What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?

  • 1733 Replies
  • 319677 Views

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1250 on: 11/12/2013 17:00:06 »
... We should thus be looking for non-materialist falsifiable theories of consciousness ,basta .
How?   [:)]

Silly question :


It's a bit like saying : if one detects flaws in or unexplained anomalies or unexplained phenomena ...by classical physics , before the time of Einstein, then, there is no way to disocover the still unknown  at that time  future relativity theory discovery , or quantum mechanics .
New scientific discoveries through the evolutionary nature of science might deliver the answer to your silly question thus : only time will tell then .
Are you insinuating that dlorde is incompetent by calling him silly??

I think you should apologize......................

Don't be silly : just be brave and honest enough as to address that paradoxical thinking of yours ,instead of this non-sense of yours .
I was just teasing dlorde by calling him silly, since he implies that since there are still no falsifiable non-materialist theories of consciousness out there yet ,there will be none tomorrow, and hence   materialism must be not false .

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1251 on: 11/12/2013 17:04:19 »
Guys :

Try to be brave ,mature ,objective and honest enough as to face the music , concerning the fact that materialism is false , thanks to consciousness mainly , and hence the mind is not in the brain, the mind is not brain activity ,instead of resorting to and raising irrelevant side issues .

Best of luck to you then .

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1252 on: 11/12/2013 17:10:29 »
Back on topic, I just noticed that QualiaSoup have two 10 minute videos on substance dualism (the idea that there is a physical body & brain, and a non-physical mind & consciousness). The second video covers much of what we've discussed here (with a mention of split-brain consciousness that's problematic for dualists), but it's worth viewing both:

Substance Dualism (1)
Substance Dualism (2)

I will take a look at those videos i am downloading as we speak , so to speak .
But ,the main issue here is that materialism is false , so, we should be looking for non-materialist falsifiable theories of consciousness .
To continue trying to defend the indefensible materialism, by trying to refute dualism or other non-materialist theories of nature , can't make the fact go away that materialism is false , and hence materialism must be rejected by all sciences .

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4897
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1253 on: 11/12/2013 17:20:08 »
thanks to consciousness mainly

Please define this remarkable stuff you keep talking about. What does it do?
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1254 on: 11/12/2013 17:27:44 »
thanks to consciousness mainly

Please define this remarkable stuff you keep talking about. What does it do?

Please , do some introspection : look within yourself : get in touch with your self ,or with your own subjective inner life .

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1255 on: 11/12/2013 17:39:44 »
Quote from: DonQuichotte link=topic=48746.msg426266#msg426266
[/quote


The very existence of confirmation bias,for example,  is evidence enough for the fact that the mind of the observer does change the observed ,via the observer's a-priori held belief assumptions ,is evidence enough for the fact that the mind does have causal effect on matter , brain or body .[/i]



Seriously? That's the exactly wrong definition of bias. Look it up in the dictionary if you don't believe me - it means the mind is wrong about its interpretation of reality, not that it changes it.

Wrong :

You did miss my relatively long excerpt on the subject , some pages earlier .
Read it carefully ,and you might see both yourself and your outdated superseded false 19th century old materialism reflected in it , cristal clearly .
None can be more guilty of confirmation bias than materialists , since the materialist mainstream false "scientific world view " has been assuming that "all is matter , including the mind " , and hence " the mind is in the brain, or the mind is just brain activity " = the latter are "empirical scientific facts ", so , why would most scientists try to challenge those "scientific facts " ?: they would only try to confirm them , in some way or another .

Note that i cannot really explain those experiments mentioned by dlorde , those experiments the existence of which i did already encounter earlier .

Since materialism is false , there must be some non-materialist explanation of those experiments ,if they happened / happen to be flawless .
But , fact is : there are in fact no non-materialist falsifiable=scientific  theories of consciousness out there yet , but that does not mean there will none ...tomorrow .

Since materialism is false thus , any materialist attempt to try to explain or interpret those or other experiments , scientific results ....would be a paradoxical thing to do that's doomed to fail .

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1256 on: 11/12/2013 17:46:51 »
Quote from: DonQuichotte link=topic=48746.msg426261#msg426261


Since the mainstream 'scientific world view " assumes
a-priori that "the mind is in then brain, or that the mind is just brain's activity ". then, scientists all around the world would just have to try to confirm that a priori held "scientific ' assumption empirically .
In the particular case of those experiments you mentioned , i think, personally, that they were designed as to confirm the mainstream 'scientific world view " on the subject of brain and mind ,to the point where those experiments were suggestive and confirmatory , in the sense that the subjects under "investigation " were told to perform particular decisions-making via specific instructions on how to perform them .
Those specific instructions went through the subjects' in question sensory -"inputs " to their brains first , that's why those scientists who were conducting those suggestive experiments through their suggestive confirmation bias ,in the above mentioned sense ,that's why they detected neurons' firings before those subjects were aware or conscious of their decisions.
So, you are saying the experiments were fraudulent? Were the subjects told "Please wait exactly six seconds before responding" in order to maintain the materialist conspiracy?

See my reply to you here above on the same subject .
Who said there was / is a materialist conspiracy then ? Don't be too simplistic as to use this kind of terminology, please .


*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1257 on: 11/12/2013 18:19:57 »
Are you insinuating that dlorde is incompetent by calling him silly??

I think you should apologize......................
He's called me a lot worse than that.

When his repeated unsupported assertions and declarations of incredulity fail to convince, he will post whole chapters of other people's work; when that fails, he resorts to ad-hominems and insults. What he is unable to do is provide any coherent argument or explanation for his constant straw-man assertions. This behaviour is so consistently misdirected, repetitive and apparently obsessive, I suspect OCD.

These days, I post my responses for the exercise and the lurkers [;)]
I think it's time for a moderator to get envolved.......................HELP

I don't agree. Crushing the discussion would only confirm Don's conspiracy theory regarding anti-materialism.
This has been in many ways a pointless, circular, and silly discussion, but in other ways quite fruitful for me - an aspect of biology I had never really thought about much in the past. My knowledge of the brain was pretty much anatomical. Until David Cooper mentioned it, I had never heard the word qualia before. 
Since this conversation started, I've read at least least 3 books that I might not have read other wise, and articles by Nagler, Chandler, Sheldrake, Ramachandron, Dennett, Searle, Chirchland, Damasio , Raymore, Carter and others. I've read interesting things from dlorde, alancalverd, RD, Ethos (and, yes, Don, although I think he has an agenda.) At anyrate,  it's given me something to think about while driving to work, or folding laundry. The occasional ad hominem doesn't bother me; I stick around until I get bored.

(These discussions have  been opening up a whole unexpected universe to me, you have no idea, thanks to you all in fact,especially thanks to you, Cheryl , in the first place , no kidding or hypocrisy , and thanks to dlorde in the second place ... .)

Anyone trying to debunk the mainstream materialist false 'scientific world view " must have a hidden  agenda  of his / her own  indeed ,come on : what kind of agenda then had atheist Nagel ,Chalmers , and many other atheists as well, and others then ? by refuting materialism : you tell me : makes no sense whatsoever .

Should we brand any scientists , thinkers ...automatically as heretics , charlatans, pseudo-scientists , pseudo-thinkers or worse , with hidden agendas of their own , while having lunatic conspiracy theories of their own ,  delusions ,simply because they would happen to be challenging the "scientific world view " ? , Come on ,

How is science supposed to progress then otherwise ? Science that's not about dogmas or about definite knowledge or the truth,if science or any of its meta or sub-paradigms should not be challenged  .

Ironically and paradoxically enough , materialism has been the one that's been turning science into a dogma , into an orthodox dogmatic secular religion , by imposing its false materialist conception of nature as "the scientific world view " for so long now :

Just tell me , please , what extraordinary evidence has been delivered by materialism for its extraordinary claims regarding its "all is matter , including the mind " false conception of nature "scientific world view " then ?


Needless to say , and that goes without saying ,once again, that i do love science so much that i would love to see it get rid of its dogmatic and false materialist mainstream "scientific world view " : these are my real motives you can call agenda ,if you want to .

