The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Major Bombshell : Manifesto For A Post-Materialistic Science :  (Read 3222 times)

cheryl j

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1112
    • View Profile
Cheryl :

Just responding to most of the posts here does cost me quite some time and energy (not to mention money as well lol ) , so, how do you expect me to tell you about all the work, models, theories, evidence , data of non-materialist scientists .? You gotta be kidding me .

I talked about all that in general terms in my own words , and via links , video links , excerpts of books ....That's all i can do for you , guys ...

It's up to you all to check all that out , or otherwise ,so : I can only take you to the fountain .I cannot make you drink from it , not that i necessarily care that you would  .

Got other things and duties to attend to as well like everybodyelse , so .

P.S .: dlorde, alancalverd...  :

No time left , sorry .Thanks .Cheers.

I asked for one solid study as an example of the "over whelming body of evidence" you keep referring to.
« Last Edit: 21/10/2014 20:24:39 by cheryl j »

cheryl j

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1112
    • View Profile
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg442699#msg442699 date=1413852051]


Regarding Stapp's work  where he connected Hebb's law ( neurons that fire together connect together ) to what he called the Zeno-effect ( a kindda "glue " that holds the created neural pathways or brain wiring  in place  through the power of conscious focus .


You realize that makes absolutely no sense, right?  Not even metaphorically.

That's a bit how neuroplasticity or self-directed neuroplasticity , grosso-modo , work, from the non-materialist neuroscience's perspective that relies on one particular interpretation of quantum theory , in total contrast with the materialist neuroscience that's still stuck within the classical determinist mechanical Newtonian world view . Non-materialist cognitive psychology or therapy rely on the above , and it works .I tried it myself, once again .I can tell . Many other people did try it also with success...


Why  does  it make no sense to you then ? You have admitted to dlorde that you weren't that into physics, for example  ? Haven't you ? How can you tell then ?

Quote
Quote
The latter explains why habits are so difficult to break ,since focussing on them only strengthens their old neural pathways , and explains that focussing away from old habits regularily through excercises , meditation , discipline ... methodologically , away from them on healthier thoughts can create new neural pathways or brain wiring that would override the old neural pathways created by negative habits  ....  Non-materialist cognitive psychology or therapy  is built up on that: i tried it myself , and it does work .

Why do you think cognitive therapy is non materialist?

You should try to read me well, Cheryl :  Be serious, please :

I said : the non-materialist cognitive therapy .....

There is  materialist and non-materialist cognitive therapy or spychology  ,as there is materialist and non-materialist neuroscience , as there is materialist science and non-materialist science ...

Comprende ?

How does materialist cognitive therapy differ from non-materialist cognitive therapy and how can you tell which one you or your therapist is using?

So if someone tells you that angels or crystals  healed their pneumonia or sprained ankle, Don, do you believe it?

I'm not talking about any placebo effect.  Let's say a friend comes to you and says she believes crystals have healing power. She gives you links to youtube videos with crystalologists explaining the various properties of crystals and their "energy fields." She gives you page after page of testimonials by people who say they have been healed by crystals. When you are skeptical, she demands you prove absolutely that they can't have any effect on the outcome of disease or injury.  You actually manage to find a study that shows no physiological effects of crystals; she claims it was biased or incomplete.  She shows you a manefesto signed by several scientists saying there should be more research about power of crystals.

On what basis do you, you yourself, believe or dismiss these claims? What would you need to be convinced?

« Last Edit: 21/10/2014 21:12:51 by cheryl j »

dlorde

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1034
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
I asked for one solid study as an example of the "over whelming body of evidence" you keep referring to.
As Yogi Berra said, "It's deja-vu all over again". We've been on this merry-go-round before.

cheryl j

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1112
    • View Profile


Non-materialist scientists were /are and will be doing just that : you're just not aware of their work ,theories, models , data or evidence .


One good study.

alancalverd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1600
    • View Profile
Reminiscent of Einstein's quote. A paper had been signed by 100 Nazi professors, denouncing his "Jewish science". Asked what he thought of this massive consensus of experts he said "I am delighted. Had I been wrong, one student would have been able to prove it." 

PmbPhy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
    • View Profile
Quote from: cheryl j
I asked for one solid study as an example of the "over whelming body of evidence" you keep referring to.
Hi Cheryl,

I read the first post of this thread and read the first link where it said this: The authors of the manifesto are all scientific mavericks whose viewpoints are not mainstream. There's another name for such mavericks, i.e. crackpots! LOL!!

Ethos_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
    • View Profile
Quote from: cheryl j
I asked for one solid study as an example of the "over whelming body of evidence" you keep referring to.
Hi Cheryl,

I read the first post of this thread and read the first link where it said this: The authors of the manifesto are all scientific mavericks whose viewpoints are not mainstream. There's another name for such mavericks, i.e. crackpots! LOL!!
Astute observation Pete...........crackpots are never in short supply.

alancalverd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1600
    • View Profile
There's a difference. Mavericks survive when the herd runs over a cliff. Crackpots generally selfdestruct, regardless of the circumstances.

In science, mavericks quietly point out the particular mistakes or inadequate observations of others, whilst crackpots shout about the supernatural and claim to have a Grand Solution to Everything, which they never actually demonstrate. Hence Galileo = maverick, Holy Office of the Pope = crackpots.

DonQuichotte

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1277
    • View Profile
I can't help but wonder, what if some new type of force involving consciousness , or some new form of  "stuff" was discovered? What difference would it make?
If quantum field theory (the Standard Model) is even a reasonable approximation to the way the world works (and the evidence suggests it is far more than that - particularly now the long-predicted Higgs particle has been found), then such a force doesn't exist, and any 'stuff' would have to be made of familiar material. No unknown forces or particles relevant to everyday human-scale interactions remain to be discovered - there are probably plenty at other scales and strengths, but the fundamentals of our everyday environment are all accounted for (gravity, electromagnetism, electrons, protons, and neutrons).

It's a strong claim, but QFT is a strong theory. For the full, exciting, entertaining details, see Sean Carroll's talk The Higgs Boson and the Fundamental Nature of Reality. Skip to 33 minutes for the specific claim (although the whole thing is well worth watching). Please pay close attention to the caveats and limits that Carroll describes.

I have watched the video : it's quite impressive and very clear indeed, not to mention amusing too , from time to time  .

But , how come  that the standard model of quantum field theory cannot account for or rather detect the mental in nature ? if it is a good approximation of how the everyday -scale world works ?

Any materialist claims regarding the nature of reality should be a -priori dismissed as being false , since materialism is false .

