What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?

  • 1733 Replies
  • 319518 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1449
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1350 on: 20/12/2013 19:18:54 »
As usual, Don's got time to drop in and post pointless guff about forum contributors, but not contribute anything of note himself.

So much for his 'promise':
Quote
And when i will come back, if i come back, i do promise that i will be delivering some challenging material that will be rocking your materialist sand castles , to the point where its sand grains will be flying in all directions ,thanks to the stormy wind that i will be triggering ...
[::)]

So what about the split-brain studies you linked to, Don?

So how does the non-physical external consciousness hypothesis account for the appearance of two separate conscious entities in place of one original when the corpus callosum is transsectioned? Can cutting the physical brain split the immaterial consciousness associated with it?

How does it account for each new consciousness having the proportional skills and abilities of the corresponding hemispheres that were integrated in the original consciousness?

What do you suppose happened to the original immaterial consciousness? Is it floating adrift of its physical vehicle? did it have to split into two less able consciousnesses?

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1351 on: 20/12/2013 19:59:25 »
As usual, Don's got time to drop in and post pointless guff about forum contributors, but not contribute anything of note himself.

So much for his 'promise':
Quote
And when i will come back, if i come back, i do promise that i will be delivering some challenging material that will be rocking your materialist sand castles , to the point where its sand grains will be flying in all directions ,thanks to the stormy wind that i will be triggering ...
[::)]

So what about the split-brain studies you linked to, Don?

So how does the non-physical external consciousness hypothesis account for the appearance of two separate conscious entities in place of one original when the corpus callosum is transsectioned? Can cutting the physical brain split the immaterial consciousness associated with it?

How does it account for each new consciousness having the proportional skills and abilities of the corresponding hemispheres that were integrated in the original consciousness?

What do you suppose happened to the original immaterial consciousness? Is it floating adrift of its physical vehicle? did it have to split into two less able consciousnesses?

As for my promise , later then , as promised thus .
As for your above displayed questions :
Don't forget to bring to mind those tv set and radio relative analogies ,while you are at it :
If the tv set or radio are damaged , and then they stop functioning normally , that does not mean that the tv images or radio broadcasts are created by respectively the tv set or radio device .
In the case of human mind-body hard problem : the non-physical consciousness and the physical brain and body are inseparable = 1 .
As for the case of the split -brain phenomena : i can only speculate about that , in the sense that the disconnection of the 2 hemispheres might result  in those disconnected 2 different forms of corresponding consciousness ,almost in the same fashion in the case of myopia , for example, or in that of double sight : it's the mind that sees ,not the eyes ,or the brain .
Consciousness needs a vehicle , i guess , since body and mind are inseparable, in this life at least ,i don't know .
The brain is just a medium for consciousness ,since brain and mind are inseparable , in this life at least .
If the brain is damaged or altered ,thanks to injuries , disease , genetic malfunction or inheritance  ....then, the corresponding consciousness gets disconnected or does not get through , but it is still there though .

The bottom line is : there is still no serious falsifiable theory of consciounsness out there yet ,so, we can only speculate , at this stage at least , regarding mind-body or brain-mind interactions or relationships correlations ...
And since materialism is undeniably false ,and hence the mind is not in the brain, or the mind is no brain activity ,  then, we should be looking for non-materialist explanations of those and other phenomena , due to brain damage, brain disease , disorder .................
That there are no non-materialist falsifiable theories of consciousness out there today yet , does not mean there will be none tomorrow .

In short :
If i knew the answers to those question of yours , i wouldn't be here , would i ?
« Last Edit: 20/12/2013 20:11:28 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1352 on: 20/12/2013 20:23:28 »
It's really absurd and total non-sense to even try to assume that the mind is in the brain, or that the mind is just brain activity,despite all appearances (Remember that appearances are deceptive and illusionary ) : the mind or consciousness, the soul, the self or whatever cannot rise  from  , let alone be the product of brain activity : neurons' interactions or neuro-transmitters ,neuro-chemistry cannot account for our subjective conscious states and experiences :  science is still totally in the dark regarding how brain activity can somehow be related to subjective conscious states and experiences .........
Otherwise ,folks, try to tell me what extraordinary evidence has materialism been delivering so far for its "all is matter , including the mind " extraordinary claims , regarding the nature of reality ?

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1449
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1353 on: 20/12/2013 20:28:11 »
As for the case of the split -brain phenomena : i can only speculate about that , in the sense that the disconnection of the 2 hemispheres might result  in those disconnected 2 different forms of corresponding consciousness ,almost in the same fashion in the case of myopia , for example, or in that of double sight : it's the mind that sees ,not the eyes ,or the brain .
Interesting; so you're speculating that one supposedly immaterial consciousness splitting into two is 'almost the same' as shortsightedness (nearsightedness), or double vision - which are both due to physical (mechanical) misalignments? Really?  [;D] [:o)]

If 'it's the mind that sees ,not the eyes ,or the brain' how come damage to the eyes and brain causes visual impairment or blindness corresponding to the damage?

Quote
In short :
If i knew the answers to those question of yours , i wouldn't be here , would i ?
You have no idea at all, do you? All this variety of evidence we've posted that is entirely consistent with, and generally supportive of, consciousness being a process of the brain; seemingly none of it consistent with or plausibly explicable by the immaterial consciousness hypothesis, and much of it apparently contradicting that hypothesis - can you not put  2 and 2 together [?]

Truly is it said, 'none are so blind as those who will not see'   [xx(]
« Last Edit: 20/12/2013 20:37:55 by dlorde »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1354 on: 20/12/2013 20:28:33 »
As promised , i will be behaving like Sint-Claus haha ,as to be delivering and offering you, guys , some christmas ' gifts , regarding the phony false materialism , and hence regarding the fact that the mind is not in the brain .................
If you think that science requires materialism, "just wait and see ", as Chalmers used to say ...

Be prepared ,both mentally and psychologically spiritually , for the surprises i will be offering you all, for ...christmas ,or for a bit later ...haha

Love is in the air .............


*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1355 on: 20/12/2013 20:34:32 »


Be prepared ,both mentally and psychologically spiritually , for the surprises i will be offering you all, for ...christmas ,or for a bit later ...haha

Love is in the air .............
The only surprise I ever expect to receive from you Don..... is for you to produce evidence. Now,.............that would be a complete surprise!!
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1449
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1356 on: 20/12/2013 20:35:34 »
It's really absurd and total non-sense to even try to assume that the mind is in the brain, or that the mind is just brain activity,despite all appearances (Remember that appearances are deceptive and illusionary ) : the mind or consciousness, the soul, the self or whatever cannot rise  from  , let alone be the product of brain activity...
In other words, ignore all the evidence (it's just 'appearances'), and just believe the bare, unsupported assertion. The 'it's obvious / absurd / nonsensical' claim is known as the 'Commonsense Fallacy', and, as previously explained, belief held despite all evidence to the contrary, is known as delusion.

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1449
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1357 on: 20/12/2013 20:36:57 »
As promised , i will be behaving like Sint-Claus haha ,as to be delivering and offering you, guys , some christmas ' gifts , regarding the phony false materialism , and hence regarding the fact that the mind is not in the brain .................
If you think that science requires materialism, "just wait and see ", as Chalmers used to say ...

Be prepared ,both mentally and psychologically spiritually , for the surprises i will be offering you all, for ...christmas ,or for a bit later ...haha
Yeah right  [::)]   - just like last time  [:o)]

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1358 on: 20/12/2013 20:41:26 »

It took only 48 hrs to declare this thread clinically dead ...


If only that were really true. I think we should bury it quickly so it doesn't resurrect.
"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 #1359 on: 20/12/2013 20:48:34 »


Be prepared ,both mentally and psychologically spiritually , for the surprises i will be offering you all, for ...christmas ,or for a bit later ...haha


Come on Don.....Surprise me with your evidence. It would be the first you've offered!!!!!!
"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 #1360 on: 20/12/2013 20:51:28 »
As for the case of the split -brain phenomena : i can only speculate about that , in the sense that the disconnection of the 2 hemispheres might result  in those disconnected 2 different forms of corresponding consciousness ,almost in the same fashion in the case of myopia , for example, or in that of double sight : it's the mind that sees ,not the eyes ,or the brain .
Interesting; so you're speculating that one supposedly immaterial consciousness splitting into two is 'almost the same' as shortsightedness (nearsightedness), or double vision - which are both due to physical (mechanical) misalignments? Really?  [;D] [:o)]

If 'it's the mind that sees ,not the eyes ,or the brain' how come damage to the eyes and brain causes visual impairment or blindness corresponding to the damage?

