best, only marginally significant beyond chance, if it were a real phenomena.

The other problem I have with psi research is that it never seems to progress beyond a kind of indirect proof by process of elimination, as in “There was no way this person could have access to that information – we’ve controlled for every variable we can identify – so it must be ….. esp”  or remote viewing or whatever.

Every new area of science begins with an observation and an attempt to reproduce it in a controlled environment. But generally it progresses to the next level where  different variables are manipulated. At that point, researchers say “Okay, we still don’t know what exactly “X” is or what causes it, but we know it only happens when “Y” is present, but never with “Z,” and it’s increased by “B or C.”
These described attributes become the basis for a theoretical model which is used to make predictions in additional experiments. If those predictions fail, it’s back to the drawing board.
But psi research never seems to make it to that level; there is never any additional research that provides more insight into how it works or a possible mechanism.

I don’t know if you’re familiar with Rupert Sheldrake (Don is a fan). Among other psi related projects, he was involved with research about whether people can detect when someone they can’t see is staring at them.  Mainstream science really did give Sheldrake a fair shake on this one, in my opinion, and it got a lot of press. For one, it’s a common experience that many people report having had – feeling that someone is staring at them without being aware of, or recalling,  any sound or visual cue that they were present.  Secondly, it seems like something that, if it could exist, it should exist, because of the huge survival advantage it would give any prey that could detect nonphysically whether a predator was watching them. It sounds entirely reasonable that if there were anyway to do this, some species in the rich diversity of nature over millions of years would have developed that ability.

But the original study could never be consistently replicated, and there were no subsequent studies that provided any more insight as to how or why or under what circumstances it happens or doesn’t happen. Like other psi experiments, research fizzled out at that point, much to Sheldrake's annoyance.

Paranormal researchers like Sheldrake sometimes portray themselves as Galileo-like mavericks oppressed by narrow minded, mainstream science.  But as dlorde says, if someone could consistently replicate psi results, or better yet, explain the mechanism as well, they’d be richly rewarded, and probably mentioned in every general science book for years to come. Or they could just go to the casino, collapse the wavefunction in some desired direction, and really clean up.
« Last Edit: 21/12/2014 02:16:48 by cheryl j »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
I don’t know if you’re familiar with Rupert Sheldrake (Don is a fan). Among other psi related projects, he was involved with research about whether people can detect when someone they can’t see is staring at them.  Mainstream science really did give Sheldrake a fair shake on this one, in my opinion, and it got a lot of press. For one, it’s a common experience that many people report having had – feeling that someone is staring at them without being aware of, or recalling,  any sound or visual cue that they were present.  Secondly, it seems like something that, if it could exist, it should exist, because of the huge survival advantage it would give any prey that could detect nonphysically whether a predator was watching them. It sounds entirely reasonable that if there where anyway to do this, some species in the rich diversity of nature over millions of years would have developed that ability.

But the original study could never be consistently replicated, and there were no subsequent studies that provided any more insight as to how or why or under what circumstances it happens or doesn’t happen. Like other psi experiments, research fizzled out at that point, much to Sheldrake's annoyance.
Sheldrake was also involved in the 'dogs can tell when their masters are coming home' study, which claimed some kind of psychic link by which a dog could tell when his master left work. Replication - with the same dog -failed, and a number of plausible mundane explanations were found, including poor controls (I think one explanation showed the dog was responding to falling levels of his master's scent in the house).
 

Offline cheryl j

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

Sheldrake was also involved in the 'dogs can tell when their masters are coming home' study, which claimed some kind of psychic link by which a dog could tell when his master left work. Replication - with the same dog -failed, and a number of plausible mundane explanations were found, including poor controls (I think one explanation showed the dog was responding to falling levels of his master's scent in the house).

That illustrates the problem with "proof by process of elimination" really well. It is isn't really proof; it's basically "we don't know why it happened" and you can't really be sure you have considered all the other variables.  The scent explanation seems obvious only in hindsight, dogs being so much more sensitive to odors we aren't even aware of.
 

Offline cheryl j

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


You have to try to prove first that consciousness can arise from the biological evolution lol , from physics and chemistry .Clearly , the biological evolution  can never intrinsically account for either the origin , nature or emergence of consciousness , let alone for  its 'evolution " .