Please , try not to be too simplistic as to use that kind of self-refuting and self-defeating terminology , such as agenda , conspiracy ....


I do have no agenda , dear , as Sheldrake , as atheist Nagel and many others ,religious and non-religious people do have none : they just want to liberate science from the dogmatic outdated false superseded 19th century old materialism tha;s been holding science back ,for so long now , by imprisonning it within its materialist false walls .

Science must be liberated from materialism, if science wanna be less dogmatic and more scientific, if science wanna progress and continue evolving as it should be doing : science whose nature is evolutionary as to dispell dogmas , lies , half truths , falsehood ...

Ironically enough , it was thanks to you ,Cheryl, that i did learn to know the thought of atheist Nagel, it was thanks to you that i paid closer attention to Sheldrake's work ...that all brought me on the path of Chalmers , John Searle , Chris Carter and many others , i might not have been walking on , if it wasn't for you :

And i have been learning many things here as well, in the process , in ways i have never expected ,to be honest .

"The gain is worth the loss " as the writer of "I am  strange loop " said i did read some parts of , thanks to the fact that dlorde did mention that book , and many other ones and links ..............

I am too outraged,angry  and appaled by your unscientific denials and attitudes right now to be able to continue this discussion .

So, i am leaving this forum ,right now , in order to cool down , and i will return to this forum only when i would see you all abandoning your unscientific and irrational accusations and materialist inquisitions.

Best wishes .

Ciao .

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4897
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1258 on: 11/12/2013 18:39:14 »
thanks to consciousness mainly

Please define this remarkable stuff you keep talking about. What does it do?

Please , do some introspection : look within yourself : get in touch with your self ,or with your own subjective inner life .

From which I can only deduce that you have no idea what you are talking about, and your arguments and assertions are therefore worthless at best or invalid at worst. How sad to waste your considerable intellect on such a pointless exercise.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1259 on: 11/12/2013 18:39:25 »


Ironically and paradoxically enough , materialism has been the one that's been turning science into a dogma , into an orthodox dogmatic secular religion , by imposing its false materialist conception of nature as "the scientific world view " for so long now :


And here your secret agenda is revealed; "into an orthodox dogmatic SECULAR RELIGION". It's becoming very clear that you want to bring FAITH into the scientific argument. Would I be mistaken if I were to assume that the FAITH of Islam had something to do with your dislike for what you refer to as the secular religion?

You did make reference once to great Muslim contributions.

Just asking..........
« Last Edit: 11/12/2013 18:42:10 by Ethos_ »
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1260 on: 11/12/2013 19:09:50 »

Only religious idealism is true = reality is both matter and mind , the latter that's irreducible to the physical or to the material ,once again = that's the only conception of nature out there that does make sense in fact .
"Only religious idealism is true"..........Another example of your fight against the secular.

One does not need to abandon rational science to have faith. And, to attack one or the other is an attempt to defeat any chance for their co-existence. I value good science and my faith. I personally choose to preserve them both.
« Last Edit: 11/12/2013 21:56:57 by Ethos_ »
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1261 on: 11/12/2013 21:54:29 »
thanks to consciousness mainly

Please define this remarkable stuff you keep talking about. What does it do?

Please , do some introspection : look within yourself : get in touch with your self ,or with your own subjective inner life .

From which I can only deduce that you have no idea what you are talking about, and your arguments and assertions are therefore worthless at best or invalid at worst. How sad to waste your considerable intellect on such a pointless exercise.

Are you saying just that , simply because you cannot deal with THE biggest and THE most important mystery of them all : consciousness ? Yours or otherwise .
What are you afraid of then ? Are you afraid of the implications of "taking the most serious and most important mystery of them all seriously ' ?
Is it a rational or a scientific thing to do to dismiss or ignore the huge importance of the biggest mystery of them all ,just because it is ?
Well, science is all about ,or  rather  should be all about , facing almost all mysteries of the universe ,by taking on those challenges ,  including and especially that of consciousness without which there can be no science ,in the first place to begin with , consciousness through which science is practiced by humans conscious scientists .
Just imagine with me what science would be like ,if science would deliberately choose to ignore some mysteries of this universe ,through scientists of course ,  simply because those mysteries  do happen to be  extremely hard ,if not impossible, to deal with empirically,or simply because the very nature of those mysteries cannot be accounted for by the a-priori held belief assumptions of those scientists  .

Science would become just a kind of dogmatic irrational orthodox ossified secular religion , as it almost has been the case , thanks to the mainstream materialist dogmatic false orthodox 'scientific world view ",despite all scientific huge achievements and despite the fact that science has been extremely successful , the latter facts that could be /can be, and will be accomplished only thanks to the effective and unparalleled scientific method that's like no other indeed = materialism has been having absolutely nothing to do with the latter facts ..

Hard -core or die- hard materialists lunatics such as Dennett , for example ,do even deny the very existence of consciousness as such ,ironically paradoxically enough , while they do experience consciousness every single day of their own lives,consciousness without which they cannot be functioning , thinking ,living, and behaving as they have been doing  .
Not to mention the fact that mainstream materialists do equate consciousness with brain activity , consciousness as an epiphenomena ,an almost  useless by-product of evolution they say,without any causal effect on matter ,while those same materialists do experience their own subjective and rational decision -making processes every single day of their lunatic lives  : how can consciousness, subjective and other conscious experiences rise from just neurochemsitry or from physics and chemistry then ?
Oh, yeah, right , we are just hardware programmed by consciousness as a software : how convenient= false machine analogy regarding life  .
And how can the most important process of them all be an epiphenomena or a by-product of biological evolution, the latter or just the materialist version of which that cannot account , per definition, for consciousness, and hence evolution cannot be just biological , but also mental non-physical .
Materialists just choose deliberatly to "see " consciousness within the context of that a-priori held materialist belief assumption of theirs ,that's just an extension of the materialist false "all is matter ,including the mind " conception of nature , otherwise they would be refuting their own materialism in the process .
Materialists are in fact just afraid of the implications "of taking consciousness seriously ",otherwise they would be knocking the last nail on the coffin of their own materialism ,or they would be just pulling the trigger of their own self-torturing conscience -gun  by triggering  the last bullet of mercy toward  the very soulless ,and already dead and false corpse of materialism  : they do  not even have  to do just that : their materialism corpse is already dead : was born dead in fact : a freak of nature : there is nothingelse in fact more serious and more important and vital than ...consciousness ,the nature of which has been reduced to just matter by materialists , just for materialist convenient ideological purposes  .
.....................
Come on , i know you're better than that you were saying here above .
Do i have to repeat the same answer to your same question , over and over again ? Come on, be serious , please .
There is nothing more important out there than our human consciousness through which we do practice science and most of the rest,science that's just a human conscious activity  : human consciousness as both THE obstacle today and THE key to understanding ourselves and the universe .
Do i have to define your own consciousness to you ? Get in touch with your own self ,or with your own subjective conscious inner life then .
Try to do some introspection : there is a whole universe out there within yourself waiting for you to dust it off , waiting for you to discover and explore,Mr.scientist  .
There is nothing out there better than trying to explore and discover our own subjective  conscious  inner lives .
Consciousness is the self , or self-identity , the soul or whatever .
That there still can be no clear definition out there of consciousness did not / does not and will not prevent scientists , thinkers or philosophers  , artists ....from trying to approach or relatively understand the mystery of consciousness : consciousness as THE mystery of them all ,science cannot afford to ignore as such any longer ....
Science must first try to reject its own materialist mainstream false "scientific world view " ,if science wanna be able to deal seriously and somehow empirically with consciousness .....the latter that's no useless epiphenomena or a minor by-product of evolution, as materialism wanna make you believe it is , consciousness that's not confined to the brain, that's not brain activity , consciousness that's nowhere and everywhere = non-local = within you and without ..........
There is nothing more fascinating or more important than ...consciousness .
Let's hope evolutionary science will be able in the future to shed some light at least on the most important ,vital , and extremely puzzling mysteries of them all : consciousness the amazing and fundamental power of which is almost unlimited ...
Science would benefit a lot form that , you have no idea ....
« Last Edit: 11/12/2013 22:31:18 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1262 on: 11/12/2013 22:01:42 »


I am too outraged,angry  and appaled by your unscientific denials and attitudes right now to be able to continue this discussion .