Beware of appearances , they are deceptive :
What makes you conclude from all that that the mind is in the brain then ?
Let's assume ,just for this discussion sake , that brain activity produces consciousness or is consciousness : if A causes B : does that mean that A=B or that B is in A ?
Causation is not even explanation either : you still have to prove how A causes B  exactly  .
You cannot just jump to saying A is B or that B is in A : how can you "justify " such an insane absurd and illogic jump then,without any medium or other bridge that links B to A  ?
Science has not been able so far to tell us anything at all regarding how qualitative subjective conscious states  experiences can be "related " to the activity of the brain : there is no empirical evidence whatsover "linking " the one to the other ,as there is no faslifiable scientific theory of consciousness out there yet : why do you think and behave as if there is one then ?.
Brain damage , diseases , genetic inheritance ...factors and phenomena such as spli brain, alzheimer .....are just circumstancial , no conclusive , evidence for  the materialist "fact " or rather for the a-priori held materialist belief assumption that the brain is the mind or that the mind is in the brain .
It's the mind that sees , not the eyes or  the brain : the latter are just physical mediums for the non-physical consciousness : it's consciousness that gives subjective qualitative abstract olfactory visual feeling ...and other forms to the sensory "inputs " that "hit " the brain : when scientific progress and technology will be advanced enough , blind people might be cured from their blindness through surgery : the latter does not mean that it is the eye that sees .
Otherwise , try to tell me how sight through the eyes to the brain ,via light , "creates" faces , images , landscapes , abstract ideas and the like then ?if the mind is not the one that sees, and therefore it is the mind or consciousness that gives subjective qualitative forms to the external stimuli that hits the brain  through the senses .

Quote
In short :
If i knew the answers to those question of yours , i wouldn't be here , would i ?

Quote
You have no idea at all, do you? All this variety of evidence we've posted that is entirely consistent with, and generally supportive of, consciousness being a process of the brain; seemingly none of it consistent with or plausibly explicable by the immaterial consciousness hypothesis, and much of it apparently contradicting that hypothesis - can you not put  2 and 2 together [?]

Truly is it said, 'none are so blind as those who will not see'  ;)
[/quote]


See above .
All i know is that you cannot conclude from all that that the mind is in the brain ,or that the mind is just brain activity , see above .

Your  materialist mind is blind , not your eyes .
If only , you could see through your mind , not just through your eyes , as you should be doing .
It's through your own materialist mind that you do 'change " what you see , as to make it fit into your materialist  a-priori held  world view .
« Last Edit: 20/12/2013 21:09:42 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1361 on: 20/12/2013 20:54:38 »


Be prepared ,both mentally and psychologically spiritually , for the surprises i will be offering you all, for ...christmas ,or for a bit later ...haha


Come on Don.....Surprise me with your evidence. It would be the first you've offered!!!!!!

You wouldn't be able to recognize it as such , even if it would hit you in the eye,as you have been showing all along  .
Why don't you tell me why , on earth , do you happen to believe in those mutually exclusive world views ? for starters then .
« Last Edit: 20/12/2013 21:20:34 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1362 on: 20/12/2013 20:57:41 »

It took only 48 hrs to declare this thread clinically dead ...


If only that were really true. I think we should bury it quickly so it doesn't resurrect.

Haha , funny and interesting religious symbolism Freudian slip of the tongue you uttered there :
Should we bury the truth or facts ? burn books or heretics ?
You can't burn or bury kill ideas , you know .haha
Ideas that cannot be the product of brain activity .
You were born too late for that , you were born in the "wrong" century : you should have been born under the supremacy of the medieval church .
What are you afraid of then ?
I think that the inherent intrinsic inquisition "property quality " of christianity has never left you , i guess .
Inquisitions are doomed to fail , remember , either the religious or the secular ones, and are self-refuting and self-defeating also .............
« Last Edit: 20/12/2013 21:12:05 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1363 on: 20/12/2013 21:02:01 »
As promised , i will be behaving like Sint-Claus haha ,as to be delivering and offering you, guys , some christmas ' gifts , regarding the phony false materialism , and hence regarding the fact that the mind is not in the brain .................
If you think that science requires materialism, "just wait and see ", as Chalmers used to say ...

Be prepared ,both mentally and psychologically spiritually , for the surprises i will be offering you all, for ...christmas ,or for a bit later ...haha
Yeah right  [::)]   - just like last time  [:o)]

Just wait and see then .
Only time will tell ...

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1364 on: 20/12/2013 21:17:59 »
It's really absurd and total non-sense to even try to assume that the mind is in the brain, or that the mind is just brain activity,despite all appearances (Remember that appearances are deceptive and illusionary ) : the mind or consciousness, the soul, the self or whatever cannot rise  from  , let alone be the product of brain activity...
In other words, ignore all the evidence (it's just 'appearances'), and just believe the bare, unsupported assertion. The 'it's obvious / absurd / nonsensical' claim is known as the 'Commonsense Fallacy', and, as previously explained, belief held despite all evidence to the contrary, is known as delusion.

No, it's exactly the other way around :  there is no empirical evidence whatsoever "linking " brain activity to subjective conscious states experiences : you cannot logically ,let alone empirically , conclude from the apparent effects of alzheimer , brain damage, split-brain phenomena ....that the mind is in the brain ,or that the mind is just brain activity : see above .

You're the one trying to make the apparent circumstancial, no conclusive ,evidence , fit into your own a-priori held materialist belief assumptions regarding the nature of reality , and hence regarding that of consciousness .

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1365 on: 20/12/2013 21:25:24 »


Be prepared ,both mentally and psychologically spiritually , for the surprises i will be offering you all, for ...christmas ,or for a bit later ...haha

Love is in the air .............
The only surprise I ever expect to receive from you Don..... is for you to produce evidence. Now,.............that would be a complete surprise!!

Look who's talking : amazing :
Read my tons of posted material and other on the subject here  , if you can at least .
You wouldn't be able to recognize evidence , even if it would hit you in the eye , as you have been showing all along , also by failing to realise how paradoxical and absurd you have been all along , by believing in 2 mutually exclusive world views ...
pfff...

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1366 on: 20/12/2013 21:39:28 »
Not to mention the fact that you have been applying classical physics to the atomic and molecular brain activity , paradoxically enough .
Not to mention the fact that the mind , or emotions feelings , psyche , beliefs, the human will  ...can have causal effects on the brain activity ,and hence on that of the body as well .
I think that the mind or consciounsness do have causal effects on the brain and body at the very micro quantum level ...

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4894
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1367 on: 20/12/2013 23:33:02 »

alancalverd :

You just called your friend Ethos ...a psychopath , without even realising that fact .

Two unsubstantiated assumptions and an offensive untruth based on a complete failure to understand (or a deliberate intention to misconstrue) simple logic. Not quite a world record for 13 words, but a strong contender.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1368 on: 21/12/2013 00:08:50 »

alancalverd :

You just called your friend Ethos ...a psychopath , without even realising that fact .

Two unsubstantiated assumptions and an offensive untruth based on a complete failure to understand (or a deliberate intention to misconstrue) simple logic. Not quite a world record for 13 words, but a strong contender.
A word to the wise is sufficient. But were Don is concerned???

And BTW; DON...., I never once detailed what that faith centered around. But now for the record:

I believe in what I can measure with repeatable results, it's called science. Something you have yet to learn Don.

What I can't measure with repeatable results, I may still wonder about the whys and wherefors until new evidence surfaces.

But what I don't do is come to a SCIENCE forum vomiting up spooky and ill defined trash like the author of this thread.

I thank folks like alancalverd for also knowing the difference between science and everyday what ifs.
« Last Edit: 21/12/2013 00:17:54 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 #1369 on: 21/12/2013 17:43:11 »
Despised Dualism:


Scientists in different fields are free, to some extent, to use concepts
that appear to work for them, without regard to other scientific disciplines.
However, many of the greatest advances in science have come
from unifying the treatments of neighboring realms of phenomena. We
are now engaged a great scientific endeavor to rationally connect the
neurophysiological and psychological aspects of the conscious brain.
The problem is to understand, explain, or describe the connections
between two realms that are conceived of – and are described in –
two very different ways. What seems pertinent is that basic physics
was forced by the character of empirical phenomena to an incredibly
successful way to link these same two realms. It seems reasonable to
at least try to apply the solution discovered by physicists to the parallel
problem in neuropsychology. Why should there be such scorn in
brain science for this natural and reasonable idea of bringing mind
into neuropsychology in the same way that it was brought into physics
in connection with the relationship between the empirically described
and physically described aspects of scientific practice?
Contemporary physics is essentially psychophysical, hence dualistic.
Dualism is seen as a bˆete noire by many philosophers. Hence the
quantum approach tends to be peremptorily rejected because it belongs
to this despised category. But why are dualistic theories held in
such contempt? There is an historical reason.

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

Historical Background:

I shall begin with a brief summary, abstracted from Nahmias (2002), of
the principal developments in psychology during the twentieth century.
In 1898 the introspectionist E.B. Titchener delineated the proper
study of psychology as the conscious mind, defined as “nothing more
than the whole sum of mental processes experienced in a single lifetime”.
And: “We must always remember that, within the sphere of 12.3 Squaring with Contemporary Neuroscience.