Any materialist claims regarding how the world works should be also a -priori partly dismissed as being incomplete ,or as being just a distortion of the nature of the world or reality , since the nature of reality is not exclusively material or physical .



« Last Edit: 22/10/2014 17:05:19 by DonQuichotte »

DonQuichotte

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1277
    • View Profile
Quote
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg442690#msg442690 date=1413845324]
... See also the entanglement phenomena in quantum physics : explain that instantaneous action from huge distances between particles through some material process of yours then ? I thought nothing in the universe can travel faster than the speed of light .
Not quite. The rule is that nothing can accelerate to or past the speed of light (in vacuo), and that no information can travel faster than light (in vacuo).

Ok, then .
Quote
Quote
Why can't consciousness work through entanglement also , via instantaneous action on  "matter" or via minds-minds interactions from a distance then ?
Decoherence.

There are many interpretations of quantum physics , you know .

Quote
Quote
    Do you think that the great physicist and mathematician Von Neumann did detect the role of consciousness in physics through any form of elimination, or direct detection  ?

    He concluded through rigorous maths that the measurement problem in quantum physics could not be solved but by concluding that there must be a process of some sort that collapses the wave function , a process outside of the laws of physics . He could not think of anythingelse than the consciousness of the observer , albeit reluctantly .
Quote
In the 82(!) years since von Neumann's publication, physics has moved on. Wave function collapse is just one of a number of interpretations of QM, and the idea of conscious collapse is now a historical footnote (except for a few fringe woosters, like Stapp).

A historical footnote ? How come that many physicists , even today , still take it for granted as a physic's fact,  such as quantum physicist Amit Goswami and many others then ? :

See what Goswami says about the wave function collapse and more .He's an idealist monist .I don't necessarily agree with the latter philosophy though : The man is still alive and kicking : has he been deluded ? or is he no expert of quantum physics ? : lol :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnQ63AOrs6s

As you know , there are many interpretations of quantum theory , what makes you then think that the materialist one is the approximately 'correct " one ?


Regarding Stapp's work in relation to ions : see this new discovery concerning potassium channels  :

Researchers reach 'paradigm shift' in understanding potassium channels :

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-10-paradigm-shift-potassium-channels.html

Not to mention Wilder Pnefield's and Eccles' work regarding the mind -body problem :


Excerpt from a book by Chris Carter :