So, i am leaving this forum ,right now , in order to cool down , and i will return to this forum only when i would see you all abandoning your unscientific and irrational accusations and materialist inquisitions.

Best wishes .

Ciao .
That was remarkably fast, so have you calmed down yet?
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1263 on: 11/12/2013 22:11:42 »

Only religious idealism is true = reality is both matter and mind , the latter that's irreducible to the physical or to the material ,once again = that's the only conception of nature out there that does make sense in fact .
"Only religious idealism is true"..........Another example of your fight against the secular.

One does not need to abandon rational science to have faith. And, to attack one or the other is an attempt to defeat any chance for their co-existence. I value good science and my faith. I personally choose to preserve them both.

Who would reject science proper ? only idiots fools or ignorant folks would maybe .

You do neither know what you're talking about , nor are you aware or conscious of your own intrinsic paradox ,by both believing in the immaterial realm ,and in the materialist mainstream false 'scientific world view " ,the latter that has absolutely nothing to do with science whatsoever , even though science has been assuming that 'all is matter ,including the mind ", thanks to materialism .
The current "scientific world view " has been just the false materialist conception of nature .
How can't you understand these simple facts , i have been repeating to you and to the rest for so long now , over and over again : the more reason i should be repeating them thus .
.......................
Besides :
I meant religious dualism in fact : i am entiteld to hold that opinion or belief of mine , but i do not impose it as the 'scientific world view " ,as false materialism has been doing to all sciences for that matter , for so long now,by imposing its own false materialist conception of nature , world view ,philosophy or ideology as "the scientific world view " , for so long now , since the 19th century at least  .
Dualism period is the only plausible conception of nature that makes sense in fact,dualism that's been already present at the level of quantum mechanics  .
Dualism that's almost unfalsifiable =unscientific , as materialism is by the way , but dualism is not necessarily false ,as materialism is :see the difference ?
Materialism makes no sense whatsoever : matter cannot be the only reality thus : consciousness has been sending that myth to Alice's wonderland ,all along,and materialists do know that fact , deep down : they cannot  do acknowledge that simple fact  , otherwise they would be refuting their own materialism in the process  .
Materialists are thus just afraid of the implications of consciousness regarding materialism : that's why they either deny the existence of consciousness as such , or just reduce it to just brain activity ...for obvious materialist ideological purposes .

What has science to do with all that ?

Science has been materialist : that's the problem with science : the latter must reject materialism thus , in order to be less dogmatic , and more scientific , in order to be able to progress and regain its lost evolutionary nature and power .

« Last Edit: 11/12/2013 22:17:25 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1467
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1264 on: 11/12/2013 22:33:51 »
Quote from: DonQuichotte link=topic=48746.msg426381#msg426381
But ,the main issue here is that materialism is false , so, we should be looking for non-materialist falsifiable theories of consciousness .
To continue trying to defend the indefensible materialism, by trying to refute dualism or other non-materialist theories of nature , can't make the fact go away that materialism is false , and hence materialism must be rejected by all sciences .

That might seem like the "main issue" to you, but that is your take on it. Other people might be interested in consciousness for other reasons, just interested in the topic itself, and their comments are not necessarily a "distraction" or irrelevant - consciousness was, after all, the original title of the thread, not "materialism is false."

 What's more, asking you to support your claims or ideas with evidence is not equivalent to defending materialism.  You would be expected to provide evidence, even if you were on a forum with just other dualists or believers in the immaterial,  in order to  support your particular version of it.

(One can only imagine what that debate would be like)
« Last Edit: 11/12/2013 22:38:52 by cheryl j »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1265 on: 11/12/2013 22:37:31 »


I am too outraged,angry  and appaled by your unscientific denials and attitudes right now to be able to continue this discussion .

So, i am leaving this forum ,right now , in order to cool down , and i will return to this forum only when i would see you all abandoning your unscientific and irrational accusations and materialist inquisitions.

Best wishes .

Ciao .
That was remarkably fast, so have you calmed down yet?

Don't worry about just that : i do know that all of you are relatively rational intelligent people , that's why i feel i do have to pursue this discussion ,regarding THE biggest mystery of them all (consciousness ) through which science is practiced ,  until the ..."end ", hoping that you would come back to your senses , unless confirmation bias , unless your a-priori held dogmatic beliefs , and other bias + other factors : cultural psychological ideological social economic political ...would prevent you from 'seeing the light " ....Don't misinterpret the last sentence "religiously " then. .

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1266 on: 11/12/2013 22:44:12 »
Quote from: DonQuichotte link=topic=48746.msg426381#msg426381
But ,the main issue here is that materialism is false , so, we should be looking for non-materialist falsifiable theories of consciousness .
To continue trying to defend the indefensible materialism, by trying to refute dualism or other non-materialist theories of nature , can't make the fact go away that materialism is false , and hence materialism must be rejected by all sciences .

That might seem like the "main issue" to you, but that is your take on it. Other people might be interested in consciousness for other reasons, just interested in the topic itself, and their comments are not necessarily a "distraction" or irrelevant - consciousness was, after all, the original title of the thread, not "materialism is false."

Well, that's the point :
Well, for your info, lady : materialism is false , mainly thanks to consciousness .
It is materialism in science , or the mainstream materialist false 'scientific world view " that has been preventing science from shedding light somehow on ...consciousness : "materialism is false " and this consciousness thread are intimately linked, in the above mentioned sense thus , more than you could ever know .

Quote
What's more, asking you to support your claims or ideas with evidence is not equivalent to defending materialism.  You would be expected to provide evidence, even if you were on a forum with just other dualists or believers in the immaterial,  in order to  support your particular version of it.

What do you think i have been doing all along , also via my relevant tons of posted  material on the subject here , that have been supporting my claims ?

I have been doing all that , by violating copyright and other issues , so ....= that's like stealing food for starving  people such as yourselves , guys: not much wrong about just that thus  .

Gotta go, ciao, take care .
« Last Edit: 11/12/2013 22:47:12 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1267 on: 11/12/2013 22:55:28 »


Besides :
I meant religious dualism in fact : i am entiteld to hold that opinion or belief of mine , but i do not impose it as the 'scientific world view "

Listen just once Don....., you like myself have every right to our personal beliefs. I'm not here to change your mind my friend. I only stand to support science where it has given man the ability to improve his life.

If I want to boil an egg, I must reach a certain temperature relative to atmospheric pressure for a prescribed period of time. This knowledge is necessary to accomplish a physical act. That is Physics in it's purest form.

Now let's talk about the non-materialist.

You contend that consciousness is non-materialistic, and to some limited extent, I might agree. But let's get real here. Unless we are born into this material world and develop physically as a new born, our consciousness would never appear. So we should all realize that the origin of consciousness has to start in the brain.

Wherever consciousness takes us after that, it must still start in the physical brain. Nevertheless, I might be willing to agree with you that ultimately, consciousness may evolve beyond the physical, we really can't know for sure. But that is really beside the point. That state beyond the physical is where faith and religion are invariably drawn into the argument. And the problem we're having here Don.... is; You can't mix science with faith and expect to prove anything.








« Last Edit: 12/12/2013 01:26:05 by Ethos_ »
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4897
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1268 on: 12/12/2013 00:04:10 »
Quote
Consciousness is the self , or self-identity , the soul or whatever .
That there still can be no clear definition out there of consciousness

And therein lies the pointlessness of any discussion. Whatever facet of existence, behaviour or perception I explain, you will say "ah, but that isn't what I mean by consciousness".

My business as a scientist is to answer questions, not to guess what the questioner might be thinking about. And if you start the conversation by saying "you cannot possibly answer this question, or if you do, I won't believe you" then I dismiss you as a timewaster. Ars longa, vita brevis, my friend. Don't spend your vita being an ars.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1269 on: 12/12/2013 00:33:28 »
I was just teasing dlorde by calling him silly, since he implies that since there are still no falsifiable non-materialist theories of consciousness out there yet ,there will be none tomorrow, and hence   materialism must be not false .
I neither implied that nor meant it. You're reading your own prejudices into my posts.