Flawed Argument:

Daniel Dennett (1991) gives a reason. His book Consciousness Explained
has a chapter entitled Why Dualism Is Forlorn, which begins
with the words:
The idea of mind as distinct [. . . ] from the brain, composed
not of ordinary matter but of some other special kind of stuff
is dualism, and it is deservedly in disrepute today. [. . . ] The
prevailing wisdom, variously expressed and argued for is materialism:
there is one sort of stuff, namely matter – the physical
stuff of physics, chemistry, and physiology – and the mind is
somehow nothing but a physical phenomenon. In short, the
mind is the brain.
Dennett then asks: “What, then, is so wrong with dualism? Why is it
in such disfavor?” He answers:
A fundamental principle of physics is that any change in the
trajectory of a particle is an acceleration requiring the expenditure
of energy [. . . ] this principle of conservation of energy [. . . ]
is apparently violated by dualism. This confrontation between
standard physics and dualism has been endlessly discussed since
Descartes’ own day, and is widely regarded as the inescapable
flaw in dualism.
This argument depends on identifying ‘standard physics’ with classical
physics. The argument collapses when one goes over to contemporary
physics, in which, due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, trajectories
of particles are replaced by cloud-like structures, and in which
conscious choices can influence physically described activity without
violating the conservation laws or any other laws of quantum physics.
Contemporary physical theory allows, and its orthodox von Neumann
form entails, an interactive dualism that is fully in accord with all the
laws of physics. Any perception merely reduces the possibilities.
........Squaring with Contemporary Neuroscience:
How does the quantum conception of mind–brain dynamics square
with contemporary neuroscience?
Steven Pinker is an able reporter on contemporary neuroscience. In
the lead article The Mystery of Consciousness in the January 29, 2007

Mind & Body Special Issue of Time Magazine he notes that while
certain mysteries remain, neuroscientist agree on one thing: “Francis
Crick called it ‘the astonishing hypothesis’ – the idea that our
thoughts, sensations, joys and aches consist entirely of physiological
activity in the tissues of the brain.”
Of course, the phrase ‘physiological activity’ needs to be replaced
by ‘psychophysiological activity’ since this activity is being explicitly
asserted to have psychological or experiential content. Later Pinker
says that: “Consciousness turns out to consist of a maelstrom of events
distributed across the brain.” These events should evidently be labeled
psychophysical events, since being located in the brain is a physical
attribute, while being the components of consciousness entails that
these events have psychological aspects.
These psychophysiological or psychophysical characterizations fit
quantum theory perfectly. According to von Neumann’s formulation
each of the quantum events in the brain has both a psychological aspect
and a physical aspect. The physical aspect is the jump of the
quantum state of the brain to that part of itself that is compatible
with the increment in knowledge specified by its psychologically described
aspect. It is this tight linkage between the psychologically and
physically described aspects of the events that keeps a person’s brain
in alignment with his or her experiences. These repeated reductions
are both possible and needed because the indeterminacy present at
the microscopic/ionic level, keeps generating at the macroscopic level
a profusion of brain states corresponding to mutually incompatible
observations. These dynamically needed interventions, whose causal
origin is left unspecified by the physical theory, provide a natural vehicle
for mental causation.
This all depends on accepting the utility of the quantum mechanical
program of building science’s conception of nature on the notion of
a sequence of macroscopically localized psychophysical events, rather
than on the notion of mindless matter.
Pinker refers to ‘The Hard Problem’. He says:
The Hard Problem is explaining how subjective experience
arises from neural computation. The problem is hard because
no one knows what a solution would look like or even is a genuine
scientific problem in the first place. And not surprisingly
everyone agrees that the hard problem (if it is a problem) is a
mystery.
« Last Edit: 21/12/2013 17:58:16 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1370 on: 21/12/2013 18:00:37 »
Of course this ‘hard’ problem is – and will remain – a mystery insofar
as one’s thinking is imprisoned within the fundamentally invalid
conceptual framework postulated by classical physics, which has no
rational place for consciousness. Within that framework the problem
is seen to be “explaining how subjective experience arises from neural
computation”, since all that is given is mindless matter. But the mystery
immediately dissolves when one passes over to quantum theory,
which was formulated from the outset as a theory of the interplay between
physical descriptions and conscious thoughts, and which comes
with an elaborate and highly tested machinery for relating these two
kinds of elements.
Some quantum physicists want to justify basing neuroscience on
classical physics by suggesting that once the neural activity reaches
a classically describable level, say at the firing of a neuron (i.e., the
triggering of an action potential), one may assume that the quantum
jump from ‘potential’ to ‘actual’ has occurred, and hence that one
can deal simply with the actualities of neuron firings, and ignore their
quantum underpinnings.
That approach would be a misuse of the quantum mechanical use of
the concepts of classical mechanics. The founders of quantum mechanics
were very clear about the use, in the theory of observations, of the
concepts of classical mechanics. Those concepts were needed and used
in order “to communicate to others what we have done and what we
have learned”. The use of the classical concepts is appropriate in that
context because those pertinent experiences are actually describable
in terms of the classical concepts, not because something was mysteriously
supposed to actually happen merely when things became big
enough for classical ideas to make sense. That criterion was too vague
and ambiguous to be used to construct a satisfactory physical theory.
The boundary between the large and the small could be shifted at will,
within limits, but actuality cannot be shifted in this way.
When one is describing one’s perceptions of devices lying outside
one’s body the experience itself is well described in terms of classical
ideas about where the parts of the device are and how they are moving.
But one’s subjective phenomenal experience is not geometrically similar
to the pattern of neural firings that constitute the neural correlate
of that experience.
If one assumes that the reduction events in the subject’s brains are
tied fundamentally to classicality per se, rather than to increments
in the subject’s knowledge, then one loses the essential connection
between physical description and subjective experience that quantum
theory is designed to provide This quasi-classical approach of accepting
quantum mechanics at the microscopic level, but tying the reduction
events occurring in the subject’s brain to some objective condition
of classicality, rather than to the subject’s experiences, has the great
virtue – relative to the approach of simply accepting a fully classical
conception of the brain – of not just ignoring a hundred years of development
in physics. However, in the context of solving the problem of
the mind–brain connection, it inherits the fatal deficiency of the classical
approach: the conceptual framework does not involve mind. There
is, as in the classical approach, no intrinsic conceptual place for, or dynamical
need for, our conscious experiences. There is within the given
structure no entailment either of any reason for conscious experiences
to exist at all, or of any principle that governs how these experiences
are tied to brain activity. “The Hard Problem of explaining how subjective
experience arises from neural computation” remains, as Pinker
said “a mystery”. Moreover, the quasi-classical approach inherits also
the principal difficulty of all the quantum theories that accept reductions,
but reject the orthodox principle of placing the reduction events
at the boundary between the physically described and psychologically
defined aspects of our scientific understanding of nature. Where, within
such an approach that does not involve consciousness, can one find either
any reason for any reduction to occur at all, or any objective
principle that specifies where, between one single atom and the more
than 1024 atoms in the brain, do the collapses occur. Orthodox quantum
theory ties these two problems of ‘consciousness’ and ‘collapse’
together in a practically useful way, and provides, simultaneously, a
way for the universe to acquire meaning.
theory is designed to provide This quasi-classical approach of accepting
quantum mechanics at the microscopic level, but tying the reduction
events occurring in the subject’s brain to some objective condition
of classicality, rather than to the subject’s experiences, has the great
virtue – relative to the approach of simply accepting a fully classical
conception of the brain – of not just ignoring a hundred years of development
in physics. However, in the context of solving the problem of
the mind–brain connection, it inherits the fatal deficiency of the classical
approach: the conceptual framework does not involve mind. There
is, as in the classical approach, no intrinsic conceptual place for, or dynamical
need for, our conscious experiences. There is within the given
structure no entailment either of any reason for conscious experiences
to exist at all, or of any principle that governs how these experiences
are tied to brain activity. “The Hard Problem of explaining how subjective
experience arises from neural computation” remains, as Pinker
said “a mystery”. Moreover, the quasi-classical approach inherits also
the principal difficulty of all the quantum theories that accept reductions,
but reject the orthodox principle of placing the reduction events
at the boundary between the physically described and psychologically
defined aspects of our scientific understanding of nature. Where, within
such an approach that does not involve consciousness, can one find either
any reason for any reduction to occur at all, or any objective
principle that specifies where, between one single atom and the more
than 1024 atoms in the brain, do the collapses occur. Orthodox quantum
theory ties these two problems of ‘consciousness’ and ‘collapse’
together in a practically useful way, and provides, simultaneously, a
way for the universe to acquire meaning.

Source : Henry P. Stapp
MINDFUL
UNIVERSE
Quantum Mechanics
and the Participating Observer
« Last Edit: 21/12/2013 18:23:04 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1371 on: 21/12/2013 18:42:05 »
Impact of Quantum Mechanics
on Human Values:


Philosophers have tried doggedly for three centuries to understand the
role of mind in the workings of a brain conceived to function according
to principles of classical physics. We now know no such brain exists:
no brain, body, or anything else in the real world is composed of those
tiny bits of matter that Newton imagined the universe to be made of.
Hence it is hardly surprising that those philosophical endeavors were
beset by enormous difficulties, which led to such positions as that of
the ‘eliminative materialists’, who hold that our conscious thoughts
must be eliminated from our scientific understanding of nature; or of
the ‘epiphenomenalists’, who admit that human experiences do exist,
but claim that they play no role in how we behave; or of the ‘identity
theorists’, who claim that each conscious feeling is exactly the same
thing as a motion of particles that nineteenth century science thought
our brains, and everything else in the universe, were made of, but
that twentieth century science has found not to exist, at least as they
were formerly conceived. The tremendous difficulty in reconciling consciousness,
as we know it, with the older physics is dramatized by the
fact that for many years the mere mention of ‘consciousness’ was considered
evidence of backwardness and bad taste in most of academia,
including, incredibly, even psychology and the philosophy of mind.
What you are, and will become, depends largely upon your values.
Values arise from self-image: from what you believe yourself to
be. Generally one is led by training, teaching, propaganda, or other
forms of indoctrination, to expand one’s conception of the self: one is
encouraged to perceive oneself as an integral part of some social unit
such as family, ethnic or religious group, or nation, and to enlarge
one’s self-interest to include the interests of this unit. If this training
is successful your enlarged conception of yourself as good parent, or
good son or daughter, or good Christian, Muslim, Jew, or whatever,
will cause you to give weight to the welfare of the unit as you would
your own. In fact, if well conditioned you may give more weight to the
interests of the group than to the well-being of your bodily self.