Furthermore, all consciousness studies have not been able so far , if ever , to answer how aware consciousness emerges ,in the first place to begin with, what its origin might be..

That's like saying I have to first explain how a bee can fly before demonstrating that it in fact does. Not that the detailed explanation of a bee's flight doesn't lend greater understanding of the process, but it isn't required  for that empirical observation that other animals exhibit behavior and brain activity consistent with consciousness.

Subjective Experience is Probably Not Limited to Humans: The Evidence from Neurobiology and Behavior

http://bernardbaars.pbworks.com/f/Baars,+Subjective+not+just+human.pdf.
Abstract

"In humans, conscious perception and cognition depends upon the thalamocortical (T-C) complex, which supports perception, explicit cognition, memory, language, planning, and strategic control. When parts of the T-C system are damaged or stimulated, corresponding effects are found on conscious contents and state, as assessed by reliable reports. In contrast, large regions like cerebellum and basal ganglia can be damaged without affecting conscious cognition directly. Functional brain recordings also show robust activity differences in cortex between experimentally matched conscious and unconscious events. This basic anatomy and physiology is highly conserved in mammals and perhaps ancestral reptiles. While language is absent in other species, homologies in perception, memory, and motor cortex suggest that consciousness of one kind or another may be biologically fundamental and phylogenetically ancient. In humans we infer subjective experiences from behavioral and brain evidence. This evidence is quite similar in other mammals and perhaps some non-mammalian species. On the weight of the biological evidence, therefore, subjectivity may be conserved in species with human-like brains and behavior."



Criteria for consciousness in humans and other mammals.
www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/anils/Papers/SethEdelmanBaarsCC.pdf

Seth AK1, Baars BJ, Edelman DB.

Abstract

The standard behavioral index for human consciousness is the ability to report events with accuracy. While this method is routinely used for scientific and medical applications in humans, it is not easy to generalize to other species. Brain evidence may lend itself more easily to comparative testing. Human consciousness involves widespread, relatively fast low-amplitude interactions in the thalamocortical core of the brain, driven by current tasks and conditions. These features have also been found in other mammals, which suggests that consciousness is a major biological adaptation in mammals. We suggest more than a dozen additional properties of human consciousness that may be used to test comparative predictions. Such homologies are necessarily more remote in non-mammals, which do not share the thalamocortical complex. However, as we learn more we may be able to make "deeper" predictions that apply to some birds, reptiles, large-brained invertebrates, and perhaps other species



Three Arguments for the Consciousness of Cephalopods.

http://io9.com/5626679/three-arguments-for-the-consciousness-of-cephalopods
 .
« Last Edit: 21/12/2014 06:34:04 by cheryl j »
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
This is the next book I'd like to read:
Consciousness and the Brain Deciphering How the Brain Codes Our Thoughts (2014)  by Stanislas Dehaene
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_and_the_Brain
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
This is the next book I'd like to read:
Consciousness and the Brain Deciphering How the Brain Codes Our Thoughts (2014)  by Stanislas Dehaene
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_and_the_Brain
You should enjoy that one - it's authoritative, and the most enjoyably readable account I've come across. Highly recommended!
 

Offline dlorde

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

Three Arguments for the Consciousness of Cephalopods.

http://io9.com/5626679/three-arguments-for-the-consciousness-of-cephalopods .
Octopuses can learn to solve novel puzzles just by watching another octopus do it once - not necessarily a sign of consciousness, but the capacity for once-only learning and forward planning.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
This is the next book I'd like to read:
Consciousness and the Brain Deciphering How the Brain Codes Our Thoughts (2014)  by Stanislas Dehaene
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_and_the_Brain

Got that book too , a kindle ebook . Unfortunately enough ,as the title suggests ,Stanislas ' identity theory upon which he built all his sand castles is just a belief , no scientific theory ,as Libet said .

Stanislas has some interesting things to say though .
The poor brain does code for nothing in fact : that's just the false materialistic computer or machine metaphor projection regarding the nature of life in general, including the brain thus .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=alancalverd link=topic=52526.msg446935#msg446935 date=1419109849]
dlorde , alancalverd :

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


I understand every word. It's bunkum. See reply #890 above.