Having said that, I know of no falsifiable non-materialist theories, I don't see how a non-materialist theory could be falsifiable, and I don't see a useful alternative to materialism at present.

The two Qualia Soup links express my current views on this quite well.

If you have anything beyond the plain assertion, incredulity, and hand-waving you've presented so far, such as evidence or plausible argument of any kind, to support a non-materialist theory, I'll consider it. However, I've already asked you this many times before without any useful result, so I won't hold my breath.

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1270 on: 12/12/2013 01:03:58 »
My business as a scientist is to answer questions, not to guess what the questioner might be thinking about. And if you start the conversation by saying "you cannot possibly answer this question, or if you do, I won't believe you" then I dismiss you as a timewaster.
This is exactly what he has done - he admits he can't explain the consciousness experiments discussed earlier, so he dismisses them as flawed because they contradict his assumptions about materialism which are, in turn, based on his assumptions about consciousness itself, ("materialism is false , mainly thanks to consciousness"). He rejects empirical evidence about consciousness because it contradicts his a-priori assumptions about consciousness...

I'm sure he's aware that the gaping hole in that ridiculous circular 'logic' is the unsupported assumption that consciousness cannot be of material origin, but he seems quite unable even to consider the alternative. The truth is, we don't yet know, but Don insists that he does with a vehemence that suggests it's a threat to his entire belief system.








*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1467
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1271 on: 12/12/2013 04:03:51 »

Besides :
I meant religious dualism in fact : i am entiteld to hold that opinion or belief of mine , but i do not impose it as the 'scientific world view " ,

That's exactly what you've been advocating for the last 51 pages, scientific acceptance of your dualistic view.


[/quote]

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1467
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1272 on: 12/12/2013 14:29:27 »

None can be more guilty of confirmation bias than materialists

Don, only you would claim that anyone who disagrees with you is biased. Do not you not see anything amusing about that?

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1273 on: 14/12/2013 19:30:09 »

None can be more guilty of confirmation bias than materialists

Don, only you would claim that anyone who disagrees with you is biased. Do not you not see anything amusing about that?

Try to read me well, sis :

Most scientists ,including  all materialists can only try to confirm the current materialist mainstream 'scientific world view ", so , none can be more guilty of confirmation bias than ...materialists in fact  ,  in the above mentioned sense thus .

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1274 on: 14/12/2013 19:34:00 »

Besides :
I meant religious dualism in fact : i am entiteld to hold that opinion or belief of mine , but i do not impose it as the 'scientific world view " ,

That's exactly what you've been advocating for the last 51 pages, scientific acceptance of your dualistic view.

I am entiteld to hold that opinion or belief of mine : i just do not impose it as "the scientific world view ", as materialism has been doing to all sciences for that matter , by imposing its materialist false conception of nature , as the 'scientific world view ".
Non-materialists views of the world are unfalsifiable = unscientific , as materialism is by the way , but that does not mean they are all necessarily false , as materialism is .

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1275 on: 14/12/2013 19:39:21 »
My business as a scientist is to answer questions, not to guess what the questioner might be thinking about. And if you start the conversation by saying "you cannot possibly answer this question, or if you do, I won't believe you" then I dismiss you as a timewaster.
This is exactly what he has done - he admits he can't explain the consciousness experiments discussed earlier, so he dismisses them as flawed because they contradict his assumptions about materialism which are, in turn, based on his assumptions about consciousness itself, ("materialism is false , mainly thanks to consciousness"). He rejects empirical evidence about consciousness because it contradicts his a-priori assumptions about consciousness...

I'm sure he's aware that the gaping hole in that ridiculous circular 'logic' is the unsupported assumption that consciousness cannot be of material origin, but he seems quite unable even to consider the alternative. The truth is, we don't yet know, but Don insists that he does with a vehemence that suggests it's a threat to his entire belief system.

Since materialism is false , then those experiments and other ones must be explained in non-materialist ways , if they happened / happen to be flawless at least .

Since materialism is false , thanks to consciousness mainly , then the latter must be non-physical or non-material, since not 'all is matter " .

Consciousness that cannot have arisen from just physics and chemistry , no way .
When are you gonna be able to get this simple fact then ?
How can the subjective qualitative qualia "emerge or rise ' from neuro-chemistry , from matter , via some sort of magical materialist metaphysical 'computation or emergence property trick " , since consciousness is totally different from its alleged original neural components it allegedly 'emerged " from : it's a total form of lunacy to assume that consciousness can rise or emerge from the physical brain activity = materialist magic in science ,the latter must be liberated from , if science wanna be able to shed some sort of light on ...consciousness = materialism has been the one that has been preventing science from trying to do  just the latter .
« Last Edit: 14/12/2013 19:48:31 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1276 on: 14/12/2013 19:41:26 »
How to Study  Consciousness ...Scientifically ? :

Guys : it goes without saying that i do not agree much with John Searle's views , as displayed here below , but , do feel free to  express your own views on the subject :

Thanks, appreciate indeed :

Here you go :

How to Study Consciousness Scientifically:
The most important scientific problem of the present era is one that until recently
most scientists did not regard as a suitable topic for scientific investigation at all.
It is simply this:
 How exactly do brain processes cause consciousness?
 Given our present models of brain functioning, it would be an answer to the question, "How do lower level neuronal firings at the synaptic connections cause all of our subjective experiences?" This is one of those areas of science where our ability to get a solution to the scientific problem is impeded by a series of philosophical obstacles and misunderstandings.
 We have in previous lectures begun to see some of these misunderstandings, and in this lecture, I want to make them fully explicit so that we can remove them.
This is one of those areas of science where progress is impeded by philosophical errors.
There are certain general background assumptions that underlie these specific
errors, and I will try to make these assumptions fully explicit as well.
 As with most philosophical mistakes, once you articulate the problem exactly, you can see its solution.

I. Three Background Assumptions:
A. Residual Cartesian dualism:
We still tend to think that mental phenomena in general, and consciousness in particular, are not part of the ordinary physical world in which we live.
B. The distinction between nature and machine.
Like the mind-body distinction, this was a useful distinction in the seventeenth century that has become an obstacle to progress in the twentieth century.
 The recent debates about chess playing computers reveal the sorts of confusions we are making.
C. The failure to distinguish between those features of reality that are intrinsic or observer-independent, from those that are observer-dependent or observer-relative.
 It is important to see that consciousness is observer-independent.
 It is an intrinsic feature of reality.
II. Here are nine philosophical errors that have prevented us from getting progress on this subject matter.
 I try to state and expose each:
A. Consciousness cannot be defined. We do not have a satisfactory definition.
Answer: We need to distinguish analytical from common-sense definitions.
 Analytic definitions come at the end, not at the beginning of our investigation.
 We can get a common-sense definition of consciousness easily at the outset.
B. Consciousness is, by definition, subjective; science is objective, so there
can be no science of consciousness.
Answer: We need to distinguish the epistemic sense of the objective-subjective
distinction from the ontological sense.
 Consciousness is ontologically subjective, but that does not prevent an epistemically
objective science.
C. We could never explain how the physical causes the mental.
Answer: We know that it happens. Our puzzles are like earlier problems in the history of science such as explaining life and electromagnetism.
D. We need to separate qualia from consciousness and leave the problem of
qualia on one side.
Answer: There is no distinction between consciousness and qualia.
Conscious states are qualia down to the ground.
E. Epiphenomenalism: Consciousness cannot make a difference to the world.
Answel": Consciousness is no more epiphenomenal than any other higher level features of reality.
F. What is the evolutionaty function of consciousness? It plays no role.
Answer: Even our most basic activities, eating, procreating, raising our young, are conscious activities. If anything, the evolutionary role of consciousness is too obvious.
G. The causal relation between brain and consciousness implies dualism.
Answer: This objection confuses event causation with bottom-up causation.
H. Science is by definition, reductionistic. A scientific account of consciousness must reduce it to something else.
Answer: We need to distinguish explanatory reductions from eliminative reductions. You cannot eliminate anything that really exists and consciousness really exists.
I. Any scientific account of consciousness must be an information processing account.
Answer: Information processing is observer-relative. Consciousness is intrinsic, observer-independent.