In the present context it is not relevant whether this human tendency
to enlarge one’s self-image is a consequence of natural malleability,
instinctual tendency, spiritual insight, or something else. What is
important is that we human beings do in fact have the capacity to
expand our image of ‘self’, and that this enlarged concept can become
the basis of a drive so powerful that it becomes the dominant determinant
of human conduct, overwhelming every other factor, including
even the instinct for bodily survival.
But where reason is honored, belief must be reconciled with empirical
evidence. If you seek evidence for your beliefs about what you
are, and how you fit into Nature, then science claims jurisdiction, or
at least relevance. Physics presents itself as the basic science, and it
is to physics that you are told to turn. Thus a radical shift in the
physics-based conception of man from that of an isolated mechanical
automaton to that of an integral participant in a non-local holistic process
that gives form and meaning to the evolving universe is a seismic
event of potentially momentous proportions.
The quantum concept of man, being based on objective science
equally available to all, rather than arising from special personal circumstances,
has the potential to undergird a universal system of basic
values suitable to all people, without regard to the accidents of their
origins. With the diffusion of this quantum understanding of human
beings, science may fulfill itself by adding to the material benefits it
has already provided a philosophical insight of perhaps even greater
ultimate value.
This issue of the connection of science to values can be put into
perspective by seeing it in the context of a thumb-nail sketch of history
that stresses the role of science. For this purpose let human intellectual
history be divided into five periods: traditional, modern, transitional,
post-modern, and contemporary.
During the ‘traditional’ era our understanding of ourselves and our
relationship to Nature was based on ‘ancient traditions’ handed down
from generation to generation: ‘Traditions’ were the chief source of
wisdom about our connection to Nature. The ‘modern’ era began in
the seventeenth century with the rise of what is still called ‘modern
science’. That approach was based on the ideas of Bacon, Descartes,
Galileo and Newton, and it provided a new source of knowledge that
came to be regarded by many thinkers as more reliable than tradition.
The basic idea of ‘modern’ science was ‘materialism’: the idea that
the physical world is composed basically of tiny bits of matter whose
contact interactions with adjacent bits completely control everything

that is now happening, and that ever will happen. According to these
laws, as they existed in the late nineteenth century, a person’s conscious
thoughts and efforts can make no difference at all to what
his body/brain does: whatever you do was deemed to be completely
fixed by local interactions between tiny mechanical elements, with your
thoughts, ideas, feelings, and efforts, being simply locally determined
high-level consequences or re-expressions of the low-level mechanical
process, and hence basically just elements of a reorganized way of describing
the effects of the absolutely and totally controlling microscopic
material causes.
This materialist conception of reality began to crumble at the beginning
of the twentieth century with Max Planck’s discovery of the
quantum of action. Planck announced to his son that he had, on that
day, made a discovery as important as Newton’s. That assessment was
certainly correct: the ramifications of Planck’s discovery were eventually
to cause Newton’s materialist conception of physical reality to
come crashing down. Planck’s discovery marks the beginning of the
‘transitional’ period.
A second important transitional development soon followed. In 1905
Einstein announced his special theory of relativity. This theory denied
the validity of our intuitive idea of the instant of time ‘now’, and
promulgated the thesis that even the most basic quantities of physics,
such as the length of a steel rod, and the temporal order of two events,
had no objective ‘true values’, but were well defined only ‘relative’ to
some observer’s point of view.
Planck’s discovery led by the mid-1920s to a complete breakdown,
at the fundamental level, of the classical material conception of nature.
A new basic physical theory, developed principally by Werner Heisenberg,
Niels Bohr, Wolfgang Pauli, and Max Born, brought ‘the observer’
explicitly into physics. The earlier idea that the physical world
is composed of tiny particles (and electromagnetic and gravitational
fields) was abandoned in favor of a theory of natural phenomena in
which the consciousness of the human observer is ascribed an essential
role. This successor to classical physical theory is called Copenhagen
quantum theory.
This turning away by science itself from the tenets of the objective
materialist philosophy gave impetus to, and lent support to, postmodernism.
That view, which emerged during the second half of the
twentieth century, promulgated, in essence, the idea that all ‘truths’
were relative to one’s point of view, and were mere artifacts of some
particular social group’s struggle for power over competing groups.
...............16 Impact of Quantum Mechanics on Human Values
Thus each social movement was entitled to its own ‘truth’, which was
viewed simply as a socially created pawn in the power game.
The connection of post-modern thought to science is that both
Copenhagen quantum theory and relativity theory had retreated from
the idea of observer-independent objective truth. Science in the first
quarter of the twentieth century had not only eliminated materialism
as a possible foundation for objective truth, but seemed to have discredited
the very idea of objective truth in science. But if the community
of scientists has renounced the idea of objective truth in favor of
the pragmatic idea that ‘what is true for us is what works for us’, then
every group becomes licensed to do the same, and the hope evaporates
that science might provide objective criteria for resolving contentious
social issues.
This philosophical shift has had profound social and intellectual
ramifications. But the physicists who initiated this mischief were generally
too interested in practical developments in their own field to get
involved in these philosophical issues. Thus they failed to broadcast
an important fact: already by mid-century, a further development in
physics had occurred that provides an effective antidote to both the
‘materialism’ of the modern era, and the ‘relativism’ and ‘social constructionism’
of the post-modern period. In particular, John von Neumann
developed, during the early thirties, a form of quantum theory
that brought the physical and mental aspects of nature back together
as two aspects of a rationally coherent whole. This theory was elevated,
during the forties – by the work of Tomonaga and Schwinger –
to a form compatible with the physical requirements of the theory of
relativity.
Von Neumann’s theory, unlike the transitional ones, provides a
framework for integrating into one coherent idea of reality the empirical
data residing in subjective experience with the basic mathematical
structure of theoretical physics. Von Neumann’s formulation
of quantum theory is the starting point of all efforts by physicists to
go beyond the pragmatically satisfactory but ontologically incomplete
Copenhagen form of quantum theory.
Von Neumann capitalized upon the key Copenhagen move of bringing
human choices into the theory of physical reality. But, whereas the
Copenhagen approach excluded the bodies and brains of the human
observers from the physical world that they sought to describe, von
Neumann demanded logical cohesion and mathematical precision, and
was willing to follow where this rational approach led. Being a mathematician,
fortified by the rigor and precision of his thought, he seemed

less intimidated than his physicist brethren by the sharp contrast between
the nature of the world called for by the new mathematics and
the nature of the world that the genius of Isaac Newton had concocted.
A common core feature of the orthodox (Copenhagen and von Neumann)
quantum theory is the incorporation of efficacious conscious
human choices into the structure of basic physical theory. How this is
done, and how the conception of the human person is thereby radically
altered, has been spelled out in lay terms in this book, and is something
every well informed person who values the findings of science
ought to know about. The conception of self is the basis of values and
thence of behavior, and it controls the entire fabric of one’s life. It is
irrational, from a scientific perspective, to cling today to false and inadequate
nineteenth century concepts about your basic nature, while
ignoring the profound impact upon these concepts of the twentieth
century revolution in science.
It is curious that some physicists want to improve upon orthodox
quantum theory by excluding ‘the observer’, who, by virtue of his subjective
nature, must, in their opinion, be excluded from science. That
stance is maintained in direct opposition to what would seem to be
the most profound advance in physics in three hundred years, namely
the overcoming of the most glaring failure of classical physics, its inability
to accommodate us, its creators. The most salient philosophical
feature of quantum theory is that the mathematics has a causal gap
that, by virtue of its intrinsic form, provides a perfect place for Homo
sapiens as we know and experience ourselves.
Conclusions :

How can our world of billions of thinkers ever come into general concordance
on fundamental issues? How do you, yourself, form opinions
on such issues? Do you simply accept the message of some ‘authority’,
such as a church, a state, or a social or political group? All of
these entities promote concepts about how you as an individual fit
into the reality that supports your being. And each has an agenda of
its own, and hence its own internal biases. But where can you find an
unvarnished truth about your nature, and your place in Nature?
Science rests, in the end, on an authority that lies beyond the pettiness
of human ambition. It rests, finally, on stubborn facts. The
founders of quantum theory certainly had no desire to bring down
the grand structure of classical physics of which they were the inheritors,
beneficiaries, and torch bearers. It was stubborn facts that forced
their hand, and made them reluctantly abandon the two-hundred-yearold
classical ideal of a mechanical universe, and turn to what perhaps
should have been seen from the start as a more reasonable endeavor:
the creation an understanding of nature that includes in a rationally
coherent way the thoughts by which we know and influence the world
around us. The labors of scientists endeavoring merely to understand
our inanimate environment produced, from its own internal logic, a rationally
coherent framework into which we ourselves fit neatly. What
was falsified by twentieth-century science was not the core traditions
and intuitions that have sustained societies and civilizations since the
dawn of mankind, but rather an historical aberration, an impoverished
world view within which philosophers of the past few centuries have
tried relentlessly but fruitlessly to find ourselves. The falseness of that
deviation of science must be made known, and heralded, because human
beings are not likely to endure in a society ruled by a conception
of themselves that denies the essence of their being.