Wilder Penfield started his career as a neurosurgeon trying to explain the mind in terms of physical processes in the brain. In the course of surgical treatment of patients who have temporal lobe seizures, Penfield stumbled upon the fact that electrical stimulation of certain areas of the cortex could activate a stream of memories that had been laid down years or even decades earlier. In fact, the patient would “relive” the earlier episode, recalling incidents in far greater detail than would be possible by voluntary recall, but during the flashback, the patient would remain completely aware of what was happening in the operating room. Penfield summed up the conclusions he formed on the basis of these experiments by stating:
The patient’s mind, which is considering the situation in such an aloof and critical manner, can only be something quite apart from neuronal reflex action. It is noteworthy that two streams of consciousness are flowing, the one driven by input from the environment, the other by an electrode delivering sixty pulses per second to the cortex. The fact that there should be no confusion in the conscious state suggests that, although the content of consciousness depends in large measure on neuronal activity, awareness itself does not.
On the basis of his experiments and examinations of patients with various forms of epilepsy, Penfield concluded that the mind interacts with the brain in the upper brain stem, an ancient structure that humans share with reptiles. Penfield, who won the Nobel Prize for his work, considers the rest of the brain to be a magnificent biological computer, programmed by the mind. He found that electrical stimulation of most parts of the brain resulted either in memories relived in vivid detail, involuntary movement of a part of the body, or paralysis of some function, such as speech. By contrast, injury to or epileptic discharge in the higher brain stem always simply resulted in loss of consciousness, leading Penfield to conclude, “Here is the meeting of mind and brain. The psychico-physical frontier is here.”
Penfield thought that the brain as a computer could accomplish a great deal by automatic mechanisms, but that “what the mind does is different. It is not to be accounted for by any neuronal mechanism that I can discover.” He also stated:
There is no area of gray matter, as far as my experience goes, in which local epileptic discharge brings to pass what could be called “mindaction” … there is no valid evidence that either epileptic discharge or electrical stimulation can activate the mind.
If one stops to consider it, this is an arresting fact. The record of consciousness can be set in motion, complicated though it is, by the electrode or by epileptic discharge. An illusion of interpretation can be produced in the same way. But none of the actions that we attribute to the mind has been initiated by electrode stimulation or epileptic discharge. If there were a mechanism in the brain that could do what the mind does, one might expect that the mechanism would betray its presence in a convincing manner by some better evidence of epileptic or electrode activation.
In other words, Penfield argues that if the brain produced or generated consciousness, then we would expect that consciousness itself could be influenced by epilepsy or electrical stimulation in some way other than simply being switched off; that is, we would expect beliefs or decisions to be produced. The complete absence of any such effect in Penfield’s experience led him to reject the production hypothesis in favor of dualistic interaction.
Edwards argues that the most Penfield has shown is that brain activity is not a sufficient condition of consciousness; Edwards argues that it may still be a necessary condition. Edwards refers to this alleged confusion of sufficient and necessary conditions as “the confusions of Penfield.” Edwards wrote, “The fact that Penfield could not produce beliefs or decisions by electrical stimulation of the brain in no way shows that they do not need what we may call a brain-base any less than memories and sensations.” But Penfield fully agrees that the brain might still be a necessary condition for consciousness. He wrote, “When death at last blows out the candle that was life … what can one really conclude? What is the reasonable hypothesis in regard to this matter, considering the physiological evidence? Only this: the brain has not explained the mind fully.Penfield’s point is simply that there is nothing in brain physiology that precludes the possibility of consciousness in the absence of a brain, contrary to what Edwards would have us believe. Once again it is Edwards who is confused—in this case, about what Penfield actually thought.
In direct contrast to Edwards’ statement that “the instrument theory is absurd,” Penfield writes: “To expect the highest brain-mechanism or any set of reflexes, however complicated, to carry out what the mind does, and thus perform all the functions of the mind, is quite absurd.”
Penfield sums up what he thinks the physiological evidence suggests for the relationship between mind and body.
On the basis of mind and brain as two semi-independent elements, one would still be forced to assume that the mind makes its impact upon the brain through the highest brain-mechanism. The mind must act upon it. The mind must also be acted upon by the highest brain-mechanism. The mind must remember by making use of the brain’s recording mechanisms… . And yet the mind seems to act independently of the brain in the same sense that a programmer acts independently of his computer, however much he may depend upon the action of that computer for certain purposes.
On the final pages of his book he states:
I worked as a scientist trying to prove that the brain accounted for the mind and demonstrating as many brain-mechanisms as possible hoping to show how the brain did so. In presenting this monograph I do not begin with a conclusion and I do not end by making a final and unalterable one. Instead, I reconsider the present-day neurophysiological evidence on the basis of two hypotheses: (a) that man’s being consists of one fundamental element, and (b) that it consists of two. In the end I conclude that there is no good evidence, in spite of new methods, such as the employment of stimulating electrodes, the study of conscious patients and the analysis of epileptic attacks, that the brain alone can carry out the work that the mind does. I conclude that it is easier to rationalize man’s being on the basis of two elements than on the basis of one.
The relevance of Penfield’s arguments can be summarized as this: if the neurophysiological evidence suggests that man’s being consists of two elements rather than one, then the separate existence of these two elements cannot be ruled out by consideration of this evidence.
A second prominent neuroscientist to endorse a dualistic model of mind-brain interaction was John Eccles, who found the conscious integration of visual experience impossible to account for in terms of known neurological processes because nerve impulses related to visual experience appear to be fragmented and sent to divergent areas of the brain. This difficulty led Eccles to postulate the existence of a conscious mind existing separate from and in addition to the physical brain, with the raison d’etre of the former being the integration of neural activity.
In addition to noting that there is a unitary character about the experiences of the self-conscious mind despite the fragmentary nature of brain activity, Eccles also held that there can be a temporal discrepancy between neural events and conscious experiences* and that there is a continual experience that the mind can act on brain events, which is most apparent in voluntary action or the attempt to recall a word or a memory. These considerations, combined with his lifelong study of the brain and its neurons, form the basis of his opinions on the mind-body relationship.
Eccles hypothesizes that the mind may influence the brain by exerting spatio-temporal patterns of influence on the brain, which operates as a detector of these fields of influence. In his book Facing Reality: Philosophical Adventures of a Brain Scientist, Eccles first discusses the structure and activity of the brain in great detail and then writes:
In this discussion of the functioning of the brain, it has initially been regarded as a “machine” operating according to the laws of physics and chemistry. In conscious states it has been shown that it could be in a state of extreme sensitivity as a detector of minute spatiotemporal fields of influence. The hypothesis is here developed that these spatio-temporal fields of influence are exerted by the mind on the brain in willed action. If one uses the expressive terminology of Ryle, the “ghost” operates a “machine,” not of ropes and pulleys, valves and pipes, but of microscopic spatio-temporal patterns of activity in the neuronal net woven by the synaptic connections of ten thousand million neurons, and even then only by operating on neurons that are momentarily poised close to a just threshold level of excitability. It would appear that it is the sort of machine a “ghost” could operate, if by ghost we mean in the first place an “agent” whose action has escaped detection even by the most delicate physical instruments. *
Eccles postulated a two-way interaction between brain and mind, with “brain receiving from conscious mind in a willed action and in turn transmitting to mind in a conscious experience.”
 It is not clear whether Eccles was convinced of the existence of an afterlife, but he did write, “Atleast I would maintain that this possibility of a future existence cannot be denied on scientific grounds.”
It needs to be stressed that the findings of modern neuroscience do not alter the argument one bit, as they are equally compatible with both production and transmission. Gary Schwartz, professor of psychology, neurology, psychiatry, medicine, and surgery at the University of Arizona, points out that among neuroscientists with a materialist bent, the belief that consciousness arises from physical processes in the brain is based on three kinds of investigation:
1. Correlation studies (e.g., electroencephalogram, or EEG, correlates of visual perception)
2. Stimulation studies (e.g., electrical or magnetic stimulation)
3. Ablation studies (e.g., the effect of brain lesions).
However, analogous methods are applied during television repair with parallel results, yet no one comes to the conclusion that pictures on the screen are created inside the television. Schwartz describes the brain as the “antenna-receiver” for the mind and points out that the evidence from neuroscience, like the evidence from television repair, is just as compatible with the hypothesis of reception-transmission as it is with the hypothesis of production.
Like Penfield and Eccles before him, Schwartz has also come to the conclusion that the mind is a separate entity from the brain, and that mental processes cannot be reduced to neurochemical brain processes but on the contrary direct them. Like Penfield and Eccles, he also thinks that a mind may conceivably exist without a brain. Since Edwards has not succeeded in showing that the possibility of survival is inconsistent with the facts of neurology, and since we have seen that three prominent neuroscientists do not share Edwards’ opinion that the transmission theory is “absurd,” we can now clearly see Edwards dismissal as what it is: dogmatic prejudice against an empirical possibility that does not coincide with his materialistic faith.


« Last Edit: 22/10/2014 17:10:52 by DonQuichotte »

DonQuichotte

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1277
    • View Profile
Cheryl :

I thought i was clear enough .I have no time for silly games . Cheers.

DonQuichotte

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1277
    • View Profile
James A. Shapiro - Revisiting Evolution in The 21st Century :


http://vimeo.com/17592530

DonQuichotte

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1277
    • View Profile
"The Spiritual Brain , A Neuroscientist's Case For The Existence of The Soul  " By Mario Beauregard and Denyse O'Leary

(Prior note : Cheryl : why didn't you download the audio version of this book for which i provided you with a link to download it from ? Why didn't you use the library's wifi for that then, lazy sis , since you pretend to be interested in what these scientists had to say ?  , not to mention your cameleon-like mood swings that make this discussion with you a very Kafkaian weird one .
Non-materialist cognitive therapy might help you with that , i guess .
I tried to fix the display of this excerpt , almost in vain ...sorry .)