John Searle .

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1467
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1277 on: 14/12/2013 20:26:14 »



I am entiteld to hold that opinion or belief of mine : i just do not impose it as "the scientific world view ", as materialism has been doing to all sciences for that matter , by imposing its materialist false conception of nature , as the 'scientific world view ".
Non-materialists views of the world are unfalsifiable = unscientific , as materialism is by the way , but that does not mean they are all necessarily false , as materialism is .


What is the difference between religious dualism and the scientific kind? What specific properties do they share, or what is a property one has that the other does not have?

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1278 on: 14/12/2013 20:39:57 »
"Mind , Matter and Quantum Mechanics " By Henry Stapp :


Introduction
1 . . . and then a Miracle Occurs
A satisfactory understanding of the connection between mind and matter
should answer the following questions: What sort of brain action corresponds
to a conscious thought? How is the content of a thought related to
the form of the corresponding brain action? How do conscious thoughts
guide bodily actions?
Answers to these questions have been heretofore beyond the reach of
science: the available empirical evidence has been unable to discriminate
between alternative theories. Recently, however, mind/brain research has
provided powerfully discriminating data that lift these questions from the
realm of philosophy to that of science and lend strong support to definite
answers.
In attempts to understand the mind–matter connection it is usually assumed
that the idea of matter used in Newtonian mechanics can be applied
to the internal workings of a brain. However, that venerable concept does
not extrapolate from the domain of planets and falling apples to the realm of
the subtle chemical processes occurring in the tissues of human brains. Indeed,
the classical idea of matter is logically incompatible with the nature of
various processes that are essential to the functioning of brains. To achieve
logical coherence one must employ a framework that accommodates these
crucial processes. A quantum framework must be used in principle.
Quantum theory is sometimes regarded as merely a theory of atomic
phenomena. However, the peculiar form of quantum effects entails that ordinary
classical ideas about the nature of the physical world are profoundly
incorrect in ways that extend far beyond the properties of individual atoms.
Indeed, the model of physical reality most widely accepted today among
physicists, namely that of Heisenberg, has gross large-scale nonclassical
effects. These, when combined with contemporary ideas about neural processing,
lead to a simple model of the connection between mind and brain
that is unlike anything previously imagined in science. This model accommodates
the available empirical evidence, much of which is highly restrictive
and from traditional viewpoints extremely puzzling.
4 1 . . . and then a Miracle Occurs
Competing theories of the mind–brain connection seem always to have
a logical gap, facetiously described as “. . . and then a miracle occurs”. The
model arising from Heisenberg’s concept of matter has no miracles or special
features beyond those inherent in Heisenberg’s model of physical reality
itself. The theory fixes the place in brain processing where consciousness
enters, and explains both the content of the conscious thought and its causal
efficacy.
This model of the mind/brain system is no isolated theoretical development.
It is the rational outcome of a historical process that has occupied
most of this century, and that links a series of revolutions in psychology and
physics. Although the model can be discussed in relative isolation, it is best
seen within the panorama of the twentieth-century scientific thought from
which it arose.
The historical and logical setting for these developments is the elucidation
byWilliam James, at the end of nineteenth century, of the clash between
the phenomenology of mind and the precepts of classical physics. I shall
presently describe some of James’s key points, and will then review, from
the perspective they provide, some of the major twentieth-century developments
in psychology: the behaviorist movement, the cognitive revolution,
and the dominant contemporary theme, materialism. On the physics side,
the crucial developments are Einstein’s special theory of relativity, quantum
theory, the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox, and the development
of some models of physical reality that meet the demands imposed by the
nature of quantum phenomena. Among these models the one proposed by
Heisenberg is, in my opinion, the best.
Coupled to James’s conception of
mind it produces a model of the mind–matter universe that realizes within
contemporary physical theory the idea that brain processes are causally influenced
by subjective conscious experience
.

This model of the mind/brain links diverse strands of science, principally
physics, psychology, and brain physiology. I shall endeavor to provide the
necessary background in all three areas. However, I do not follow historical
order but construct instead a rational narrative.
The first critical point, which underlies everything else, is the fact that the
peculiarities of nature revealed by quantum phenomena cannot be dismissed
as esoteric effects that appear only on the atomic scale. The Einstein–
Podolsky–Rosen paradox, by itself, makes manifest the need for a radical
restructuring of our fundamental ideas about the nature of physical reality.
It also shows that this restructuring cannot be confined to the atomic scale.
Quantum physicists have for years been proclaiming this need for a profound
revision of ordinary ideas about the nature of the physical world. But their
reasons have usually been based upon interpretations of atomic phenomena

that are accessible only to experts in the field. To outsiders the whole
business has remained shrouded in mystery. But the EPR paradox is a
puzzle that can be expressed wholly in terms of behaviors of objects that are
directly observable to the unaided eye.
« Last Edit: 14/12/2013 20:41:35 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1279 on: 14/12/2013 20:45:10 »



I am entiteld to hold that opinion or belief of mine : i just do not impose it as "the scientific world view ", as materialism has been doing to all sciences for that matter , by imposing its materialist false conception of nature , as the 'scientific world view ".
Non-materialists views of the world are unfalsifiable = unscientific , as materialism is by the way , but that does not mean they are all necessarily false , as materialism is .


What is the difference between religious dualism and the scientific kind? What specific properties do they share, or what is a property one has that the other does not have?

What are you talking about ?  what scientific kind ? what do you mean exactly ?

Science has been materialist ,since the 19th century at least , remember .

I don't get what you were trying to say .

Can you be more specific, please ?

P.S.: I am a dualist period , leave that "religious " out of it then .

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1280 on: 14/12/2013 20:49:02 »
Guys :

I am just 'stealing " food , food for the mind ,food   for you as starving "soulless " (kidding ) materialists : nothing much wrong about just that ,so, don't complain about that ,please: you should be thanking me for that in fact : no need though  .
Thanks, appreciate indeed .
Ciao.
« Last Edit: 14/12/2013 20:59:04 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1281 on: 14/12/2013 21:02:48 »
Quantum physicist Henry Stapp seems to be my kindda scientist ,whose work i am gonna try to explore , really : awesome .

Stapp does introduce some real fresh and innovative air ,into the suffocating dark exclusive false orthodox dogmatic materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " : great .

Quote
Consciousness:

Some of Stapp's work concerns the implications of quantum mechanics for consciousness.

Stapp favors the idea that quantum wave functions collapse only when they interact with consciousness as a consequence of "orthodox" quantum mechanics. He argues that quantum wave functions collapse when conscious minds select one among the alternative quantum possibilities.[6]His hypothesis of how mind may interact with matter via quantum processes in the brain differs from that of Penrose and Hameroff. While they postulate quantum computing in the microtubules in brain neurons, Stapp postulates a more global collapse, a 'mind like' wave-function collapse that exploits certain aspects of the quantum Zeno effect within the synapses. Stapp's view of the neural correlate of attention is explained in his book, Mindful Universe: Quantum Mechanics and the Participating Observer (2007).[7]

In this book he also credits John Von Neumann's Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (1955, 1932) with providing an "orthodox" quantum mechanics demonstrating mathematically the essential role of quantum physics in the mind.

Wikipedia .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Stapp
« Last Edit: 14/12/2013 21:05:48 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1282 on: 14/12/2013 21:46:11 »
Damn : i should have studied quantum mechanics ....I will, eventually ...

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1283 on: 15/12/2013 12:16:40 »
Since materialism is false , then those experiments and other ones must be explained in non-materialist ways , if they happened / happen to be flawless at least .
It is your logic that is flawed, not the experiments. The truth or falsity of materialism has no bearing on whether some unexplained phenomenon has a material explanation.

Quote
Since materialism is false , thanks to consciousness mainly , then the latter must be non-physical or non-material, since not 'all is matter " .
The flaws in that circular logic have already been explained.

Quote
Consciousness that cannot have arisen from just physics and chemistry , no way .
Argument from incredulity.