Try to address  that specific post of mine then ,or rather try to refute it lol


"Conscious aware observation has to be made anyway , at the end of the measurement chain,"

Why "has to be made"? Only if a sentient being wants to know the answer. But the interactions we use for measurement are exactly the same as those that go on elsewhere in the universe where there are no sentient beings, and apparently have always gone on, long before any sentient being evolved.

Well, if physicists wanna know about the physical processes in nature , they have to do that through observation or measurement and experiments , right ? .

See my specific post in question that talks about the fact that Bell's theorem and its related experiments did challenge classical realism as QM predicted they would , to mention just the latter .

Quote
If you believe that your observation, at the end of a series of events that began several billion years ago (and was more recently mediated by other sentient beings) is what determined all those events, you are insufferably vain or completely insane.

Well, i don't know about that .Who does ?
A prominent physicist even said on the subject , or in words to that same effect at least, that it doesn't matter that life or conscious life existed billions of years after the big bang ,the universe exists because we are aware of it .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Wonderful response, dlorde. Excellent summary!
Thanks Cheryl, much appreciated.

I thought domkarr could use a summary to save the torture of trawling through the thread!

lol

My heart goes to our domkarr : the poor lad will be misled  and deceived ,big time, by your materialistic speculations  and beliefs that have been supported by a big zero empirical evidence .
He has already been confusing  materialism with science too,so ; he's been already predisposed to swallow your materialistic non-sense ,without you needing to make any real efforts to 'convince " him of that .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg446938#msg446938 date=1419111719]
Only the modern substance dualism and idealist monism are consistent with QM , and can thus remain in the competition regarding the possible theories of consciousness .

Materialism and property dualism ( the latter is just yet another paradoxical form of  materialism and panpsychism in disguise thus )  ,for example , are  incompatible with QM that has been encountering consciousness.
No; not even wrong
.

Can you elaborate on that ? , please , thanks .

Quote
Quote
Regarding substance dualism  "dreaded interaction problem " , that has been solved by QM
Lol - in a sense; as QFT eliminates substance dualism.

See above : QFT has to be fundamentally false and approximately correct ,it is even certainly false , without a shadow of a doubt ,  since it absolutely cannot  account for consciousness , in the same way classical physics were , and since materialism is false .

Quote
Quote
P.S.: dlorde :

All materialistic (mis)interpretations of QM are just pathetic desperate attempts to rescue the determinism of  reductionist materialism ,including the MW interpretation of QM,since consciousness is no material process , let alone an emergent phenomena from brain activity  .
So you keep banging on. Are you hoping to bore us into agreement?

I am just stating what many physicists and other scientists have been saying on the subject : i agree with them.

Quote
Quote
The materialistic so-called standard model of quantum field theory has to be thus approximately correct and fundamentally false , in its turn, since materialism is false ,and since it cannot account for consciousness+ since Bell's theorem and its related experiments have challenged the classical locality, classical  realism and classical determinism (not to mention the classical causally closed universe ) upon which materialism was built
Modern views of materialism are built on QFT (QM). I thought you might cling to the classical formulation, which is why I suggested substituting Physicalism. But on reflection, given your penchant for pigeon-holing and stereotyping by philosophical genre rather than by actual argument, I'm only responding to arguments based on what I post.

See above , QFT has to be most certainly fundamentally false , since it can absolutely not account for consciousness ,like classical physics were by the way for the same reason as William James predicted (Max Planck just knocked down the head of the last nail on the coffin of the fundamentally false  and approximately correct classical deterministic mechanical Newtonian world view or physics ) ,  and since materialism is false .

Quote
Quote
Furthermore , all materialistic physiological and psychological "explanations " (away ) of the effects of placebo / nocebo  , of biofeedback training in controlling the autonomic nervous system , of near death experiences , of out of body experiences (the real ones that are not induced by drugs at least ) , the effects of meditation, mindfulness , the materialistic "explanations " (away ) of epigenetics , and of psi phenomena , including remote viewing ....have been refuted .

I can provide you with all those refutations, if you want to .
Yes, please do provide all those refutations.