Introduction :

When my doctoral student Vincent Paquette and I first began studying
the spiritual experiences of Carmelite nuns at the Université de Montréal,
we knew that our motives were quite likely to be misunderstood.
First, we had to convince the nuns that we were not trying to prove that
their religious experiences did not actually occur, that they were delusions,
or that a brain glitch explained them. Then we had to quiet both the
hopes of professional atheists and the fears of clergy about the possibility
that we were trying to reduce these experiences to some kind of “God
switch” in the brain.
Many neuroscientists want to do just that. But Vincent and I belong to
a minority—nonmaterialist neuroscientists. Most scientists today are materialists who believe that the physical world is the only reality. Absolutely everything else—including thought, feeling, mind, and will—can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena, leaving no room for the possibility that religious and spiritual experiences are anything but illusions.
Materialists are like Charles Dickens’s character Ebeneezer
Scrooge who dismisses his experience of Marley’s ghost as merely “an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato.”
Vincent and I, on the other hand, did not approach our research with
any such materialist presumption. As we are not materialists, we did not
doubt in principle that a contemplative might contact a reality outside
herself during a mystical experience. In fact, I went into neuroscience in
part because I knew experientially that such things can indeed happen.
Vincent and I simply wanted to know what the neural correlates—the activity of the neurons—during such an experience might be. Given the
overwhelming dominance of materialism in neuroscience today, we count
ourselves lucky that the nuns believed in our sincerity and agreed to help us and that the Templeton Foundation saw the value of funding our studies.
Of course, you may well ask, can neuroscience studies of contemplative
nuns demonstrate that God exists? No, but they can—and did—demonstrate
that the mystical state of consciousness really exists. In this state, the
contemplative likely experiences aspects of reality that are not available in
other states. These findings rule out various materialist theses that the
contemplative is faking or confabulating the experience. Vincent and I
also showed that mystical experiences are complex—a finding that challenges a vast variety of simplistic materialist explanations such as a “God gene,” “God spot,” or “God switch” in our brains.
Toronto-based journalist Denyse O’Leary and I have written this book to
discuss the significance of these studies, and more generally, to provide a neuroscientific approach to understanding religious, spiritual, and mystical experiences.
The discipline of neuroscience today is materialist. That is, it assumes
that the mind is quite simply the physical workings of the brain. To see what this means, consider a simple sentence: “I made up my mind to buy a bike.”
One would not say, “I made up my brain to buy a bike.” By contrast, one
might say, “Bike helmets prevent brain damage,” but not “Bike helmets prevent ideological system.
” But materialists think that the distinction you make between
your mind as an immaterial entity and your brain as a bodily organ
has no real basis. The mind is assumed to be a mere illusion generated by the workings of the brain. Some materialists even think you should not in fact use terminology that implies that your mind exists.
In this book, we intend to show you that your mind does exist, that it
is not merely your brain. Your thoughts and feelings cannot be dismissed
or explained away by firing synapses and physical phenomena alone. In a
solely material world, “will power” or “mind over matter” are illusions,
there is no such thing as purpose or meaning, there is no room for God.
Yet many people have experience of these things, and we present evidence
that these experiences are real.
In contrast, many materialists now argue that notions like meaning or
purpose do not correspond to reality; they are merely adaptations for
human survival. In other words, they have no existence beyond the evolution of circuits in our brains. As co-discoverer of the genetic code
Francis Crick writes in The Astonishing Hypothesis, “Our highly developed brains, after all, were not evolved under the pressure of discovering scientific truths but only to enable us to be clever enough to survive and leave descendants.”
But are questions about our meaning or purpose merely survival
mechanisms? If such an airy dismissal of the intellectual life of
thousands of years sounds vaguely unconvincing, well, perhaps it should.
Suppose, for example, a healthy man donates a kidney for free to a
dying stranger. The materialist may look for an analogy among moles,
rats, or chimpanzees, as the best way to understand the donor’s motives.
He believes that the donor’s mind can be completely explained by the hypothesis
that his brain evolved slowly and painstakingly from the brains of
creatures like these. Therefore, his mind is merely an illusion created by
the workings of an overdeveloped brain, and his consciousness of his situation is actually irrelevant as an explanation of his actions.
This book argues that the fact that the human brain evolves does not
show that the human mind can be dismissed in this way. Rather, the
human brain can enable a human mind, whereas the mole brain cannot
(with my apologies to the mole species). The brain, however, is not the
mind; it is an organ suitable for connecting a mind to the rest of the universe.
By analogy, Olympic swimming events require an Olympic class
swimming pool. But the pool does not create the Olympic events; it
makes them feasible at a given location.
From the materialist perspective, our human mind’s consciousness and
free will are problems to be explained away. To see what this means, consider Harvard cognitive scientist Steven Pinker’s comments on consciousness in a recent piece in Time magazine entitled “The Mystery of
Consciousness” ( January 19, 2007). Addressing two key problems that
scientists face, he writes, Although neither problem has been solved, neuroscientists agree on many features of both of them, and the feature they find least controversial is the one that many people outside the field find the most shocking.
Francis Crick called it “the astonishing hypothesis”—the idea that our thoughts, sensations, joys and aches consist entirely of physiological activity in the tissues of the brain. Consciousness does not reside in an ethereal soul that uses the brain like a PDA [personal digital assistant]; consciousness is the activity of the brain.
Given that Pinker admits that neither problem concerning consciousness
is either solved or anywhere close to being solved, how can he be so
sure that consciousness is merely “the activity of the brain,” implying that
there is no soul? .
One convenient aspect of Pinker’s materialism is that any doubt can be
labeled “unscientific” in principle. That preempts a discussion of materialism’s plausibility .
 Certainly, materialism is a faith that many intellectuals
would never think of questioning. But the strength of their conviction
neither shows that it is a correct account of reality nor provides evidence
in its favor. A good case can be made for the opposite view, as this book
will demonstrate.
Yes, this book—departing from a general trend in books on neuroscience
aimed at the general public—does question materialism. Much more
than that, it presents evidence that materialism is not true. You will see for
yourself that the evidence for materialism is not nearly so good as Steven
Pinker would like you to believe. You can only retain your faith in materialism by assuming—on faith—that any contrary evidence you read about must be wrong.
For example, as we will show, a materialist readily believes—without
any reliable evidence whatsoever—that great spiritual leaders suffer from
temporal-lobe epilepsy rather than that they have spiritual experiences that
inspire others as well as themselves. Where spirituality is concerned, this
experiential data is an embarrassment to narrow materialism. That is because a system like materialism is severely damaged by any evidence against it.
Consequently, data that defy materialism are simply ignored by many
scientists. For instance, materialists have conducted a running war against
psi research (research on knowledge or action at a distance, such as extrasensory perception, telepathy, precognition, or telekinesis) for decades,because any evidence of psi’s validity, no matter how minor, is fatal to their ideological system.
Recently, for example, self-professed skeptics have attacked atheist neuroscience grad student Sam Harris for having proposed,
in his book entitled The End of Faith (2004), that psi research has validity.
Harris is only following the evidence, as we shall see. But in doing so, he is
clearly violating an important tenet of materialism: materialist ideology
trumps evidence.
But other challenges to materialism exist. Materialists must believe that
their minds are simply an illusion created by the workings of the brain
and therefore that free will does not really exist and could have no influence in controlling any disorder. But nonmaterialist approaches have