Quote
When are you gonna be able to get this simple fact then ?
How can the subjective qualitative qualia "emerge or rise ' from neuro-chemistry , from matter , via some sort of magical materialist metaphysical 'computation or emergence property trick " , since consciousness is totally different from its alleged original neural components it allegedly 'emerged " from : it's a total form of lunacy to assume that consciousness can rise or emerge from the physical brain activity...
Common sense fallacy. The interacting patterns of cellular automata are totally different from the grid of cells they emerge from; nevertheless they can emulate universal computing machines.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1284 on: 15/12/2013 17:20:37 »



Henry P. Stapp
MIND, MATTER AND
QUANTUM MECHANICS:





Henry P. Stapp
MIND, MATTER AND
QUANTUM MECHANICS
Third Edition


Preface to the First Edition:
Nature appears to be composed of two completely different kinds of things:
rocklike things and idealike things. The first is epitomized by an enduring
rock, the second by a fleeting thought. A rock can be experienced by many
of us together, while a thought seems to belong to one of us alone.
Thoughts and rocks are intertwined in the unfolding of nature, as
Michelangelo’s David so eloquently attests. Yet is it possible to understand
rationally how two completely different kinds of things can interact
with each other? Logic says no, and history confirms that verdict. To form
a rational comprehension of the interplay between the matterlike and mindlike
parts of nature these two components ought to be understood as aspects
of some single primal stuff. But what is the nature of a primal stuff that can
have mind and matter as two of its aspects?
An answer to this age-old question has now been forced upon us. Physicists,
probing ever deeper into the nature of matter, found that they were
forced to bring into their theory the human observers and their thoughts.
Moreover, the mathematical structure of the theory combines in a marvelous
way the features of nature that go with the concepts of mind and
matter. Although it is possible, in the face of this linkage, to try to maintain
the traditional logical nonrelatedness of these two aspects of nature, that
endeavor leads to great puzzles and mysteries. The more reasonable way, I
believe, is to relinquish our old metaphysical stance, which though temporarily
useful was logically untenable, and follow where the new mathematics
leads.
This volume brings together several works of mine that aim to answer
the question: How are conscious processes related to brain processes? My
goal differs from that of most other quantum physicists who have written
about the mind–brain problem. It is to explain how the content of each
conscious human thought, as described in psychological terms, is related
to corresponding processes occurring in a human brain, as described in
the language of contemporary physical science. The work is based on a
substantial amount of empirical data and a strictly enforced demand for
Preface to the First Edition XI
logical coherence. I call the proposed solution the Heisenberg/James model
because it unifies Werner Heisenberg’s conception of matter with William
James’s idea of mind.
The introduction, “. . . and then a Miracle Occurs”, was written specially
for this volume. It is aimed at all readers, including workers in psychology,
cognitive science, and philosophy of mind. Those fields, like physics,
have witnessed tremendous changes during the century sinceWilliam James
wrote his monumental text. My introduction places the Heisenberg/James
model in the context of that hundred-year development.
The main features of the model are described in “A Quantum Theory of
the Mind-Brain Interface”. This paper is an expanded version of a talk I gave
at a 1990 conference, Consciousness Within Science. The conference was
attended by neuroanatomists, neuropsychologists, philosophers of mind,
and a broad spectrum of other scientists interested in consciousness. The
talk was designed to be understandable by all of them, and the paper retains
some of that character. Together with the introduction and appendix (“A
Mathematical Model”) it is the core of the present volume.
“The Copenhagen Interpretation” is an older paper of mine, reprinted
from the American Journal of Physics. It describes the Copenhagen interpretation
of quantum theory. That interpretation held sway in physics for
six decades, and it represents our point of departure.
The other papers deal with closely related issues. Many of the ideas
are to be found in my first published work on the problem, the 1982 paper
“Mind, Matter, and Quantum Mechanics”, from which this volume takes
its title. An overview of the model is given in “A Quantum Theory of
Consciousness”, which summarizes a talk I gave at a 1989 conference on
the mind–brain relationship.
The theory of the mind–brain connection described above is based on
Heisenberg’s ideas, and it accepts his position that the element of chance
is to be regarded as primitive. Einstein objected to this feature of orthodox
quantum thought, and Wolfgang Pauli eventually tried to go beyond the
orthodox view, within the context of a psychophysical theory that rested in
part on work of C. G. Jung. The possibility of extending the present theory
in this way is discussed in “Mind, Matter, and Pauli”.
“Choice and Meaning in the Quantum Universe” first describes some
attempts by physicists to understand the nature of reality, and then attempts
to discern, tentatively, a meaning intrinsic to natural process itself from an
analysis of the form of that process alone, without tying meaning to any
outside thing.
The mind–body problem is directly linked to man’s image of himself,
and hence to the question of values. The Heisenberg/James model of mind
XII Preface to the First Edition
and man is separated by a huge logical gulf from the competing Cartesian
model, which has dominated Western philosophic and scientific thought
for three centuries. Two of the included papers, “Future Achievements to
Be Gained through Science” and “A Quantum Conception of Man”, were
presented at international panels dealing with human issues, and they explore
the potential societal impact of replacing the Cartesian model of man by the
Heisenberg/James model. The second of these papers is the best introduction
to this book for readers interested in seeing the bottom line before going
into the technical details of how it is achieved.
The final chapter, “Quantum Theory and the Place of Mind in Nature”, is
a contribution to the book Niels Bohr and Contemporary Philosophy, which
is to appear this year. It examines the question of the impact of quantum
theory upon our idea of the place of mind in nature. This article can serve
as a short philosophical introduction to the present volume, although it was
a subsequent development in the evolution of my thinking.
In the above works I have tried to minimize the explicit use of mathematics.
But in an appendix prepared for this volume I have transcribed
some key features of the model from prose to equations.
Among the scientists and philosophers who have suggested a link between
consciousness and quantum theory are Alfred North Whitehead, Erwin
Schr¨odinger, John von Neumann, Eugene Wigner, David Albert and
Barry Loewer, Euan Squires, Evans Harris Walker, C. Stuart, Y. Takahashi,
and H. Umezawa, Amit Goswami, Avshalom Elitzur, Alexander Berezin,
Roger Penrose, Michael Lockwood, and John Eccles. Only the final two
authors address in any detail the problem addressed here: the nature of the
relationship between the physical and physiological structures. Eccles’s
approach is fundamentally different from the present one. Lockwood’s approach
is more similar, but takes a different tack and does not attain the same
ends.
Berkeley, February 1993 Henry P. Stapp

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1285 on: 15/12/2013 17:22:56 »
Henry P. Stapp
MINDFUL
UNIVERSE
Quantum Mechanics
and the Participating Observer:



Henry P. Stapp
MINDFUL
UNIVERSE
Quantum Mechanics
and the Participating Observer



Preface:
This book concerns your nature as a human being. It is about the
connection of your mind to your body.
You may imagine that your mind – your stream of conscious
thoughts, ideas, and feelings – influences your actions. You may believe
that what you think affects what you do. You could be right. However,
the scientific ideas that prevailed from the time of Isaac Newton to the
beginning of the twentieth century proclaimed your physical actions to
be completely determined by processes that are describable in physical
terms alone. Any notion that your conscious choices make a difference
in how you behave was branded an illusion: you were asserted to be
causally equivalent to a mindless automaton.
We now know that that earlier form of science is fundamentally
incorrect. During the first part of the twentieth century, that classicalphysics-
based conception of nature was replaced by a new theory that
reproduces all of the successful predictions of its predecessor, while
providing also valid predictions about a host of phenomena that are
strictly incompatible with the precepts of eighteenth and nineteenth
century physics. No prediction of the new theory has been shown to
be false.
The new theory departs from the old one in many important ways,
but none is more significant in the realm of human affairs than the role
it assigns to your conscious choices. These choices are not fixed by the
laws of the new physics, yet these choices are asserted by those laws to
have important causal effects in the physical world. Thus contemporary
physical theory annuls the claim of mechanical determinism. In
a profound reversal of the classical physical principles, its laws make
your conscious choices causally effective in the physical world, while
failing to determine, even statistically, what those choices will be.
More than three quarters of a century have passed since the overturning
of the classical laws, yet the notion of mechanical determinism
still dominates the general intellectual milieu. The inertia of that superceded
physical theory continues to affect your life in important

ways. It still drives the decisions of governments, schools, courts, and
medical institutions, and even your own choices, to the extent that
you are influenced by what you are told by pundits who expound as
scientific truth a mechanical idea of the universe that contravenes the
precepts of contemporary physics.
The aim of this book is to explain to educated lay readers these
twentieth century developments in science, and to touch upon the social
consequences of the misrepresentations of contemporary scientific
knowledge that continue to hold sway, particularly in the minds of our
most highly educated and influential thinkers.


