0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
That's no conclusive evidence for the materialistic claim that memory can be stored or encoded in the brain , not even remotely close thus
... That's what PEAR and non-materialist scientists have been doing to pave the way for the birth of the post-materialistic science where consciousness plays a central and key active and proactive role , where consciousness is inseparable from its physical reality with which it interacts , and which it shapes ...
Cheryl :Who said i am not interested in the physical reality then ?'.............. that does not mean that i reject all what materialist science has been revealing so far regarding the physical reality , needless to add : that's a nuance or a difference you're still not able to see , ironically enough , despite all those threads and posts i have been displaying on the subject , including those of this thread .
That's no conclusive evidence for the materialistic claim that memory can be stored or encoded in the brain , not even remotely close thus : that's just like implanting or replacing a missing component , or damaged tissue or damaged area of the brain by implants ,be it a device , a recording or whatever , no evidence for storage of memory in the brain : that's the deceptive simplistic naive realism at work : what you see is not what you get .
I can't believe the way you bandy about the expression 'Occam's razor', because you will go to any length to shoe horn the immaterial into biological processes, even those without gaps in need of a God.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 31/10/2014 18:28:29That's no conclusive evidence for the materialistic claim that memory can be stored or encoded in the brain , not even remotely close thus Recent evidence is consistent with, and strongly supportive of, that claim, if not conclusive. That, taken together with similarly supportive research results, including the rat memory experiments, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary and any plausible alternative hypothesis, means that the only reasonable position to take is the that memory is stored or encoded in the brain.Of course, that position is provisional - if contrary evidence, and/or a plausible alternative hypothesis is forthcoming, the position can be reconsidered. That's how science operates - follow the evidence.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 30/10/2014 20:09:34Cheryl :Who said i am not interested in the physical reality then ?'.............. that does not mean that i reject all what materialist science has been revealing so far regarding the physical reality , needless to add : that's a nuance or a difference you're still not able to see , ironically enough , despite all those threads and posts i have been displaying on the subject , including those of this thread . That's a completely disingenuous response. You've shown repeatedly no matter what the topic is, that you prefer the unproved mystical, immaterial explanation over a physical one, even if that physical one is pretty obvious and straight forward, and has years and years of replicated evidence and models that make consistently make accurate predictions. I can't believe the way you bandy about the expression 'Occam's razor', because you will go to any length to shoe horn the immaterial into biological processes, even those without gaps in need of a God.
You , Mr. dlorde , and all those materialist scientists , including those who have conducted those experiments , are guilty lol of simplistic naive unscientific realism in relation to the interpretation of the results or data of those above mentioned and other similar experiments...<blah>
So the hypothesis is that consciousness is essential to the conduct of the physical universe. Therefore everything that has ever happened, anywhere, was driven by consciousness.Now a lot of what goes on in the universe is inimical to life: black holes, stellar infernos, collapsing stars.... but it goes on. So either (a) consciousness is not a property of living things, or (b) living things can somehow make changes in distant galaxies, billions of years before living things existed. If (a) then PEAR, Conan Doyle, and every other investigator of the paranormal, have been wasting their time playing with human subjects which can only introduce noise and bias into the system: they should be studying consciousness that is not embedded in the material, or the consciousness of rocks. If (b), their entire concept of causality is flawed because a conscious being may have affected the experiment some time before you even conceived of it.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 01/11/2014 17:51:19You , Mr. dlorde , and all those materialist scientists , including those who have conducted those experiments , are guilty lol of simplistic naive unscientific realism in relation to the interpretation of the results or data of those above mentioned and other similar experiments...<blah>As usual, no attempt to address the evidence presented or make a coherent argument; just unsupported assertion and bluster. It's a bit sad really.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 31/10/2014 18:28:29That's no conclusive evidence for the materialistic claim that memory can be stored or encoded in the brain , not even remotely close thus : that's just like implanting or replacing a missing component , or damaged tissue or damaged area of the brain by implants ,be it a device , a recording or whatever , no evidence for storage of memory in the brain : that's the deceptive simplistic naive realism at work : what you see is not what you get .No, that's exactly the point Don. They didn't just interfere or block a process, anesthetize or damage part of brain, or even elicit certain behavior by tweaking a structure. They coded the information in rat's memory and fed it back. "When fed scrambled versions of the code, the rats could no longer perform the task."
Those experiments have been providing no evidence whatsoever for the alleged memory storage in the brain : they just delivered interesting data that was materialistically mis-interpreted .
Have materialist scientists ever tried to falsify their production theory ? to see whether or not it can pass the tests , no , never : all those experiments of theirs were /are and will be designed as to try to corroborate or confirm their a-priori held materialist assumptions or beliefs on the subject .
If you would try to interpret that same data or the above mentioned experiments from a non-materialist perspective , the reasonable position to take regarding that is totally different :
Quote from: cheryl j on 01/11/2014 01:16:39Quote from: DonQuichotte on 31/10/2014 18:28:29That's no conclusive evidence for the materialistic claim that memory can be stored or encoded in the brain , not even remotely close thus : that's just like implanting or replacing a missing component , or damaged tissue or damaged area of the brain by implants ,be it a device , a recording or whatever , no evidence for storage of memory in the brain : that's the deceptive simplistic naive realism at work : what you see is not what you get .No, that's exactly the point Don. They didn't just interfere or block a process, anesthetize or damage part of brain, or even elicit certain behavior by tweaking a structure. They coded the information in rat's memory and fed it back. "When fed scrambled versions of the code, the rats could no longer perform the task."So what ? That's no conclusive evidence for the alleged memory storage in the brain : the one does not necessarily lead to the other : those recordings are not memory itself , just its translated brain activity : see the difference ?
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 31/10/2014 19:38:57... That's what PEAR and non-materialist scientists have been doing to pave the way for the birth of the post-materialistic science where consciousness plays a central and key active and proactive role , where consciousness is inseparable from its physical reality with which it interacts , and which it shapes ...Let PEAR go, Don, it's an interesting dud that failed replication. Like its namesake, it started unpromisingly, took a long time to ripen, then turned to mush when people tried to get serious with it.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 01/11/2014 19:15:26Quote from: cheryl j on 01/11/2014 01:16:39Quote from: DonQuichotte on 31/10/2014 18:28:29That's no conclusive evidence for the materialistic claim that memory can be stored or encoded in the brain , not even remotely close thus : that's just like implanting or replacing a missing component , or damaged tissue or damaged area of the brain by implants ,be it a device , a recording or whatever , no evidence for storage of memory in the brain : that's the deceptive simplistic naive realism at work : what you see is not what you get .No, that's exactly the point Don. They didn't just interfere or block a process, anesthetize or damage part of brain, or even elicit certain behavior by tweaking a structure. They coded the information in rat's memory and fed it back. "When fed scrambled versions of the code, the rats could no longer perform the task."So what ? That's no conclusive evidence for the alleged memory storage in the brain : the one does not necessarily lead to the other : those recordings are not memory itself , just its translated brain activity : see the difference ? No, you're wrong Don. It wasn't just "brain activity" or some instinctive behavioral response. As the article says, it was the ability to operate the levers in the correct sequence - something they learned, something they couldn't do before. And they did it with the code, and not without.