clearly demonstrated mental health benefits. The following are a few examples discussed in this book.
Jeffrey Schwartz, a nonmaterialist UCLA neuropsychiatrist, treats
obsessive-compulsive disorder—a neuropsychiatric disease marked by distressing,intrusive, and unwanted thoughts—by getting patients to reprogram their brains. Their minds change their brains.
Similarly, some of my neuroscientist colleagues at the Université de
Montréal and I have demonstrated, via brain imaging techniques, the
following:
• Women and young girls can voluntarily control their level of
response to sad thoughts, though young girls found it more difficult
to do so.
• Men who view erotic films are quite able to control their responses
to them, when asked to do so.
• People who suffer from phobias such as spider phobia can
reorganize their brains so that they lose the fear.
Evidence of the mind’s control over the brain is actually captured in
these studies. There is such a thing as “mind over matter.” We do have will
power, consciousness, and emotions, and combined with a sense of purpose
and meaning, we can effect change.
At one time, materialist explanations of religion and spirituality were at
least worth considering. For example, Sigmund Freud argued that childhood
memories of a father figure led religious people to believe in God.
Freud’s explanation failed because Christianity is the only major religion
that emphasizes the fatherhood of God. But his idea, while wrong, was
not ridiculous. Relationships with fathers, happy or otherwise, are complex
human experiences, with some analogies to religion. Similarly, anthropologist
J. G. Frazer thought that modern religions grew out of primal
fertility cults and were only later spiritualized. Actually, the evidence
points more clearly to spiritual experiences as the source of later religious
beliefs and rituals. Still, Frazer’s idea was far from trivial. It derived from a
long and deep acquaintance with ancient belief systems.
But recently, materialistic explanations of religion and spirituality have
gotten out of hand. Influenced by this materialistic prejudice, popular
media jump at stories about the violence gene, the fat gene, the monogamy
gene, the infidelity gene, and now, even a God gene! The argument goes like this: evolutionary psychologists attempt to explain human spirituality and belief in God by insisting that cave dwellers in the remote past who believed in a supernatural reality were more likely to pass on their genes than cave dwellers who didn’t. Progress in genetics and neuroscience has encouraged some to look, quite seriously, for such a God gene, or else a God spot,module, factor, or switch in the human brain. By the time the amazing God helmet” (a snowmobile helmet modified with solenoids that purportedly could stimulate subjects to experience God) in Sudbury,Canada,
became a magnet for science journalists in the 1990s (the Decade of the
Brain), materialism was just about passing beyond parody. Nonetheless,
materialists continue to search for a God switch. Such comic diversions
aside, there is no escaping the nonmaterialism of the human mind.
Essentially, there is no God switch. As the studies with the Carmelite
nuns have demonstrated and this book will detail, spiritual experiences are
complex experiences, like our experiences of human relationships. They
leave signatures in many parts of the brain. That fact is consistent with
(though it does not by itself demonstrate) the notion that the experiencer
contacts a reality outside herself.
The fact is materialism is stalled. It neither has any useful hypotheses
for the human mind or spiritual experiences nor comes close to developing
any. Just beyond lies a great realm that cannot even be entered via
materialism, let alone explored. But the good news is that, in the absence
of materialism, there are hopeful signs that spirituality can indeed be entered and explored with modern neuroscience.
Nonmaterialist neuroscience is not compelled to reject, deny, explain
away, or treat as problems all evidence that defies materialism. That is
promising because current research is turning up a growing body of such
evidence. Three examples addressed in this book are the psi effect, near
death experiences (NDEs), and the placebo effect.
The psi effect, as seen in such phenomena as extrasensory perception
and psychokinesis, is a low-level effect, to be sure, but efforts to disconfirm it have failed. NDEs have also become a more frequent subject of research in recent years, probably because the spread of advanced resuscitation techniques has created a much larger population that survives
to recount them. As a result of the work of researchers such as Pim
van Lommel, Sam Parnia, Peter Fenwick, and Bruce Greyson, we now
have a growing base of information. The results do not support a materialist
view of mind and consciousness, as advanced by Pinker, who writes
in Time “when the physiological activity of the brain ceases, as far as
anyone can tell the person’s consciousness goes out of existence.”
Most of us have not experienced unusual effects like psi or NDE, but
we have all probably experienced the placebo effect: have you ever gone to your doctor to get a letter saying you can’t go to work because you have a bad cold—and suddenly begun to feel better while sitting in the clinic, leafing through magazines? It’s embarrassing, but easy to explain: your mind generates messages to begin the analgesic or healing processes when you accept that you have in fact started on a path to recovery.
Materialist neuroscience has long regarded the placebo effect as a problem, but it is one of the best attested phenomena in medicine. But for nonmaterialist neuroscience, it is a normal effect that can be of great therapeutic value when properly used.
Materialism is apparently unable to answer key questions about the
nature of being human and has little prospect of ever answering them intelligibly. It has also convinced millions of people that they should not seek to develop their spiritual nature because they have none.
Some think that the solution is to continue to uphold materialism a bit
more raucously than before. Currently, key materialist spokespersons have
launched a heavily publicized and somewhat puzzling “anti-God” crusade.
Antitheistic works such as Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (Daniel Dennett), The God Delusion (Richard Dawkins), God:
The Failed Hypothesis—How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist (Victor
J. Stenger), God Is Not Great (Christopher Hitchens), and Letters to a
Christian Nation (Sam Harris) are accompanied by conferences such as
the Science Network’s “Beyond Belief ” and campaigns such as the You-
Tube Blasphemy Challenge.
The remarkable thing is that there isn’t a single new idea in anything
they have to say. Eighteenth-century philosophes said it all long ago, to as
much or little purpose. Granted, recent works have been spiced with the
questionable assumptions of evolutionary psychology—the attempt to
derive religion and spirituality from the practices that may have enabled a
few of our Pleistocene ancestors to pass on their genes. But the Pleistocene ancestors are long gone, and not much can really be learned from a discipline that lacks a subject. There are also plenty of assurances about the illusory nature of mind, consciousness, and free will, and the uselessness or danger of spirituality.
A variety of experts of the mid-twentieth century had predicted that
spirituality would slowly but surely disappear. Once supplied with abundant
material goods, people would just stop thinking about God. But the
experts were wrong. Spirituality today is more varied, but it is growing all
over the world. Thus, its continuing vitality prompts speculations, fears,
and some pretty wild guesses—but most of all, a compelling curiosity, a
desire to investigate.
But how can we investigate spirituality scientifically? To start with, we
can rediscover our nonmaterialist inheritance. It has always been there,
just widely ignored. Famous neuroscientists such as Charles Sherrington,
Wilder Penfield, and John Eccles, were not in fact reductive materialists,
and they had good reasons for their position. Today, nonmaterialist neuroscience is thriving, despite the limitations imposed by widespread misunderstanding and, in a few cases, hostility. Readers are urged to approach all the questions and evidence presented in this book with an open mind.
This is a time for exploration, not dogma.
Our book will establish three key ideas. The nonmaterialist approach
to the human mind is a rich and vital tradition that accounts for the evidence much better than the currently stalled materialist one. Second,
nonmaterialist approaches to the mind result in practical benefits and
treatments, as well as promising approaches to phenomena that materialist
accounts cannot even address. Lastly—and this may be the most important
value for many readers—our book shows that when spiritual experiences
transform lives, the most reasonable explanation and the one that best accounts for all the evidence, is that the people who have such experiences have actually contacted a reality outside themselves, a reality that has brought them closer to the real nature of the universe.