*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1286 on: 15/12/2013 17:30:29 »
Since materialism is false , then those experiments and other ones must be explained in non-materialist ways , if they happened / happen to be flawless at least .
It is your logic that is flawed, not the experiments. The truth or falsity of materialism has no bearing on whether some unexplained phenomenon has a material explanation.

Quote
Since materialism is false , thanks to consciousness mainly , then the latter must be non-physical or non-material, since not 'all is matter " .
The flaws in that circular logic have already been explained.

Quote
Consciousness that cannot have arisen from just physics and chemistry , no way .
Argument from incredulity.

Quote
When are you gonna be able to get this simple fact then ?
How can the subjective qualitative qualia "emerge or rise ' from neuro-chemistry , from matter , via some sort of magical materialist metaphysical 'computation or emergence property trick " , since consciousness is totally different from its alleged original neural components it allegedly 'emerged " from : it's a total form of lunacy to assume that consciousness can rise or emerge from the physical brain activity...
Common sense fallacy. The interacting patterns of cellular automata are totally different from the grid of cells they emerge from; nevertheless they can emulate universal computing machines.

Just cut the crap, and see above : Quantum theory of the mind by a prominent quantum physicist : Henry P.Stapp .
You might learn something from that ,instead of sticking to your dead false outdated superceded 19th century absurd materialism that was built on the classical physics' fundamentally incorrect sand castles  .
It is a simple obvious and undeniable fact that materialism is false , and hence the current 'scientific world view " is also false as a result .
Quantum physics have been showing to us all that science must undergo a revolutionary shift of meta-paradigm, not just a paradigm shift ...

So, i am not interested in your absurd crap, sorry ,thanks anyway .

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1287 on: 15/12/2013 17:44:48 »
Folks:

I am a bit pissed off today , so, i will just say the following ,for the time being at least :

These stubborn dogmatic rock-solid (quantum mechanics has been revealing the new revolutionary conception of matter ,ironically enough , by superceding the Newtonian materialism in the process ) absurd materialists here won't cheer me up, either : they are neither inspiring , challenging , funny nor progressive, let alone innovative or imaginative  :
I see it's totally useless and pointless to try to talk some sense to our "mindless soulless "  (kidding )  brainwashed materialists  robots  here ,whose minds have been still confined to classical physics , despite the huge progress of quantum mechanics ,as to consider consciousness or the mind as just useless epiphenomena or by-products ,side effects of evolution , through the physical brain activity ,while they do experience every single day of their lunatic (kidding again ) lives the fact that the mental has fundamental causal effects on matter , brain and body ..............the mental or consciousness without which they would not be living , thinking , feeling , behaving , functioning ...as they have been doing ...

But , fact is : "the gain is worth the loss " : this thread has been opning up whole new unexpected vistas and universes to me = an understatement thus , you have no idea :
Henry Stapp is my latest "Bible " on the subject : the man's thought , analysis ,insights , ideas ....are fascinating and extremely refreshing inspiring  indeed = an understatement thus : i am thrilled by "discovering " all that ,step by step ....
This is just the beginning of that new quest of mine ....awesome .
Materialist folks :
Just remain confined to that dead outdated superceded false absurd implausible 19th century materialist ideology ,if that would make you feel any better then .
Who cares .......
Science itself ,as modern physics have been showing , will leave you behind ,soon enough ;no doubt in my mind about just that .
We might then have to put you all in some sort of a museum for the next generations to reflect on .....
Ciao.
« Last Edit: 16/12/2013 17:17:54 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1288 on: 15/12/2013 17:59:12 »
Happy holidays anyway , you "mindless soulless heartless " (kidding ) Newtonian deterministic materialist robots .
« Last Edit: 15/12/2013 18:01:21 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1289 on: 15/12/2013 18:06:17 »
You know what ?:
I think it would be much much much better for me to go breath and smell  the extermely reviving , fascinating and inspiring fresh air of Henry P.Stapp , instead of  continuing to be  hanging in  this suffocating materialist dark sterile dead materialist impotent nest  here ,while wasting my time  and energy  in the process,on deaf and blind robots such as yourselves  .
So, ciao .

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1290 on: 15/12/2013 18:12:33 »
You know what ?:
I think it would be much much much better for me to go breath and smell  the extermely reviving , fascinating and inspiring fresh air of Henry P.Stapp , instead of  continuing to be  hanging in  this suffocating materialist dark sterile dead materialist impotent nest  here ,while wasting my time  and energy  in the process,on deaf and blind robots such as yourselves  .
You still here?

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1291 on: 15/12/2013 18:15:36 »
So, i am not interested in your absurd crap, sorry ,thanks anyway .
You must be in the wrong forum.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1292 on: 15/12/2013 18:38:19 »
So, i am not interested in your absurd crap, sorry ,thanks anyway .
You must be in the wrong forum.

I am in the right one ,i am just not interested in your materialist  Newtonian deterministic  dogmatic superceded outdated and false crap : try to read the above : you might learn something from Henry Stapp.
« Last Edit: 15/12/2013 18:40:08 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1293 on: 15/12/2013 20:29:26 »
Quantum mechanics might be the key to solving the mystery of consciousness , relatively speaking thus .
Who knows ?
Henry P.Stapp here above might be on the right track in that regard at least ,who knows ?
« Last Edit: 15/12/2013 20:31:12 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1294 on: 15/12/2013 22:49:23 »
Quantum mechanics might be the key to solving the mystery of consciousness , relatively speaking thus .
Who knows ?
Henry P.Stapp here above might be on the right track in that regard at least ,who knows ?
No-one knows yet. The 'consciousness collapses the wave function' interpretation is less popular among physicists than it once was, and Stapp has little competition for his somewhat opaque 'action template theory' based on the quantum Zeno effect (probably Penrose & Hammerof's Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR) is the nearest competitor). But it has the same basic problems as the other quantum mechanics based hypotheses (I posted a summary earlier in the thread)  [::)]

However, Stapp's 'action template theory' is entirely quantum mechanical in conception, so it is a physical, material hypothesis. In appealing to quantum mechanics as the root of consciousness rather than classical mechanics, he's not invoking some disembodied 'immaterial' consciousness - he sees the quantum formulation of the brain as a “collection of classically conceived alternative possible states of the brain” that are concurrent parallel parts of “a potentiality for future additions to a stream of consciousness”. There does seem to be an awkward 'bootstrapping', using volitional effort, of the multiple microscopic quantum brain states his idea requires, but I've only skimmed it; I probably missed a bit  [???]

Regarding the 'conscious measurement' that collapses the wave function, Stapp also says:
Quote
From the point of view of the mathematics of quantum theory it makes no sense to treat a measuring device as intrinsically different from the collection of atomic constituents that make it up. A device is just another part of the physical universe... Moreover, the conscious thoughts of a human observer ought to be causally connected most directly and immediately to what is happening in his brain, not to what is happening out at some measuring device... Our bodies and brains thus become...parts of the quantum mechanically described physical universe. Treating the entire physical universe in this unified way provides a conceptually simple and logically coherent theoretical foundation...