Source : Henry .P.Stapp , Mindful Universe
« Last Edit: 21/12/2013 18:53:28 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1372 on: 21/12/2013 19:26:38 »

alancalverd :

You just called your friend Ethos ...a psychopath , without even realising that fact .

Two unsubstantiated assumptions and an offensive untruth based on a complete failure to understand (or a deliberate intention to misconstrue) simple logic. Not quite a world record for 13 words, but a strong contender.
A word to the wise is sufficient. But were Don is concerned???

And BTW; DON...., I never once detailed what that faith centered around. But now for the record:

I believe in what I can measure with repeatable results, it's called science. Something you have yet to learn Don.

What I can't measure with repeatable results, I may still wonder about the whys and wherefors until new evidence surfaces.

But what I don't do is come to a SCIENCE forum vomiting up spooky and ill defined trash like the author of this thread.

I thank folks like alancalverd for also knowing the difference between science and everyday what ifs.

Despite your denials , you said previously that you were a man of faith from which i did conclude that you did believe in one  or another form of religion, the latter that's incompatible with the materialist mainstream "all is matter ,including the mind -scientific world view " =2 mutually exclusive world views thus .
Not to mention the fact that you do confuse science proper with materialism , the latter that's just a false conception of nature , an Eurocentric  ideology , a world view , a philosophy that goes back all the way to the 19th century , outdated superseded 19th century materialism that was built on the fundamentally incorrect Newton's classical physics .
Not to mention the fact that i have been supporting my claims via tons of posted material on the subject .

In short :
You just talk non-sense ,just out of ignorance : you're just using empty and irrelevant rhetorics ....


*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1373 on: 21/12/2013 19:28:04 »

alancalverd :

You just called your friend Ethos ...a psychopath , without even realising that fact .

Two unsubstantiated assumptions and an offensive untruth based on a complete failure to understand (or a deliberate intention to misconstrue) simple logic. Not quite a world record for 13 words, but a strong contender.


Quote
But , to believe in 2 mutually exclusive world views , that's a bizzare something that cannot be "achieved " but by guys like ...Ethos here . haha

It's the very essence of faith and many other perversions. Remarkably common among congregations and psychopaths.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1374 on: 21/12/2013 20:59:50 »
Try to read the above , folks : i will be posting more relevant stuff that will be refuting the false outdated superseded mainstream materialist 'scientific world view " ...
I hope that you will have enough scientific vision courage and honesty to be able to stomach swallow digest or deal with all those facts ,you cannot dismiss deny or ignore as such  any longer .
Good luck .
« Last Edit: 21/12/2013 21:01:27 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1449
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1375 on: 22/12/2013 12:07:24 »
You still haven't grasped the nature of discussion forums, have you? If you're going to quote fringe opinion in support of your point, you should be able to explain how it's relevant, and summarise or point to the key propositions. Your current approach is lazy, careless, and intellectually bankrupt.

However, the breach of copyright is interesting; although slightly mangled by clumsy copy-n-paste, those excerpts actually expose Stapp as a misleading and unreliable source. I wasn't expecting that.

He has revised the history of quantum mechanics and in particular, the Copenhagen Interpretation, to make his own hypothesis appear to have a firmer foundation than it otherwise would. 

He says, "quantum theory, ... was formulated from the outset as a theory of the interplay between physical descriptions and conscious thoughts", and talks of "the essential connection between physical description and subjective experience that quantum theory is designed to provide", and "Orthodox quantum theory ties these two problems of ‘consciousness’ and ‘collapse’ together", and "The earlier idea ... was abandoned in favor of a theory of natural phenomena in which the consciousness of the human observer is ascribed an essential role. This successor to classical physical theory is called Copenhagen quantum theory."

This is all simply false. Quantum theory was formulated as a model to explain observations of the quantisation of energy and the wave-like properties of matter. The Copenhagen interpretation is one attempt to reconcile experimental observation with the mathematics of quantum theory in terms of the collapse of the wave function.

There are many interpretations that address the nature of that collapse, the idea that consciousness is causal is just one -minority- view (as I mentioned in an earlier post). As Werner Heisenberg said, "... the Copenhagen interpretation is often confused with the idea that consciousness causes collapse, it defines an "observer" merely as that which collapses the wave function". I've mentioned previously that this observer can be any interacting particle. And suggesting that conscious collapse is 'orthodox' quantum theory is like saying the orthodox view in zoology is that Big Foot is really out there.

That an experienced quantum physicist would distort the truth in this way is surprising - is it deliberate? is his attachment to his hypothesis distorting his view of reality?  The fact that he was 79 when he published 'Mindful Universe' might be significant...

These errors only heighten my distrust of his work, and I see no reason to revise my previously expressed opinion of it.
« Last Edit: 22/12/2013 12:14:55 by dlorde »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1376 on: 22/12/2013 17:40:15 »
You still haven't grasped the nature of discussion forums, have you? If you're going to quote fringe opinion in support of your point, you should be able to explain how it's relevant, and summarise or point to the key propositions. Your current approach is lazy, careless, and intellectually bankrupt.

However, the breach of copyright is interesting; although slightly mangled by clumsy copy-n-paste, those excerpts actually expose Stapp as a misleading and unreliable source. I wasn't expecting that.

He has revised the history of quantum mechanics and in particular, the Copenhagen Interpretation, to make his own hypothesis appear to have a firmer foundation than it otherwise would. 

He says, "quantum theory, ... was formulated from the outset as a theory of the interplay between physical descriptions and conscious thoughts", and talks of "the essential connection between physical description and subjective experience that quantum theory is designed to provide", and "Orthodox quantum theory ties these two problems of ‘consciousness’ and ‘collapse’ together", and "The earlier idea ... was abandoned in favor of a theory of natural phenomena in which the consciousness of the human observer is ascribed an essential role. This successor to classical physical theory is called Copenhagen quantum theory."

This is all simply false. Quantum theory was formulated as a model to explain observations of the quantisation of energy and the wave-like properties of matter. The Copenhagen interpretation is one attempt to reconcile experimental observation with the mathematics of quantum theory in terms of the collapse of the wave function.

There are many interpretations that address the nature of that collapse, the idea that consciousness is causal is just one -minority- view (as I mentioned in an earlier post). As Werner Heisenberg said, "... the Copenhagen interpretation is often confused with the idea that consciousness causes collapse, it defines an "observer" merely as that which collapses the wave function". I've mentioned previously that this observer can be any interacting particle. And suggesting that conscious collapse is 'orthodox' quantum theory is like saying the orthodox view in zoology is that Big Foot is really out there.

That an experienced quantum physicist would distort the truth in this way is surprising - is it deliberate? is his attachment to his hypothesis distorting his view of reality?  The fact that he was 79 when he published 'Mindful Universe' might be significant...

These errors only heighten my distrust of his work, and I see no reason to revise my previously expressed opinion of it.

You can't look at  the world  but through this  false orthodox  outdated and superseded materialist key hole of yours ,via this materialist orthodox quantum theory : the above displayed statements of yours through your materialist mind are evidence enough for the fact that the observer does affect the observed , through one's own a -priori held beliefs , psych ....and hence consciousness does also have causal effect on matter , including  at the micro quantum level :
You cannot deny the fact that consciousness has  causal effects on matter ,and hence on brain and body , as you do experience that fact every single day of your own life , and the fact that the observer does affect the observed ,as you cannot deny the fact that classical physics cannot be applied to the micro quantum level of course , and hence cannot be applied to the atomic and molecular brain activity via the so -called upward causation that allegedly gives rise to consciousness at the macro level  .
The man must be senile , since he dares to 'sing outside of the mainstream materialist phony orchestra " ,as Nagel was some sort of fame freak , as you said earlier about the latter , so, i see no point in talking to you about all this any further , since you are not willing to view things from non-materialist perspectives, materialism you still do continue confusing with science ,while the latter does not either require materialism  nor needs to be materialist  .
What a waste of time indeed .
And you did have the nerve to accuse me earlier of being biased ( None in fact can be more biased or none can be more guilty of confirmation bias than materialists who cannot but try to confirm their mainstream "scientific world view " = their a-priori held false materialist conception of nature .)  ,to the point where i allegedly stick to my a -priori held beliefs ,even in the face of evidence : That's exactly the other way around : you were just projecting thus :
You're the one trying to distort evidence as to squeeze it into your own a-priori held materialist false belief .
Not to mention the fact that i saw no attempts from you , whatsoever , to try to address all that overwhelming evidence contained in my tons of posted material on the subject ,regarding the undeniable and obvious falsehood of materialism  which has been superseded by even modern physics  itself , ironically enough , materialism  that was built on the fundamentally incorrect classical physics' ruins .
P.S.: The aim of posting all those excerpts is to provide you, guys, with qualified views on the subject through prominent scientists , thinkers ....= what's wrong about that then ?
And i did tell you that i have been stealing food for the mind for you ,guys , as starving superseded materialists ,so, cut the crap about that copywright thing ....you can't use as some sort of leverage or 'argument " the latter or your silly accusations regarding the sanity or motives of those scientists and thinkers from whose works i have been posting excerpts  .
pfff...
« Last Edit: 22/12/2013 17:50:55 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1377 on: 22/12/2013 17:58:14 »
How can one take these superseded materialists seriously , when they keep on denying the undeniable fact that consciousness or the mind do have causal effects on matter , brain and body (an undeniable  fact they do experience every single day of their own lives , ironically paradoxically enough ) , and hence at the micro quantum level , just because their false outdated and superseded classical physics' materialism does , per definition, exclude any causal effect of the mind on matter : a total form of insane materialist lunacy-delusion  : denying the undeniable ,just because it does not fit into their own a -priori held materialist beliefs : that's called dogma in fact= sticking to one's own stubborn irrational false beliefs , even in the very face of evidence  ....Amazing .
« Last Edit: 22/12/2013 18:05:49 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1378 on: 22/12/2013 18:02:51 »
It's very convenient to call any non-orthodox  scientist ,  philosopher ....senile , a fame freak or worse , just because they happen to challenge the materialist false mainstream 'scientific world view " : why not send them to the "goulag " , burn them at the stake ............: self-refuting and self-defeating forms of materialist ...inquisitions .pfff...