Mario Beauregard
Montreal, Canada
March 4, 2007
« Last Edit: 22/10/2014 20:12:16 by DonQuichotte »

DonQuichotte

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1277
    • View Profile
I did not really succeed in fixing the display of the above posted excerpt ,sorry .I didn't have enough time for that at my disposal either ,so .
For much more solid scientific non-materialist stuff, later then ,if i have time for that at least .Cheers.

P.S.:

dlorde :
See my replies to your posts here above .Thanks.
« Last Edit: 22/10/2014 20:16:47 by DonQuichotte »

dlorde

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1034
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Quote
Decoherence.

There are many interpretations of quantum physics , you know .
Decoherence isn't an interpretation, it's a central feature.

Quote
The man is still alive and kicking : has he been deluded ?
So it would seem.
 
Quote
As you know , there are many interpretations of quantum theory , what makes you then think that the materialist one is the approximately 'correct " one ?
There are many interpretations. It really doesn't matter which is 'correct', what matters is that the the field theory works - and it does, regardless of the presence of consciousness.

Quote
<book extract>
TL;DR. Try summarising in your own words.

cheryl j

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1112
    • View Profile
"The Spiritual Brain , A Neuroscientist's Case For The Existence of The Soul  " By Mario Beauregard and Denyse O'Leary

(Prior note : Cheryl : why didn't you download the audio version of this book for which i provided you with a link to download it from ? Why didn't you use the library's wifi for that then, lazy sis , since you pretend to be interested in what these scientists had to say ?  , not to mention your cameleon-like mood swings that make this discussion with you a very Kafkaian weird one .
Non-materialist cognitive therapy might help you with that , i guess .
I tried to fix the display of this excerpt , almost in vain ...sorry .)




How do you know what I did or didn't download? You said I was wasting your time with silly games, so I did not think you would be interested in my comments.

Now if you'll excuse me, I seem to have transformed inexplicably into an insect like creature with a large tail, and I am going down to the bureau to file some papers about it.
« Last Edit: Today at 01:15:55 by cheryl j »

RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7334
    • View Profile
"The Spiritual Brain , A Neuroscientist's Case For The Existence of The Soul  " By Mario Beauregard and Denyse O'Leary

(Prior note : Cheryl : why didn't you download the audio version of this book ...

Don't bother downloading : their work is summarised on rationalwiki ...

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non-materialist_neuroscience#Mario_Beauregard

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Denyse_O'Leary


[ also see  ... http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_woo ]

« Last Edit: Today at 02:41:50 by RD »

dlorde

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1034
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
OK, I had enough free time to read the extract from Carter's book.

The summary? three prominent neuroscientists use the argument from incredulity to espouse a dualist interpretation of mind-brain for which there is no empirical evidence. Is that a scientific approach? Clearly not.

However, Carter does say, "It needs to be stressed that the findings of modern neuroscience do not alter the argument one bit, as they are equally compatible with both production and transmission."

Although this is far from the impression I get from my reading, for the sake of argument, let's evaluate this statement as it stands. When two theories can't be distinguished on the evidence alone, Popper says we should prefer the one with the highest degree of empirical content (The Logic of Scientific Discovery). Poincare suggested simplicity (best expressed in Ockham's Razor); more contemporary criteria are to choose the theory which provides the best (and novel) predictions, the one with the highest explanatory potential, the one which offers better problems or the most elegant and simple one. Alternatively a theory may be preferable if it is better integrated into the rest of contemporary knowledge.

In each case, the dualist theory falls - it has no empirical content, requires additional unexplained entities, has no predictive power, no explanatory potential, has intractable problems (not least interaction itself), is neither elegant nor simple, nor does it integrate into contemporary knowledge.

However, we've only examined this in an isolated context - what does the rest of science tell us? thermodynamics and information theory tells us that persistent information patterns, such as an independent mind, require some persistent medium and energy source to maintain them. Interaction involves energy transfer. Quantum field theory tells us that only electromagnetism has the range and strength to support neural interaction. Extensive research involving the brain has shown no evidence of any such extraneous fields, no information supporting medium, no extraneous energy source or consumption, and no interaction; and EMF disruptions, such as MRI scanners, and Faraday cage shielding helmets have no effect on consciousness. If such a field and its interactions were too delicate to detect or measure, they'd be too delicate to influence the relatively crude (by modern measurement standards) electrochemical activity of neurons, and would be swamped and disrupted by the everyday fields of household wiring & electrical devices, not least mobile phones.

In short, it's a busted flush.

DonQuichotte

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1277
    • View Profile
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg442871#msg442871 date=1414018956]
"The Spiritual Brain , A Neuroscientist's Case For The Existence of The Soul  " By Mario Beauregard and Denyse O'Leary

(Prior note : Cheryl : why didn't you download the audio version of this book for which i provided you with a link to download it from ? Why didn't you use the library's wifi for that then, lazy sis , since you pretend to be interested in what these scientists had to say ?  , not to mention your cameleon-like mood swings that make this discussion with you a very Kafkaian weird one .
Non-materialist cognitive therapy might help you with that , i guess .
I tried to fix the display of this excerpt , almost in vain ...sorry .)




How do you know what I did or didn't download?


Well, your strange cameleon-like mood swings make this discussion with you a very Kafkaian weird one , as i said earlier .
You kept asking me for what non-materialist scientists had to say , so, i replied to that on many occasions, while reminding you of the fact that i did provide a link  through which you could download the audio version of the book for free ,to see for yourself .

And since , you kept on asking me the same non-sense , i presumed thus that you did not download that audiobook .

Quote
You said I was wasting your time with silly games, so I did not think you would be interested in my comments.

I was just referring to yor repeated requests and mainly to that so-called crystal healing silly story ...