Ok, try to make some time for extensive reading then .Get ready .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Jonathan Shear Quotes :

In the view of modern science, the universe is fundamentally physical and existed and evolved for billions of years without any consciousness in it at all. Consciousness, on this now commonplace view, is a very recent addition, a byproduct of the complex chemical processes that gave rise to sophisticated biological systems. The question thus arises of how consciousness ever came to be.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
PROPOSED PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS:
FANTASY AND WISHFUL THINKING :



The simplest explanation proposed for the NDE is simply that it is fantasy, derived from wishful thinking.
It is argued that the motivation is a dread or denial of death and that the content is derived from the person’s belief system. In other words, NDEs are products of the imagination, constructed from our personal and cultural expectations to protect us from facing the threat of death.

However, this hypothesis is simply not supported by the empirical data. While we have seen that there are some cross-cultural variations in the content of NDEs, individuals sometimes report experiences that conflict with their religious and personal expectations of death.
This theory should predict a strong correlation between the occurrence of NDEs and the strength of religious belief, yet as noted above, there is no such correlation.

Furthermore, if NDEs are fantasies, then why are Western descriptions of “paradise” in NDEs so similar, yet so unlike the biblical stereotype?
Other consistencies in NDEs tend to refute this theory. People who have never heard or read of NDEs describe the same kinds of experiences as do people who are quite familiar with the reports.

Similar NDEs are also reported by people who did not expect to die, either because the traumatic event happened too quickly for the person to be aware of what was happening or because it occurred during a medical procedure the person fully expected to survive. Finally, children too young to have received substantial cultural and religious training about death report NDEs similar to those of adults.
Tests have shown that there is a mild association between reporting an NDE and being fantasy prone.

 However, being fantasy prone is also associated with more intense sensory experiences, and individuals with a fantasy-prone personality do not commonly mistake fantasy for reality—a point specifically made by the psychologists who developed this concept. Psychologists Sheryl Wilson and Theodore Barber stated unequivocally that fantasy-prone people are as good at reality testing as anyone else.

 Bruce Greyson, who is a clinical psychiatrist, writes, “There is absolutely no evidence that NDErs are fantasy-prone individuals. Although NDErs do score higher than nonNDErs on standard measures of fantasy-proneness, which may suggest nothing more than that their sensory perceptions of the outside world are much more vivid than those of nonNDErs, NDErs’ scores do not come anywhere near the cut-off point on those measures for designation as a ‘fantasy-prone personality.’” End quote.
 
Chris Carter
 

Offline DonQuichotte

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

Quote : " Dissociated states are defense mechanisms thought to be employed in times of great psychological stress. Three of the most common types of dissociated states are dissociation, derealization, and depersonalization.

Dissociation is a state in which emotions are separated and detached from distressing events to postpone having to emotionally deal with the trauma.

Derealization refers to a state in which the environment feels unreal, as if the person were in a dreamworld. This state of mind could obviously be very comforting if the person were facing a threat she felt unable to deal with.

Depersonalization involves a state of confusion over the reality of oneself. An individual who is depersonalized feels that he is not a real person.

The theory that dissociated states may explain the NDE is a somewhat more refined version of the motivated fantasy theory and has been popularized in the work of psychiatrist Russell Noyes. He has conducted extensive research into the subjective experiences reported by individuals who have suddenly faced the threat of imminent death, yet somehow survived. Many of these individuals reported strange experiences as they became aware that death was imminent and unavoidable.

One such experience was related to Noyes by a race car driver who had been thrown thirty feet in the air after colliding with another car. At no time during the accident was the driver unconscious or physically near death.
As soon as I saw him I knew I was going to hit him. I remember thinking that death or injury was coming but after that I didn’t feel much at all. It seemed like the whole thing took forever.

Everything was in slow motion and it seemed to me like I was a player on a stage and could see myself tumbling over and over in the car. It was as though I sat in the stands and saw it all happening … but I was not frightened… . Everything was so strange… . The whole experience was like a dream but at no time did I lose my sense of where I was… . I was like floating on air…
 Finally, the car pancaked itself on the track and I was jolted back to reality.