On the other hand, Eugene Wigner's formulation of 'consciousness collapses wave function', on which Stapp's approach seems to be based, does imply some external non-physical 'mind' the sole task of which is to somehow make the measurement by selecting from the quantum superposition of possible brain states. How one could distinguish this from a purely physical stochastic selection process is unclear, and the problem remains how such a non-physical mind can select a superposed brain state, on what grounds could it do so, and a raft of other unanswerable questions; given that stochastic selection looks identical and has none of those issues, it seems redundant - perhaps should we apply Ockham's Razor?  [;D]

It's worth noting that the complications of measurement resulting in wave function collapse go away if you adopt the 'many worlds' interpretation, where the wave function is treated as a purely mathematical formulation that doesn't 'collapse' per se, but simply no longer applies when you take the view of any particular superposition it describes (i.e., switch from the objective to a subjective view). In this interpretation, at the point of measurement the objective view comes to include the measuring device or observer in the quantum system and its superposition of measurement outcomes  [8D]


« Last Edit: 15/12/2013 22:51:56 by dlorde »

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1467
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1295 on: 16/12/2013 03:12:57 »


Folks:

I am a bit pissed off today , so, i will just say the following ,for the time being at least :



I don't know what you are so cranky about today. At any rate what you've posted is a vast improvement over Sheldrake. I would love nothing more than there to be a plausible, scientific "in road" for free will. It would cheer me immensely, as determinism can be so dreary at times.

But I don't understand your all-or-nothing, ideological mindset - your obsession with falsification, your insistence that somehow science denies, and even conspires to exclude the immaterial, or anything else, when all it asks for is evidence. Should quantum mechanics contribute something new to the understanding of the brain (or the mind, if you prefer) I doubt neuroscientists will be leaping to their deaths, or that what is already known about the brain and supported by reproducible experiments will have to be "thrown out the window."

I will do my best to look at Stapp's ideas, although my impoverished math background is a hindrance.

If you're interested in his work, I would suggest you look for his most recent writings, as it appears he has made a few revisions or qualifications in response to other physicists' criticisms or suggestions. You may not like the article, because it is somewhat critical, but it does mention some changes Stapps made to his theory.

http://web.archive.org/web/20060623070312/http://individual.utoronto.ca/dbourget/download/QLPM.pdf


« Last Edit: 16/12/2013 03:38:28 by cheryl j »

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1467
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1296 on: 16/12/2013 03:36:31 »



I am entiteld to hold that opinion or belief of mine : i just do not impose it as "the scientific world view ", as materialism has been doing to all sciences for that matter , by imposing its materialist false conception of nature , as the 'scientific world view ".
Non-materialists views of the world are unfalsifiable = unscientific , as materialism is by the way , but that does not mean they are all necessarily false , as materialism is .


What is the difference between religious dualism and the scientific kind? What specific properties do they share, or what is a property one has that the other does not have?

What are you talking about ?  what scientific kind ? what do you mean exactly ?

Science has been materialist ,since the 19th century at least , remember .

I don't get what you were trying to say .

Can you be more specific, please ?

P.S.: I am a dualist period , leave that "religious " out of it then .

My point was this: If you can't identify, describe, or verify anything about that other non-physical half of your dualist model, does it matter what you call it?

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1297 on: 16/12/2013 15:30:01 »
... You may not like the article, because it is somewhat critical, but it does mention some changes Stapps made to his theory.

http://web.archive.org/web/20060623070312/http://individual.utoronto.ca/dbourget/download/QLPM.pdf
Thanks for that link Carol, it does confirm a few of my doubts. It also points out that while Stapp's view of consciousness as based in multiple patterns of neural activity (representing qualia) is broadly reasonable - pace his need to introduce quantum phenomena, which looks like a case of 'man with a hammer' syndrome - it conflicts with his seemingly dualistic interpretation of free will, which appears to be some unexplained volitional agency that delays wave function collapse until a high probability of the desired outcome is achieved (or something like that). But this apparently separates and distinguishes free will (unexplained volitional agency) from conscious intent (also volitional agency, but based in neural activity), which raises questions of precedence and redundancy.

Further, if the neural processing in the brain can give rise to consciousness and a superposition of options for action, yet is insufficient to select the appropriate action, we must ask how the judgement of suitability or desirability in this dualistic, solipsistic view, is made - it would seem that this unexplained non-physical system would also need to somehow process the same data, either to generate a sample desirable outcome to compare with the superposed options arrived at by the physical processing, or to analyse the desirability of some particular outcome on-the-fly. If the physical system is unable to make appropriate selections without an external agency, how this external agency can make its choices without also needing another parallel system to analyse the desirability of its own choices, and so-on, recursively, is unexplained. It smacks of the infinite regression of Dennett's 'Cartesian Theatre' argument.

It's a lot of unnecessary effort based on trying to accommodate an incoherent concept of free will. If one simply accepts that the brain already contains all the information necessary to process and generate an outcome compatible with our desires, wishes, predilections, etc., and that these desires, wishes, predilections, etc., are encoded in the brain as a result of a lifetime of development and interaction with the environment, personal experiences, etc., to make us who and what we are, these problems go away. Classical computational processes can account for an assessment of situational context, the projective modelling of potential plans of action, the selection of appropriate plans of action based on current mental and physical state (nicluding desires, wishes, predilections, etc.), and the execution of those plans. No requirement to shoehorn any unexplained non-physical agency into apparent causal gaps in quantum theory. YMMV.

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1298 on: 16/12/2013 16:11:34 »


It's a lot of unnecessary effort based on trying to accommodate an incoherent concept of free will. If one simply accepts that the brain already contains all the information necessary to process and generate an outcome compatible with our desires, wishes, predilections, etc., and that these desires, wishes, predilections, etc., are encoded in the brain as a result of a lifetime of development and interaction with the environment, personal experiences, etc., to make us who and what we are, these problems go away.
Excellent explanation detailing exactly why Don's argument is irrelevant. Without the physical brain, consciousness would not be possible. Therefore, however we describe the conscious state, whether physical or beyond, it can not be achieved without the physical application of the brain. All verifiable evidence must and will always be associated with the physical senses man possesses. PERIOD
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1467
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1299 on: 16/12/2013 16:43:17 »
My best understanding of Stapp’s theory and other rival ones is that quantum mechanics may provide some freedom of choice, a yes/no selection of options or brain states. If this is true, as I said, I’m delighted. It certainly breathes new air into the free will discussion, which the determinists have been winning.

But strangely, it seems to offer little insight into any of the specific quailities or the content of consciousness itself, at least at this point.  The physicists mainly seem interested in the free will aspect and treat consciousness and "the mental" as if it were a single, discreet entity. As Bourget asks in the link I posted, how would quantum mechanics affect mental activity that is ongoing below our level awareness? Or does it? Ironically, I think classical interpretations of brain states actually does a more thorough job of explaining qualia and its function, even though qualia has been so intertwined with the concept of consciousness and sometimes used to define it. (To be fair, it may be unfair to criticize research in its infancy.)

 The physicist’s view of consciousness as a single, discreet entity  seems  incompatible with the neuroscientific understanding of its  diverse and layered processes, as well as our everyday experiential understanding of consciousness.  If Don was unsatisfied with the ability of  materialist mechanisms to explain the richness and diversity of mental activity – thoughts, ideas, imagination, emotions, dreams, memories, qualia, intuition, etc, one would think he’d find quantum mechanics even more impoverished. That is, unless he is actually using it simply as a bridge to another realm, where the content of ideas originates and the real work of consciousness is done. But I don’t see anything in Stapps model that suggests something like this, or if he did originally, he has back peddled since.

Even if quantum mechanics is involved in free choice, there is top down control in the brain already known to function in decision making processes that may have more impact at the macro level. Some materialists do not see a contradiction in the idea of the whole constraining the parts, and they base this belief on the wealth of two way tracts, up and down communication in the brain. Here is a brief explanation of top down control from an article in the journal Neuron:

“Complex information that is represented at higher stages of processing influences simpler processes occurring at antecedent stages. The role of top-down influences is then to set the cortex in a specific working mode according to behavioral requirements that are updated dynamically. In effect, these ideas reverse the central dogma of sensory processing, with a flow of information from higher- to lower-order cortical areas playing a role equal in importance to the feedforward pathways. The construction of a subjective percept involves making the best sense of sensory inputs based on a set of hypotheses or constraints derived by prior knowledge and contextual influences. Conversely, the top-down expectations and hypotheses are set by feedforward information, the sensory evidence. Under this view, there is no starting point for information flow.”

(Italics mine)


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627307003765
« Last Edit: 16/12/2013 16:51:40 by cheryl j »