Quote
Now if you'll excuse me, I seem to have transformed inexplicably into an insect like creature with a large tail, and I am going down to the bureau to file some papers about it.

Very funny .
I was more referring to Kafka's "Trial " than to his "Metamorphosis " book .



DonQuichotte

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1277
    • View Profile
"The Spiritual Brain , A Neuroscientist's Case For The Existence of The Soul  " By Mario Beauregard and Denyse O'Leary

(Prior note : Cheryl : why didn't you download the audio version of this book ...

Don't bother downloading : their work is summarised on rationalwiki ...

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non-materialist_neuroscience#Mario_Beauregard

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Denyse_O'Leary


[ also see  ... http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_woo ]

We already dealt with that in one form or another through Cheryl 's  same link on the subject from rationalwiki .

The latter is just a materialist approach that has nothing rational about it .

DonQuichotte

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1277
    • View Profile
Quote
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg442882#msg442882 date=1414059557]
OK, I had enough free time to read the extract from Carter's book.

The summary? three prominent neuroscientists use the argument from incredulity to espouse a dualist interpretation of mind-brain for which there is no empirical evidence. Is that a scientific approach? Clearly not.

Thanks for taking the time to read that excerpt of Carter .I give you credit for that at least,and for your related open-mindedness as well thus .I salute that .

That said :

Who says there is no empirical evidence whatsoever for that dualist interpretation ?, even though i am no longer a dualist myself .

And what arguments from incredulity are you talking about ?

Penfield and Eccless were nobel prize winners , i guess , eminent scientists : the least they should have known is what a scientific approach was / is  all about .

If you said : they made a mistake or that they were wrong at least , instead of saying that their approach was not scientific ,or that they argued from incredulity , you might have had an argument there , but , you did not .

Are you projecting , dlorde ? Guess so :

It is in fact the materialist theory of consciousness that's not been supported by any empirical evidence whatsoever : absolutely zero : absolutely no empirical evidence has been able to show conclusively that neural networks , or neurons 'firings ' patterns or those of groups of neurons can create or produce thought , consciousness or awareness , or subjective experiences ..., ever : correlations between mind and brain are no causations , and that materialist computational model regarding the activity of the brain, in order to explain consciousness or the mind  is also a false premise , since claculating the brain activity of the brain will never tell us much about the nature , function or origin of consciosuness or about those of the mind  ( I have read a scientific article lately regarding the fact that it takes supercomputers 20 mns to calculate just 1 sec of brain activity , and even if the capacity of those supercomputers gets improved exponentially ,which is highly likely of course , through quantum supercomputers or other , calculating the brain activity will not tell us almost anything at all about the nature ,function or origin of consciousness or about those of the mind  : it's a bit  like trying to know about the broadcasting channels ,stations , devices,satellites ...through calculating the electro-magnetic activity of a radio device or a tv set : just an analogy : in this case , both the broadcasting transmitters and receivers are material or physical devices ...not to mention the fact that those materialist machine , computer metaphors regarding the nature of life are also false , since  studying life has shown that it has its unique features , properties and qualities that computers or machines do lack , even though life seems to have an automatic ,reflexive instinctive dimesion as well .)

Quote
However, Carter does say, "It needs to be stressed that the findings of modern neuroscience do not alter the argument one bit, as they are equally compatible with both production and transmission."

I don't see how any findings of neuroscience can be compatible with the materialist production theory : correlations between brain and mind are no casations , once again, for example . Carter's above mentioned quote was puzzling to me at least .

Quote
Although this is far from the impression I get from my reading, for the sake of argument, let's evaluate this statement as it stands. When two theories can't be distinguished on the evidence alone, Popper says we should prefer the one with the highest degree of empirical content (The Logic of Scientific Discovery). Poincare suggested simplicity (best expressed in Ockham's Razor); more contemporary criteria are to choose the theory which provides the best (and novel) predictions, the one with the highest explanatory potential, the one which offers better problems or the most elegant and simple one. Alternatively a theory may be preferable if it is better integrated into the rest of contemporary knowledge.

Who can argue with that ?
What makes  you think the materialist theory of consciousness is the one that passes the above tests then ?

Let me remind you of the fact that the materialist theory of consciousness is not supported by any empirical evidence whatsoever : materialist belief assumptions regarding the mind-body relationship are no empirical evidence:  brain-mind  correlations  are , once again, no causations , to mention just that fact .


Quote
In each case, the dualist theory falls - it has no empirical content, requires additional unexplained entities, has no predictive power, no explanatory potential, has intractable problems (not least interaction itself), is neither elegant nor simple, nor does it integrate into contemporary knowledge.

Well, i am not a dualist anymore , as i said earlier , but , dualism is more scientific than materialist monism , to some extent at least (See below , in my next reply to your next quote ) .

How can the false materialist theory of consciousness account for all those "anomalies " such as psi phenmena , palcebo/nocebo effects and more ?

How can the materialist false theory of consciousness account for just your own daily conscious decisions and actions , dlorde ? ,since materialism assumes that the mind is just in the brain or just brain activity ,without any causal effects on matter brain or body whatsoever , let alone on the rest of the physical world , and hence consciousness and the mind are just side effects of evolution, just useless epiphenomena (absurd ) : we are just mindless machines or computers , hardware programmed by software ...Who's insane enough as to believe in that materialist non-sense ? Yeah, right , only materialists and fools would /do , i suppose , no offense .

Quote
However, we've only examined this in an isolated context - what does the rest of science tell us? thermodynamics and information theory tells us that persistent information patterns, such as an independent mind, require some persistent medium and energy source to maintain them. Interaction involves energy transfer. Quantum field theory tells us that only electromagnetism has the range and strength to support neural interaction. Extensive research involving the brain has shown no evidence of any such extraneous fields, no information supporting medium, no extraneous energy source or consumption, and no interaction; and EMF disruptions, such as MRI scanners, and Faraday cage shielding helmets have no effect on consciousness. If such a field and its interactions were too delicate to detect or measure, they'd be too delicate to influence the relatively crude (by modern measurement standards) electrochemical activity of neurons, and would be swamped and disrupted by the everyday fields of household wiring & electrical devices, not least mobile phones.

You would be right only if consciousness was just a product of the brain : a materialist assumption that has absolutely no empirical basis  whatsoever .

The study of , together with thousand of documented cases and experiments ,of psi pheniomena , placebo/nocebo effects , meditation , self-directed neuroplasticity , neurofeedback , the fact that our beliefs and expectations can even have impacts on our biology and even on our genes by turning them on or off (See biologist Bruce Lipton, for example , regarding the latter at least and more  ) , can change even the structure anantomy and physiology of the brain ,   the study of epigentics and its challenge to the materialist world view , and much more can only lead to the conclusion that consciousness and the mind are non-physical processes , and hence cannot be detected direcly through empirical evidence , just indirectly thus .