From experiences such as this, Noyes identified several characteristics of what he called “depersonalization in the face of life-threatening danger.” These include an altered sense of time, increased speed of thought, a sense of detachment, a feeling of unreality, a lack of emotion, sharper vision or hearing, flashbacks of memories, and a sense of harmony or unity with the universe.
What is required for depersonalization to occur is the perception of imminent death.

 In other words, the person must clearly perceive the imminence of his own death before the syndrome can develop. As Noyes writes, “Subjective reports suggest that the chief prerequisite to their [NDEs] full development is the perception of imminent death… . [Otherwise] victims of cardiac arrest may not have such experiences unless convinced of their closeness to death.”

However, several researchers have found cases that involved a loss of consciousness so sudden the individuals simply had no time to perceive the threat to their lives. Cardiologist Michael Sabom, for instance, has encountered several such cases, one of which involved a middle-aged farmer who suffered from transient episodes of complete heart blockage, with total stopping of the heart.

During some of these episodes, he would suddenly pass out in the middle of a sentence. Sabom interviewed the man after he had been fitted with a pacemaker and recorded the following account, which occurred before he was brought to the hospital.

I was walking across the parking lot to get into my car… . I passed out. I don’t recall hitting the ground. The next thing I do recall was that I was above the cars, floating. I had a real funny sensation, a floating sensation. I was actually looking down on my own body, with four or five men running toward me. I could hear and understand what these men were saying. To me, it was a real funny feeling.

 I had no pain whatsoever. I didn’t feel any pain. Then the next thing, when I came back to my senses, I was in my body, and I had pain on the back of my head where I had hit the concrete.
Although this man’s experience clearly resembles the early stages on an NDE, according to this report he almost certainly had no time to appreciate the threat to his life.

A major difference between Noyes’ study and most research studies of the NDE is that his study focused primarily on people who were not actually physically near death. However, he did interview a small number of individuals who both apprehended their own death and were in fact in serious danger.

He found that the experiences of this group were clearly different from those who were never in any real danger, and so excluded them from his analysis. Emphasizing the differences between the two groups, Noyes writes, “It seems important to note that there are a great variety of near-death experiences.

Those studies by the author [Noyes] were reported by persons who were psychologically —but not necessarily physically—close to death. A different kind of experience has been described by persons who narrowly escaped death from physical illness, cardiac arrest, and so forth.”
More recently, psychiatrists Glen Gabbard and Stuart Twemlow have noted that NDEs differ from depersonalization on a number of grounds.

 They extracted several cases of depersonalization from the literature and broke down their characteristics, finding few similarities with the NDE. They point out that depersonalization usually does not include a sense of being outside of the body; is experienced as dreamlike; is usually unpleasant; and is often accompanied by feelings of anxiety, panic, or emptiness.

Psychologist Harvey Irwin conducted an empirical assessment of the tendency to dissociate and found no difference between those who have had an NDE and a control group. He concluded that those who have had an NDE are not habitually inclined to use dissociation to cope with trauma.

Finally, we have some direct testimony that casts doubt on the theory that dissociated states may play a role in the classic NDE. Sabom gathered the following two accounts. In the first, the experiencer said, “I’ve had a lot of dreams and it wasn’t like any dream that I had had.

It was real. It was so real. And that peace, the peace made the difference from a dream, and I dream a lot.” The second experiencer noted, “That was real… . I’ve lived with this thing for three years now and I haven’t told anyone because I don’t want them putting the straitjacket on me… . It’s real as hell.”

In their investigation of over three hundred English NDEs, Peter and Elizabeth Fenwick write:
This feeling that the “me” up there and out of the body is the real me, infinitely more real than the body it leaves behind, is described over and over again. Avon Pailthorpe … was surprised “how clearly I felt myself to be myself without my body.”

Mrs Frances Barnshey: “I couldn’t see any kind of body belonging to me. I seemed to be mind and emotions only, but I felt more vital, more myself than I’ve felt in my life at any time before or since.

The accounts above illustrate why derealization and depersonalization as explanations will not work: experiencers almost unanimously report that the experience was real and that it happened to them, with their sense of self fully intact." End quote

Same source
 

Offline DonQuichotte

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


Quote " " Some have raised the possibility that the accurate accounts given by cardiac arrest survivors of their resuscitations are really nothing more than imaginative reconstructions based on previous hospital experience and on documentaries and medical dramas. Many of us have seen resuscitations enacted on television, and it is argued that a patient with a history of heart disease may reasonably be expected to know even more about such procedures than someone with no such medical history. In other words, it is argued that the reports are in truth merely fantasies based on educated guesses about what goes on during resuscitations in an emergency room.

Cardiologist Michael Sabom set out to test this hypothesis. He interviewed thirty-two survivors of a nonsurgical crisis—mostly cardiac arrest—who claimed to have seen portions of their own resuscitation from a position outside of their bodies. He also interviewed twenty-five patients with a similar background—patients with heart disease—who had been admitted to a coronary care unit and had thus received considerable exposure to hospital routine. Four of these patients had experienced cardiac arrest without an NDE.

These twenty-five patients served as a control group. Sabom asked them to imagine standing in a corner of a hospital room watching a medical team revive a person whose heart had stopped beating. The patients were then asked to describe in visual detail what they would expect to see.

Eighty percent of these control patients made at least one major error in describing standard hospital resuscitation technique, despite being “reasonably confident” they were correct.

In contrast, not one of the thirty-two survivors who claimed to have witnessed their own resuscitations committed such an error when describing what happened to them. Twenty-six of the thirty-two could recall only general visual impressions, not specific verifiable details.

This the patients attributed to being far more interested in an experience they found amazing than in what was being done to their bodies. However, six of the thirty-two survivors provided specific details of their own resuscitation, including details of their own resuscitation that did not occur in the other resuscitations. " End quote .

Same source
 

Offline DonQuichotte

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


Quote : " While Sabom was conducting a medical grand rounds presentation on NDEs at the University of Florida in 1978, another professor of medicine raised the following point: “We have all resuscitated patients who have appeared dead at the time but who later could tell us of our conversation during the period of resuscitation. How do you know that these people who are describing an ‘accurate’ neardeath experience are not just hearing the conversation while semiconscious at the time and later conjuring up a visual image in their mind of what went on?”.

Sabom has dealt extensively with this possibility. He has provided four reasons why it is highly unlikely that semiconscious aural perception can explain the visual descriptions of resuscitations and other details of the environment so often found in NDE accounts.

First, when patients who had been under general anesthesia during a major operation are later hypnotized and regressed back to the time of the operation, they can sometimes recall conversations among the physicians and nurses, but not visual impressions. Such recall, even when frightening, has been reported by these patients to be of an auditory nature, quite unlike the detailed visual impressions of an NDE.

Second, the experience of a semiconscious patient undergoing resuscitation can be compared with that of a semiconscious patient undergoing elective cardioversion. To correct abnormal heart rhythm, patients sometimes elect to undergo cardioversion, a procedure in which electric shocks are applied to the chest. This technique is also commonly used during cardiac resuscitations to correct lifethreatening rhythmic disturbances of the heart.

In the elective situation, the patient is commonly given a sedative to render him semiconscious and to minimize the pain of the shock. However, patients in this semiconscious state can sometimes hear nearby conversations and recall the sensations associated with the shock; for example, they have said it’s like having everything torn out of your insides.

 If NDEs occur when individuals are merely semiconscious, then we should expect similar sensations to be remembered by those who report watching emergency cardioversion being performed on their bodies during an NDE. But the accounts are very different following an NDE, as excerpts from these three reports illustrate:
I could see myself jolt, but again it didn’t hurt like an electric shock should hurt… . I wasn’t hurting, I wasn’t anxious… . I had no pain.

They were rubbing those things together and then I bounced off the table… . I came off the table about nine to ten inches, I seemed to arch… . [While watching] I seemed to be in a very peaceful state.
I thought they had given my body too much voltage because my body jumped about two feet off the table… . [While watching, I felt] floating, soft, easy, comfortable, nothing wrong.

Third, several people who had described an NDE to Sabom could distinguish between semiconscious auditory perception of nearby conversation and the subsequent occurrence of an NDE complete with visual perception. One man found his vision fading as he suffered a heart attack. He described what he experienced as medical assistance was rushed to his aid: “I was in total blackness and I didn’t have any ability to move but I could hear well and understand.

I heard them talk and I heard the guy say my pressure was zero and who it was and I heard Dr. J say, ‘Shall we try to get a pulse?’ And I wanted to answer and tried to answer but couldn’t… . That’s when I had the experience [NDE]—After sound and all had gone and I couldn’t hear anymore.”

Another man who had experienced both the semiconscious state with auditory perception and unconsciousness associated with an NDE compared the two situations. He said, “I didn’t see nothing. I just heard. This other time with the cardiac arrest [and NDE], I was looking down from the ceiling and there were no ifs, ands or buts about it.”

These reports show that individuals who have experienced both semiconscious hearing and visual perception during an NDE could clearly distinguish between the two.

Finally, Sabom points out that NDEs including visual perception of the environment have been reported by individuals who were unconscious and near death while no one else was present.
Obviously, in these cases, semiconscious perception of verbal information would have been impossible, since no one was around to supply it."End quote .

Same source
 

Offline DonQuichotte

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

You can read above about some of the proposed psychological explanations of NDE , for example .
Tomorrow ,i will display the rest of them , and then, later on , the same goes for the physiological explanations of NDE .

When we will finish with all that , we will go on to address the materialistic 'explanations " (away ) of  out of body experiences , especially those that were delivered by Susan Blackmore in her "Dying to live " book on the subject .

After all the above , we will be tackling the other issues like :

- The effects of meditation, mindfulness...
-Psi phenomena , including remote viewing ...
- Biofeedback training to control the autonomic nervous system ..
-Self-directed neuroplasticity
and more .
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8125
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
The simplest explanation proposed for the NDE is simply that it is fantasy, derived from wishful thinking.
It is argued that the motivation is a dread or denial of death and that the content is derived from the person’s belief system. In other words, NDEs are products of the imagination, constructed from our personal and cultural expectations to protect us from facing the threat of death.
 
Chris Carter

Yet another straw-man from Chris Carter.

It is argued ...

By whom ? : I haven't seen anybody make that argument in this thread.
[ In the year+ you've been doing this you must have regurgitated most of Chris Carter's books in this forum : you'll be lucky if he doesn't sue ].

Some people who have had a religious upbringing will interpret their NDE/OOBE experience as evidence of an afterlife , whereas others will recognise it as a vivid hallucination brought on by cerebral hypoxia.

That NDE/OOBE can be experienced by people who are nowhere near death, but under the influence of psychotropic drugs, ( e.g. ketamine) , or undergoing brain-surgery, demonstrates NDE/OOBE are not evidence of afterlife but are caused by brain-dysfunction.
« Last Edit: 21/12/2014 18:42:01 by RD »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=RD link=topic=52526.msg446991#msg446991 date=1419187146]
The simplest explanation proposed for the NDE is simply that it is fantasy, derived from wishful thinking.
It is argued that the motivation is a dread or denial of death and that the content is derived from the person’s belief system. In other words, NDEs are products of the imagination, constructed from our personal and cultural expectations to protect us from facing the threat of death.
 
Chris Carter


Yet another straw-man from Chris Carter.

Read the rest .We're just warming up .

Quote
It is argued ...

By whom ? : I haven't seen anybody make that argument in this thread.

So what ?

Quote
[ In the year+ you've been doing this you must have regurgitated most of Chris Carter's books in this forum : you'll be lucky if he doesn't sue ].

Carter should be happy for the fact that i have been making publicity for his books for free .He should pay me for that . lol

Quote
Some people who have had a religious upbringing will interpret their NDE/OOBE experience as evidence of an afterlife , whereas others will recognise it as a vivid hallucination brought on by cerebral hypoxia.

We're just starting with some psychological materialistic "explanations " (away ) of NDE .We'll get to the physiological ones, in due time .

Quote
That NDE/OOBE can be experienced by people who are nowhere near death, but under the influence of psychotropic drugs, ( e.g. ketamine) , or undergoing brain-surgery, demonstrates NDE/OOBE are not evidence of afterlife but are caused by brain-dysfunction.

See above . Wait 'til we get to the physiological "explanations " (away) of NDE .
« Last Edit: 21/12/2014 18:56:37 by DonQuichotte »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

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