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1379 on: 22/12/2013 18:14:06 »
The stubborn facts or evidence will force the reluctant denying absurd surreal hands of materialists into accepting them as such  eventually  , otherwise materialist would be , as they have been all along in fact , anti-scientific , in the same fashion stubborn facts or evidence  did in relation to classical physics (on which fundamentally incorrect ruins the 19th century outdated superseded and false materialism was built , ironically paradoxically enough .) through  quantum theory .......

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1380 on: 22/12/2013 18:34:19 »
The Physical Effectiveness of Conscious Will
and the Quantum Zeno Effect:



A crucial question now arises: How does this dynamical psychoneurological
connection via process 1, which can merely pose a question,
but not answer it, allow a person’s effort to influence his or her
physical actions?
Take an example. Suppose you are in a situation that calls for you to
raise your arm. Associations via stored memories should elicit a brain
activity having a component that when active on former occasions
resulted in your experiencing your arm rise, and in which the template
for arm-raising is active. According to the theory, this component of
brain activity will, if sufficiently strong, cause an associated process
1 action to occur. This process 1 action will partition the quantum
state of your brain in such a way that one component, labeled ‘Yes’,
will be this component in which the arm-raising template is active. If
the ‘Yes’ option is selected by nature then you will experience yourself
causing your arm to rise, and the state of your brain will be such that
the arm-raising template is active.
But the only dynamical freedom offered by the quantum formalism
in this situation is the freedom to perform at a selected time some
process 1 action. Whether or not the ‘Yes’ component is actualized is
determined by ‘nature’ on the basis of a statistical law. So the effectiveness
of the ‘free choice’ of this process 1 in achieving the desired
end would generally be quite limited. The net effect of this ‘free choice’
would tend to be nullified by the randomness in nature’s choice between
‘Yes’ and its negation ‘No’.
A well-known non-classical feature of quantum theory provides,
however, a way to overcome this problem, and convert the available
‘free choices’ into effective mental causation.
The Quantum Zeno Effect:
A well studied feature of the dynamical rules of quantum theory is this:
Suppose a process 1 query that leads to a ‘Yes’ outcome is followed

by a rapid sequence of very similar process 1 queries. That is, suppose
a sequence of identical or very similar process 1 actions is performed,
that the first outcome is ‘Yes’, and that the actions in this sequence
occur in very rapid succession on the time scale of the evolution of
the original ‘Yes’ state. Then the dynamical rules of quantum theory
entail that the sequence of outcomes will, with high probability, all
be ‘Yes’: the original ‘Yes’ state will, with high probability, be held
approximately in place by the rapid succession of process 1 actions,
even in the face of very strong physical forces that would, in the absence
of this rapid sequence of actions, quickly cause the state to evolve into
some very different state (Stapp 2004a, Sect. 12.7.3).
The timings of the process 1 actions are, within the orthodox formulations,
controlled by the ‘free choices’ on the part of the agent.
Mental effort applied to a conscious intent increases the intensity of
the experience. Thus it is consistent and reasonable to suppose that
the rapidity of a succession of essentially identical process 1 actions can
be increased by mental effort. But then we obtain, as a mathematical
consequence of the basic dynamical laws of quantum mechanics described
by von Neumann, a potentially powerful effect of mental effort
on the brain of the agent! Applying mental effort increases the rapidity
of the sequence of essentially identical intentional acts, which then
causes the template for action to be held in place, which then produces
the brain activity that tends to produce the intended feedback.
This ‘holding-in-place’ effect is called the quantum Zeno effect, an
appellation that was picked by the physicists E.C.G. Sudarshan and
R. Misra (1977) to highlight a similarity of this effect to the ‘arrow’
paradox discussed by the fifth century B.C. Greek philosopher, Zeno
the Eleatic. Another name for this effect is ‘the watched-pot effect’.
The quantum Zeno effect can, in principle, hold an intention and
its template in place in the face of strong mechanical forces that would
tend to disturb it. This means that agents whose mental efforts can
sufficiently increase the rapidity of process 1 actions would enjoy a survival
advantage over competitors that lack such features. They could
sustain beneficial templates for action in place longer than competitors
who lack this capacity. Thus the dynamical rules of quantum mechanics
allow conscious effort to be endowed with the causal efficacy needed
to permit its deployment and evolution via natural selection.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1381 on: 22/12/2013 18:38:14 »

 William James’s Theory of Volition:



This theory was already in place when a colleague, Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz,
brought to my attention some passages from Psychology: The Briefer
Course, written by William James. In the final section of the chapter
on Attention, James (1892) writes:
I have spoken as if our attention were wholly determined by
neural conditions. I believe that the array of things we can attend
to is so determined. No object can catch our attention
except by the neural machinery. But the amount of the attention
which an object receives after it has caught our attention
is another question. It often takes effort to keep mind upon
it. We feel that we can make more or less of the effort as we
choose. If this feeling be not deceptive, if our effort be a spiritual
force, and an indeterminate one, then of course it contributes
coequally with the cerebral conditions to the result. Though it
introduce no new idea, it will deepen and prolong the stay in
consciousness of innumerable ideas which else would fade more
quickly away. The delay thus gained might not be more than
a second in duration – but that second may be critical; for in
the rising and falling considerations in the mind, where two associated
systems of them are nearly in equilibrium it is often a
matter of but a second more or less of attention at the outset,
whether one system shall gain force to occupy the field and develop
itself and exclude the other, or be excluded itself by the
other. When developed it may make us act, and that act may
seal our doom. When we come to the chapter on the Will we
shall see that the whole drama of the voluntary life hinges on
the attention, slightly more or slightly less, which rival motor
ideas may receive.
In the chapter on Will, in the section entitled Volitional Effort is Effort
of Attention, James writes:
Thus we find that we reach the heart of our inquiry into volition
when we ask by what process it is that the thought of any given
action comes to prevail stably in the mind.
And later
The essential achievement of the will, in short, when it is most
‘voluntary’, is to attend to a difficult object and hold it fast

before the mind. [. . . ] Effort of attention is thus the essential
phenomenon of will.
Still later, James says:
Consent to the idea’s undivided presence, this is effort’s sole
achievement. [. . . ] Everywhere, then, the function of effort is
the same: to keep affirming and adopting the thought which, if
left to itself, would slip away.
James apparently recognized the incompatibility of these pronouncements
with the physics of his day. At the end of Psychology: The
Briefer Course, he said, presciently, of the scientists who would one
day illuminate the mind–body problem:
The best way in which we can facilitate their advent is to understand
how great is the darkness in which we grope, and
never forget that the natural-science assumptions with which
we started are provisional and revisable things.
It is a testimony to the power of the grip of old ideas on the minds
of scientists and philosophers alike that what was apparently evident
to William James already in 1892 – namely that a revision of the mechanical
precepts of nineteenth century physics would be needed to
accommodate the structural features of our conscious experiences –
still fails to be recognized by many of the affected professionals even
today, more than three-quarters of a century after the downfall of classical
physics, apparently foreseen by James, has come, much-heralded,
to pass.
James’s description of the effect of volition on the course of mind–
brain process is remarkably in line with what had been proposed, independently,
from purely theoretical considerations of the quantum
physics of this process. The connections described by James are explained
on the basis of the same dynamical principles that had been
introduced by physicists to explain atomic phenomena. Thus the whole
range of science, from atomic physics to mind–brain dynamics, is
brought together in a single rationally coherent theory of a world that
is constituted not of matter, as classically conceived, but rather of
an informational structure that causally links the two elements that
combine to constitute actual scientific practice, namely the psychologically
described contents of our streams of conscious experiences and
the mathematically described objective tendencies that tie our chosen
actions to experience.
No comparable success has been achieved within the framework of
classical physics, in spite of intense efforts spanning more than three
centuries. The reasons for this failure are easy to see: classical physics
systematically exorcizes all traces of mind from its precepts, thereby
banishing any logical foothold for recovering mind. Moreover, according
to quantum physics all causal effects of consciousness act within
the latitude provided by the uncertainty principle, and this latitude
shrinks to zero in the classical approximation, eliminating the causal
effects of consciousness.

Source : Henry P. Stapp
MINDFUL
UNIVERSE
Quantum Mechanics
and the Participating Observer
« Last Edit: 22/12/2013 18:41:55 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1382 on: 22/12/2013 20:19:42 »
dlorde :

See my replies to you here above , and do try to read the excerpts i did post today as well on the same subject , please .

You have to try to face the evidence regarding the undeniable causal effects of consciousness on matter , and hence on the brain and body ,instead of sticking to your own outdated superseded and false ...secular religion in science = the mainstream materialist false "scientific world view " .
It's up to you indeed .
Good luck .

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1449
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1383 on: 22/12/2013 20:29:40 »
It's very convenient to call any non-orthodox  scientist ,  philosopher ....senile , a fame freak or worse , just because they happen to challenge the materialist false mainstream 'scientific world view " : why not send them to the "goulag " , burn them at the stake ............: self-refuting and self-defeating forms of materialist ...inquisitions .pfff...
Come on Don, you can do better than this; Stapp's hypothesis has less meat on it's bones than Penrose and Hammerof's; he trying to buttress the credibility of his idea with an incorrect and misleading description of the development of quantum theory and its interpretations - don't you want to address those criticisms?

Or are you just intending to continue this repetitive argument from spurious authority and refusal to address the resulting criticism?

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1449
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1384 on: 22/12/2013 20:46:44 »
You have to try to face the evidence regarding the undeniable causal effects of consciousness on matter
I'm quite prepared to accept that consciousness may have causal effects on matter - brain processes do that all the time.

So, show me this evidence you speak of.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1385 on: 23/12/2013 17:36:50 »
dlorde :

(Prior note :
Normally , when scientists or thinkers  are confronted with the proven falsehood of their a-priori held theories or beliefs , they should either partly or entirely reject the latter , while looking for more or less valid alternatives to them:
But ,you , dlorde , are still in stubborn denial regarding the undeniable falsehood of your beloved or cherished materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " , and hence you just try to refute non-orthodox or non-materialist views or world views ,by looking for their flaws only , instead of learning from them .)

There is a lots of evidence contained in those tons of posted excerpts i have been delivering all along , concerning the undeniable and obvious falsehood of the  mainstream materialist "scientific world view " ,as there is plenty of evidence regarding the fact that consciousness has obvious undeniable causal effects on matter , and hence on body and brain , you do experience every single day of your own life as well , and hence consciousness cannot but have causal effects also at the  micro quantum level : and those are the main facts : instead of addressing the latter , you just deliberately choose to focuss on  minor irrelevant issues .
Way to go , man .
So, try to learn from non-orthodox or non-materialist scientists and philosophers on the subject such as Nagel,Sheldrake, Stapp and the rest , instead of sticking  and listening  to your own materialist false music only .
If you are just interested in trying to refute them ,instead of learning from  them , you will end up just learning nothing , you will end up just closing your mind to non-orthodox and non-materialist views ,or you will end up just trying to confirm your own materialist mainstream false 'scientific world view , via confirmation and other biases, by becoming rock-solid dogmatic in the very face of evidence  .
If you are just interested in refuting them, you will be just looking for their confirmatory inevitable logical and other flaws ,instead of noticing and learning about their positive  ideas , insights , inspirations , innovations ...


It's up to you indeed ,once again .

P.S : When i do provide you with non-orthodox or non-materialist views ,as i have been doing all along , for so long now ,  i do that , despite knowing the a -priori fact that those views do contain some inevitable and inescapable logical and other flaws , but they nevertheless do contain many more valuable facts , insights , innovations as well : so, if you would just try to look for their flaws , you would end up missing the whole idea , you would be missing their valuable insights , ideas , innovations ....

The choice is yours indeed .
Take care ,and good luck to you regarding  your own search and journey .
« Last Edit: 23/12/2013 17:43:28 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1449
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1386 on: 24/12/2013 00:05:30 »
...There is a lots of evidence contained in those tons of posted excerpts i have been delivering all along , concerning the undeniable and obvious falsehood of the  mainstream materialist "scientific world view "
Such as? I didn't notice any - please be specific.

Quote
If you are just interested in trying to refute them ,instead of learning from  them , you will end up just learning nothing , you will end up just closing your mind to non-orthodox and non-materialist views ,or you will end up just trying to confirm your own materialist mainstream false 'scientific world view , via confirmation and other biases, by becoming rock-solid dogmatic in the very face of evidence .
If you are just interested in refuting them, you will be just looking for their confirmatory inevitable logical and other flaws ,instead of noticing and learning about their positive  ideas , insights , inspirations , innovations ...
I read what you posted; it's just speculation - there's nothing there to refute.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4894
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1387 on: 24/12/2013 00:23:17 »
Aha! Zeno's paradox and the uncertainty principle rear their irrelevant heads at last! Two sure signs that the author doesn't understand (a) differential calculus and (b) physics.

There's no shame in ignorance, but bombastic bullshit is unforgiveable.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1463
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1388 on: 24/12/2013 02:44:02 »
Outdated and superceded theories?? William James knowledge of neurology from 1892??? Seriously? I wish i hadnt used up all my bandwidth for this month.
« Last Edit: 24/12/2013 02:45:44 by cheryl j »

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1389 on: 24/12/2013 15:04:40 »


There is a lots of evidence contained in those tons of posted excerpts i have been delivering all along , concerning the undeniable and obvious falsehood of the  mainstream materialist "scientific world view " ,as there is plenty of evidence regarding the fact that consciousness has obvious undeniable causal effects on matter , and hence on body and brain
You've got it backwards Don............There is plenty of evidence regarding the fact that the chemistry of the body and brain has undeniable causal effects on consciousness.

You have offered absolutely no evidence to show this relationship to be in  reverse order.

Get a grip Don..........................
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1463
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1390 on: 25/12/2013 03:28:33 »
Merry Christmas!

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1449
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1391 on: 25/12/2013 13:24:11 »
Merry Christmas & happy New Year to all!

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1392 on: 25/12/2013 16:48:18 »
Merry Christmas to you all and wishing everyone a Happy and prosperous New Year!
"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 #1393 on: 25/12/2013 17:31:44 »
...There is a lots of evidence contained in those tons of posted excerpts i have been delivering all along , concerning the undeniable and obvious falsehood of the  mainstream materialist "scientific world view "
Such as? I didn't notice any - please be specific.

Quote
If you are just interested in trying to refute them ,instead of learning from  them , you will end up just learning nothing , you will end up just closing your mind to non-orthodox and non-materialist views ,or you will end up just trying to confirm your own materialist mainstream false 'scientific world view , via confirmation and other biases, by becoming rock-solid dogmatic in the very face of evidence .
If you are just interested in refuting them, you will be just looking for their confirmatory inevitable logical and other flaws ,instead of noticing and learning about their positive  ideas , insights , inspirations , innovations ...
I read what you posted; it's just speculation - there's nothing there to refute.

( He's asking me to be specific haha : what a silly joke ) : what , on earth , do you think Nagel , Sheldrake , and the rest whose works i have been extensively quoting all along , were  doing then , regarding the undeniable faslehood of the materialist mainstream 'scientific world view "  at least ? haha ,amazing: come on , you gotta be kidding me  .

Yeah, right : nothing is true but what materialism and its false 'scientific world view " say it is , even though science is not about the truth, the rest is just 'scientific " heresy , pseudo-science at best , or just speculations or non-sense ,just because the false materialist mainstream dogmatic irrational "scientific world view " secular religion - church  says so  : there has been nothing  but speculation and utter non-sense  in my tons of posted material and excerpts ,from Nagel's book , to those of Stapp and beyond, through Sheldrake's  and the rest , regarding the undeniable falsehood of materialism , and hence regarding that of the materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " ,and regarding the rest , that i cannot but be confirmed by your confirmation and other materialist biases , to the point where you have been insulting peoples' intelligence,and yours in the process,  by calling all that just speculations or non-sense : none can be more guilty of confirmation and other biases than materialists and their followers are ,as this thread  has been showing all along: ignorance is bliss ,as  all  irrational dogmatic orthodox beliefs are,including the materialist false  mainstream 'scientific world view " of course that's been just the materialist false conception of nature , the mainstream materialist false 'scientific world view " that has been  THE biggest unscientific lie ever , in all mankind's history so far at least, and that in the name of no-less than ...science itself , the latter that has been having absolutely nothing to do with , even though science has been materialist for so long now   .

I am a naive optimist , as to have been hoping that you would be able to see the obvious and undeniable falsehood of the materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " , at some stage of this discussion .
I have been  too much of a naive utopian optimist , as to believe in the utopian unrealistic metaphysically- neutral science -myth ,and in its mythical objectivity , despite knowing that they do not exist ,and cannot exist as such , simply because science is just a human activity , just a reflection of the highest and of the lowest which are in all of us  = irrational dogmatic beliefs such as materialism , and hence such as the current "scientific world view " cannot  but be  intrinsically and per -definition exclusive in relation  to any kind of evidence ,except to "those  delivered " by  ...materialism and  by  its false 'scientific world view " thus : science is the main victim of that,as a result  .

There is nothingelse  in the room  than what you , guys ,have been seeing through your materialist narrow-minded handicaped key hole , no wonder,silly me  .

It's pointless to try to bring people irrational dogmatic believers such as yourselves to their senses , the more  when you  have been taking your  own materialist beliefs for granted as science = taking the materialist false conception of nature for granted as the 'scientific world view " = you cannot but dismiss ideas , insights , evidence ,innovations,theories  ...that happen to be singing outside of the materialist mainstream  false  'scientific world view " orchestra , no wonder .


I wanna wish you merry christmas and a happy new year , but then again, as die -hard irrational dogmatic materialists ,it would be non-sense to wish you anything at all for that matter , since you cannot be but  mindless heartless soulless insensitive ....hardware machines robots programmed by software ,without any degree of free will , without any real desires , will, emotions, feelings ; love ,conscience , consciousness , ....as such , according to your own materialist false world view thus .

Talking to just some sort of a pc program , to an intelligent machine or robot , or to just my cat , no offense , might turn out to be  way more interesting than talking to you , guys , as stubborn irrational dogmatic materialists .

But then again , " the gain is worth the loss " , once again, you have no idea .

P.S . : Science will leave you behind , no doubt in my mind about that , when science will be rejecting materialism, and hence  when science will be rejecting  its current false 'scientific world view " in the process  , outdated superseded and false materialism- 'scientific world view "  that  were built on the fundamentally incorrect classical physics , just in order to pretend to be 'scientific " ,for obvious materialist ideologiocal purposes back then and up to this present date and counting .

Science that's all about , or should be all about at least , dispelling dogmas , lies , half-truths ,falsehood ....

Science that's just about temporary approximate conjectural knowledge , not about the truth ,while you have been thinking and behaving as if materialism or its 'scientific world view " meta-paradigm were ...true somehow , were absolutely true = definite,sub-consciously or consciously , implicitly or explicitly thus  :

Why practice science then ,if you think and behave as if you have somehow already reached the "truth " then ?

As a so-called scientist , you are nothing but an insult , an obstacle and a silly joke to the evolutionary nature of science in fact .

"Scientific rational logical " people you are , my ass , excuse my French ...

Enough reasons to leave this "science " forum , untill science will be able to expell its materialist mainstream false 'scientific world view " form science , without mercy , regret , without looking back ....

Otherwise ,science will just remain a source of lies , deceit , myths ,dogmas ....a theater of ideological struggle and materialist supremacy and power , despite the huge achievements of science , and despite the fact that science has been extremely successfull , the latter that has been accomplished only thanks to the effective and unparalleled scientific method that's like no other : materialism or its false 'scientific world view " has been having absolutely nothing to do with all those scientific wonderful achievements , science that should be neither materialist nor otherwise indeed : but fact is : science has been materialist for so long now that it has not been fully deserving to be called science ,untill science will cease to be materialist = ideological dogmatic , then and only then , science will be more scientific and less dogmatic ...hopefully .

Untill then , people should learn how to differentiate science and scientific results , empirical evidence from ...materialist bullshit in science that has been sold to the people as ...science , for so long now, by turning science into a secular irrational dogmatic orthodox exclusive religion through its false materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " ...

What a hopeless predicament  in which science is the main victim  .

What a serious desillusion delusion for all those people who have been thinking and behaving ,as if science has been truely metaphysically neutral or objective , as one of the "best " sources of ...knowledge ....

How depressingly and hopelessly pathetic  this science delusion has been like no other = the false materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " .

Sweet dreams then in this false  materialist  'scientific world view " delusion wonder land of yours ,guys : ignorance is bliss indeed .

Way to go, 'scientific " folks haha: if science could speak ,as it has been actually doing all along , but for few select  people to hear , via science's esoteric core and nature for not every ear to hear , science would be saying , as it has been doing all along : leave me alone ,silly materialist lunatics, enemies of science  : i have been having nothing to do with you all along , even though you have been turning me into a materialist dogmatic religion  : my unparalled scientific world view or evolutionary nature will send you back to the garbage of history,soon enough ,  where you do belong and come from : which means you are in the wrong side of history , in the non-materialist sense at least  .

Only time will tell then indeed ...

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



« Last Edit: 25/12/2013 18:23:53 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1394 on: 25/12/2013 18:45:06 »
In short : as to finish the above :

Materialist science through its false materialist mainstream "scientific world view " has been THE  biggest and worst lie and crime against science itself, against humanity .....so far at least , for so long now (despite the fact that science has been extremely successfull ,thanks only and exclusively to its own effective and unparalleled method thus ) ,science must  be delivered from ,as science will be in fact = inevitable = just a matter of ...time thus .

I am afraid though, that materialism will be just replaced by yet another false conception of nature ,as Nagel said ,or in other words :

"The human will to believe is inexhaustible " indeed , as Nagel said also ...

Human beliefs are inevitable and unavoidable in science ,since science is just a human activity = the metaphysically -neutral science is a myth , and hence as objectivity in science is : hopeless  unavoidable unsolvable predicament = that's THE intrinsic incurable lethal disease of human science  .....the latter that has been able to cure , defeat ,erase ...many human and other diseases but its core human own .

I wish i could leave this 'science " forum via a positive note , but i cannot , for the above mentioned undeniable reasons at least ...I wish i could thus .....i cannot , otherwise , i would be lying indeed .....or i would be a hypocrit ....as a result .

We don't want the latter , do we ,folks ?

Oh yeah , i do keep forgetting that you have been believeing in a big 'scientific " lie ,you have been taking for granted as science for so long now , a hypocritical  ideological one in the form and shape of the false mainstream materialist 'scientific world view "=THE biggest and worst lie and form of hypocrisy and dishonesty ever ,so, you would not notice the ...difference , if i would happen to be lying or if i would happen to be hypocritical or dishonest about it anyway ....which i am not ,by the way , for your info ...just for the record then, just for the real seeing honest true people watching ,in this land of the blind, land of liars or hypocrits dishonest current false 'scientific world view "  .

How does it feel to have been believing in that 'scientific " hypocritical false and dishonest , not to mention outdated superseded .....lie ever then ?

I don't wanna be in your shoes , guys , never , ever, not in a trillion years to come , not for all the power and glory of this world  : i can't bear such a big lie : THE biggest one ever ,no way ,sorry .

My empathy or sympathy goes to you all in that regard .....no one can or should bear such a big lie , never , ever .......unless deluded ,dishonest hypocritical ,brainwashed indoctrinated or blind ...
...........................
« Last Edit: 25/12/2013 19:15:49 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1395 on: 25/12/2013 19:27:41 »

I am a naive optimist
I think you nailed the naïve part of that self assessment Don......

Quote from: DonQuichotte
I have been  too much of a naive utopian optimist
Surprising, you even repeated that accurate self assessment, astounding!!

Quote from: DonQuichotte
As a so-called scientist , you are nothing but an insult , an obstacle and a silly joke to the evolutionary nature of science in fact .

"Scientific rational logical " people you are , my ass , excuse my French ...
Sounds to me like you're the one making all the insulting remarks SIR DON!!

Quote from: DonQuichotte
Enough reasons to leave this "science " forum

I hear applause in the background, quite loud I might say.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1463
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1396 on: 25/12/2013 19:43:11 »
And it's Isaac Newton's birthday too!

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1449
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1397 on: 25/12/2013 19:53:58 »
...There is a lots of evidence contained in those tons of posted excerpts i have been delivering all along , concerning the undeniable and obvious falsehood of the  mainstream materialist "scientific world view "
Such as? I didn't notice any - please be specific.
( He's asking me to be specific haha : what a silly joke )
True; you haven't been able to give a specific answer yet. A joke indeed.

Quote
: what , on earth , do you think Nagel , Sheldrake , and the rest whose works i have been extensively quoting all along , were  doing then , regarding the undeniable faslehood of the materialist mainstream 'scientific world view "  at least ? haha ,amazing: come on , you gotta be kidding me  .
Ah; now I see the problem - you can't tell the difference between speculation and evidence. No wonder you're so confused [:o)]

Quote
I am a naive optimist...
Can't argue with that [8D]

Quote
I wanna wish you merry christmas and a happy new year , but then again, as die -hard irrational dogmatic materialists ,it would be non-sense to wish you anything at all for that matter , since you cannot be but  mindless heartless soulless insensitive ....hardware machines robots programmed by software ,without any degree of free will , without any real desires , will, emotions, feelings ; love ,conscience , consciousness , ....as such , according to your own materialist false world view thus .
So much for seasonal goodwill. These kinds of disturbed feelings of detachment &  alienation from your fellow man might be better expressed to a qualified counsellor or mental health professional. Just sayin'  [:o]

Quote
Enough reasons to leave this "science " forum
How many times have you left the forum now? I've not been counting...

Last time you said you'd bring back "some challenging material that will be rocking your materialist sand castles , to the point where its sand grains will be flying in all directions ,thanks to the stormy wind that i will be triggering", such rousing hyperbole - but, surprise, surprise, it didn't happen - did the dog eat your homework Don? Did the 'stormy wind' blow it all away? [::)]

Quote
What a hopeless predicament  in which science is the main victim  .

What a serious desillusion delusion for all those people who have been thinking and behaving ,as if science has been truely metaphysically neutral or objective , as one of the "best " sources of ...knowledge ....

How depressingly and hopelessly pathetic  this science delusion has been like no other = the false materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " .
Oops - cheer up, it's Christmas! Guess we'd better scratch the 'optimist' from 'naive optimist'; that leaves plain 'naive'  [;D]
« Last Edit: 25/12/2013 20:38:25 by dlorde »

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1449
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1398 on: 25/12/2013 20:00:40 »
And it's Isaac Newton's birthday too!

Happy birthday Isaac!  - and if his equal and opposite reaction to Don's diatribe is to spin in his grave, I expect he'll keep spinning unless acted on by some external force...  [;)]

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1399 on: 25/12/2013 20:06:16 »
Merry Christmas to you also DonQuichotte, we might as well be charitable where charity is sorely needed. Ohhh yes, and Happy birthday Sir Isaac as well.
« Last Edit: 25/12/2013 20:09:25 by Ethos_ »
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."