In the same Carter's book from which i quoted the man , he made the case for dualism ,(I am , personally , inclined to support the idea that was uttered by one founder of quantum physics at least , Pauli , who said that our "reality " is psycho-physical = there is no separate matter as such and no separate mind as such  : they are inseparable = 1 .
I don't believe anymore in substance dualism or in any other substance philosophy such as monist idealism , let alone in substance monistic materialism . I think that the universe is not made of any substance at all , but of information in the non-materialist sense , that is .) .

In the same carter's book, he made the case for dualism ,or so it seems at least , through dealing with the conservation of energy law by arguing that consciousness has instantanoeus effects on matter brain and body ,without any transfer of energy through the conscious collapse of the wave function (You don't agree with that ) ,by also raising the non-locality of quantum physics , entanglement , and by dealing with the false classical Newtonian causally closed universe argument  ,  by arguing that quantum physics shows that the universe is not causally closed , and hence consciousness or the mind can effect the physical world through instantaneous action ,without any transfer of energy whatsoever.

So, consciousness or its interaction (we can hardly speak of ineraction , since matter and mind are inseparable = 1 thus .) with matter seems to happen instantanoeusly without any transfer of energy ...so, it cannot be directly detected/detectable  empirically , just indirectly as some non-materialist scientists extrapolated or deduced from all the data , experiments ,documented cases relating to pis phenomena and more .....I don't know for sure, not even remotely close thus .Who does ?

Quote
In short, it's a busted flush.

No, it's not .

You can see it , as follows :

I-The materialist theory of consciousness is false .
II- Dealing with a non-physical and non-local process or phenomena through non-materialist science is an extremely unusal scientific endeavour , since science is just learning to deal with the non-physical ,while it has been confined to the materialist false version of the nature of reality for so long  and counting ,and hence , you can't expect from the newly born and unexperimented non-materialist science  to deliver results that would match how science deals with the physical level of reality .

The non-physical non-local nature , function and origin of consciousness are  of a totally different caliber issue ,than those relating to the physical level of reality ,so.

Maybe , the new science must ,and maybe will, develop novel innovative or creative scientific methods and tools to deal with the non-physical level of reality more efficientely than it is the case today . I don't know .

So, how can you expect the relatively still too primitive human science, the materialist and the non-materialist science alike ,  to be able to account for the mental scientifically and explain it completely (via predictions, falsifiability , verifiability ..scientific criterions ) , despite all that hi-tech technology ...?

Non-materialist science has been entering a totally new and unique "domain" ,almost blindly and fearfully , hesitantly , reluctantly ... (a non-local "one" in fact , a non-physical placeless timeless process or level of reality ) ,while also embracing the material or physical level of reality , so, the scientific study of the non-physical level of reality requires wholly new novel unique methods and tools that will most probably be developed by future scientists , so .

Current non-materialist science is thus still in its early infancy , but it has been going far beyond what materialist science can ever dream of  , so to speak , but , it has been nevertheless delivering some amazing results so far .
Imagine what that science can do in the future ,for the benefit of all mankind : our whole human history , evolution, history of earth , the big bang , our whole spirituality and what it really means to be human, our morality and ethics , our knowledge , societies , politics , economics ....will  be rewritten in radical unprecedented ways ...Who knows ...

The extended non-materialist theory of the nature of reality will be triggering so many radical and unprecedented changes like never before , while expanding the horizon of  science and all other human activity ...exponentially , you have no idea , dlorde .

Thanks .Best wishes.Cheers.




« Last Edit: Today at 18:32:07 by DonQuichotte »

dlorde

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1034
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
How can the false materialist theory of consciousness account for all those "anomalies " such as psi phenmena , palcebo/nocebo effects and more ?
Psi phenomena don't exist. Placebo/nocebo effects are the autonomic nervous system at work.

Quote
... materialism assumes that the mind is just in the brain or just brain activity ,without any causal effects on matter brain or body , let alone on the rest of the physical world , and hence consciousness and the mind are just side effects of evolution, just useless epiphenomena (absurd ) : we are just mindless machines or computers , hardware programmed by software
That's either a deliberate strawman, or a lack of understanding of a level known in the trade as 'not even wrong'.
 
Quote
...Who's insane enough as to believe in that materialist non-sense ?
No-one, I would hope. It's a complete misrepresentation. If that's really what you think the materialist position is, it's no wonder you have difficulty with it. Personally, I think it's a deliberate misrepresentation intended to cover a depressing lack of reasoned argument against the real position.

I notice none of your post attempts to address any of my points with reasoned counter argument. Counterfactual assertions don't constitute argument. But you've been told about that many times in other threads, so it comes as no surprise.

ETA - oh wait, I see you quote Carter as suggesting an energyless and instantaneous transfer of information via quantum non-locality. Sadly that too is 'not even wrong'. Whatever the mechanism, information transfer requires state change; state change requires energy. Quantum mechanics and general relativity tell us that information transfer can not exceed the speed of light, i.e. cannot be instantaneous; and quantum entanglement is actually an example of that.

If Carter really made that argument, he's gone seriously off the rails in trying to use quantum mechanics to break the laws of quantum mechanics... :o:o)
« Last Edit: Today at 18:42:45 by dlorde »

DonQuichotte

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1277
    • View Profile
dlorde :

(Prior note : One form of materialism says that .I was  referring to the so-called evolutionary emergent property theory regarding the origin ,nature and function of consciousness , grosso modo thus ...later , more on that ....
Furthermore , i wrote the above very quickly , since i have duties to attend to .I am already a bit late , so .)

I see that you have been raising  some important and legetimate issues and questions .Thanks .

We're getting somewhere ,after all,  i guess .

Unfortunately , duty calls right now .I have to go . See ya tomorrow then .

Cheers .

P.S . : Oh , yeah , oeps : I see i might have made a serious mistake .I am not sure Carter used that entanglement argument i talked about, to be honest (I am genuine regarding that ,take my word for it .Carter's arguments get mixed up with those of Dean Radin and others in my mind sometimes .I am referring here at least to Radin"s "Entangled minds " book  , i guess .This is no exit strategy or something like that )  . I felt i was not sure about that when i wrote it ,I will have to check out the Carter's book in question then .I will have to check out both Radin's and Carter's books in question in fact , just to be sure .
Bye.Thanks.
« Last Edit: Today at 19:18:01 by DonQuichotte »

 

SMF 2.0 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines