[DonQuichotte (OP)]

... i can jump in in any discussion here whatsoever   ,unless you would mind me doing so, via some sort of weird materialist inquisitory veto of some sort ....

You can jump in anywhere you like; a thoughtful contribution to the discussion would be particularly appreciated, if entirely unexpected...

Haha
No comment ...
 

P.S.: Do you think anti-matter does really exist in space somewhere ?

Yes, of course - in fact there's more antimatter than was expected.

Good

Anti-matter plays a significant role in "Angels and Demons " fictitious thriller by Dan Brown .

Dan Brown tells entertaining stories, but he doesn't let scientific knowledge, accuracy, or plausibility get in the way  []

Why should he or rather  how  can he or anyoneelse for that matter ,including yourself, ironically enough ,be scientifically accurate , since science has been materialist , and hence  a lots of  "scientific "  knowledge has been just materialist bullshit,and scince science can never be metaphysically neutral  .
Look who's talking : a materialist scientist who can neither make the difference between materialism and science nor can stop equating and confusing materialism with science :
Talking about scientific knowledge , accuracy or plausibility ....tragic-hilarious .

How can such an intelligent and erudite scientist such as yourself assume that consciousness is just brain activity , or that consciousness has no effects on matter ?

Lol! yeah, right - so now I've suddenly gone from a narrow-minded idiot hypocrit(sic) materialist whose views and arguments are worthless and which you will not read; and a "false deceptive missionnary jesuit priest selling illusions, delusions , lies ,deceit,  half-truths", to an intelligent and erudite scientist  []

In answer to your question - I've already explained my views on that.

You have explained nothing ,not much in fact , you just delivered mostly materialist bullshit ,and you can be both an intelligent erudite scientist and a complete materialist  delusional  fool idiot at the same time,as Dawkins , Hawking , and other materialists scientists lunatics are  .

why do you reject the subjective nature of QT as explicitly expressed by its founders and by other great minds such as Stapp and others ?

I've already explained my views on that.

You just delivered materialist bullshit on the subject , mostly then, i just had to take a quick look at some sentences from  your specific posts in question  to know it was mostly materialist bullshit , no science  ,so, i don't really read much of your materialists posts , let alone your materialist links , since you can't make the difference between materialism and science , and since you have been equating and confusing them with each other ,so.

How can you deny the undeniable fact that the mind -matter separation is a scientific myth ?, and hence the mind does always intervene in the physical reality

I've already explained my views on that too.

That you appear to have understood very little of it is unfortunate, but rather than ask for explanation, you were typically insulting. Your choice.

I cannot not understand or understand things i do not read , can i ?

You have delivered only materialist bullshit on the subject ,mostly then,  bullshit i already know,most of it then  .

I could equally ask you how you can assert the converse for each of those questions, but I've tried it several times already and you had nothing to offer but insults and uncommented tracts from fringe works.

What do you think all those excerpts i posted so far were about ? , about sex ? amazing ...

If the extreme swings of mood and emotion shown in your posts are an honest reflection of changes in your mental state, I strongly recommend you to see a qualified mental health professional

.

Materialism has been turning you into a lousy scientist delusional fool and into a lousy reader of both people and their words , despite the fact that you do sound like an intelligent erudite scientist ,so, your silly specualtions are just that : speculations :
I get irritated by your constant refusal to listen to what non-reductionists have to say on the subject of mind and matter , among other scientific and other issues ,so ,that's all ,by stubbornly and irrationally sticking to your own false materialist world view which you have been equating and confusing with science .

P.S.: Did i not tell you you were totally uninteresting and irrelevant ? ,despite your scientific paractical work and qualifications, despite the fact that you do sound like an intelligent erudite scientist .

You do not have it in you to be able to change your mind when confronted with non-materialist views ,arguments , evidence , approaches , such as those of Nagel, Sheldrake, Chalmers , and the rest from whose works i have been extensively posting significant excerpts .

What a pathetic waste  ..............

Cognitive human intelligence is certainly not the highest form of  human  intelligence indeed ,as anyone can see that fact reflected on this very thread , for blinds to see ,  and i am afraid i have been just casting priceless pearls before swine , once again ...amazing .

pfff..

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

I don't see the point as it would get lost in all the mud slinging going on. I am sure you will agree. I despair sometimes.

The mud-slinging only relates to one individual

Really ? Who's that individual ? haha

the rest of us have managed a few islands of productive rational discussion in between;

You wish : you have been mostly just delivering materialist bulshit you have been taking for granted as science , but since you have not been able to see the difference ,then , just keep on deluding yourself  then , who cares ?

but I see your point - we need some sensible moderation here...

You rather need some materialist inquisitions or censership to be applied in here .
It 's about time to do just that ,since you cannot appreciate non-reductionist views,and since you cannot but deny the undeniable falsehood of materialism ,the latter that has been taken for granted as science , or as "the scientific world view ", for so long now .

Have fun with those materialist "scientific " delusions of yours then  , who cares .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

So basically what you’re saying is “I expect you to read the excerpts that support my view, but I’m not interested in reading any of your references. Not only that but, if you even raise questions about any of my sources, I won’t discuss it, but simply tell you to re-read it, followed by insults and ridicule for not agreeing with me.”

He was clearer about it here:

... I will not read any materialist views on the subject...

Should i then read all that materialist bullshit that's no science ? of course not, thanks for nothing anyway .

I know almost all about it that my mind's "immune system" cannot but reject it .

You know what ?

I will leave you like-minded materialists to yourselves and to each other for a while to see what that would be producing .

Deal ? ,even though i will not be holding my breath of course .

Impress me then , i am pretty sure you cannot , since materialism is false thus .

I am gonna get away from this suffocating dark materialist place to be able to smell and enjoy some fresh air under the lovely sun .

Bye.

Good luck,and have fun  .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Science will be liberated from materialism, folks ,no doubt about that ,  as the end of materialism is nearer than ever = inevitable = just a matter of time ,so .

Ciao .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

You know what , guys :
Bye .....forever, i mean it this time .
I am not gonna  waste my time and energy for nothing in here  any longer  .Got much better things to do .
"The gain is worth the loss ", you have no idea .
Thanks, appreciate indeed .
All the best .

[alancalverd]

The “scientific worldview”

is a fiction invented by DonQ's favorite authors. There is no such thing.

[dlorde]

Bye .....forever, i mean it this time .

Oh noes; he's gone, for the last time - again!  [)]

[cheryl j]

Yeah, right , materialism has been assuming that consciousness is just neuronal brain activity , silly me .

What has all that to do with science ?

Has the latter ever been able to link our own subjective conscious states experiences ... to  neurons or to ensemble of neurons ? Obviously ...not .

And how can neurochemistry ever give rise to qualitative subjective conscious experiences ,states ...?

How does your collapsing wave do it?

I think the real reason you are cutting out is you've painted yourself into a corner. At some point in your reading of different quantum theorists, you probably realized they aren't suggesting a portal to the Platonic realm of ideas, where conscious agencies frolic about freely.

At best with quantum consciousness you get veto power over brain states representing certain options or scenarios -  you get to decide which materialist process you fancy. You don't really get to entirely opt out of it.

[cheryl j]

Today from Science Daily:

Discovery of Quantum Vibrations in 'Microtubules' Inside Brain Neurons Supports Controversial Theory of Consciousness

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm

(Maybe Don went to the conference in the Netherlands.)

[dlorde]

Today from Science Daily:

Discovery of Quantum Vibrations in 'Microtubules' Inside Brain Neurons Supports Controversial Theory of Consciousness

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm

I think saying this finding 'supports' the theory is too strong. It hasn't falsified the hypothesis. As far as I can see, there's no evidence yet that these 'quantum vibrations' act in the way required by the hypothesis, and nothing to indicate that consciousness requires that activity.

[cheryl j]

One comment that seemed odd was that anesthesia "selectively" affects conscious brain activity. If that was true, you wouldn't really need an anesthesiologist hovering over you in the OR making sure your heart doesn't stop.

[jeffreyH]

Just been reading a Schrodinger biography and he believed in a collective unconsciousness. Just thought I'd add that.

[cheryl j]

Just been reading a Schrodinger biography and he believed in a collective unconsciousness. Just thought I'd add that.

yeah, I've read that too. But I don't know what he meant by it - a genuine pan-psychic belief, or just that brains are hard wired to interpret things in certain ways.

When my daughter was little (about 2 or 3) I asked her: "You know you came out of my tummy, right? But where do you think mom and dad came from?"
 She said "Oh, well, you were a fish that swam in the lake, (we live on an island) and dad was a tree that grew out of the ground." Oddly, she was kind of right. Her dad did grew up here, and I came from somewhere else, across the lake.

[yor_on]

Very interesting link Cheryl. You can relate an idea of consciousness to something involving indeterminacy, although to get to a linearly acting universe, using 'forces' interacting, you need it acting through a locally defined arrow. From a very strict local point of view, without 'observers' involved, it might become a state of indeterminacy. But to get to outcomes I need a arrow.
=

As well as 'frames of reference', interacting.

As for your kids thoughts, they are not that different from our 'older ways' of thinking. The one in where everything has a 'spirit'. She just took it to a new level of consciousness, well, sort of

In such a view, (indeterminacy) we still would need to define how outcomes can come to be, though. It does not take away the arrow we perceive. And yeah, it would make us, and everything else, into the 'universe' observing itself. Which is one I fancy myself

[Tomassci]

I think just neurons and neurotransmitters can make consciousness.

[tkadm30]

I think just neurons and neurotransmitters can make consciousness.

Think again. Plant protoconsciousness is evidence that all living systems are conscious. The essence of life on this planet  is consciousness. Furthermore, antipsychotic drugs are acting on neurotransmitters but may not change your consciousness. It is simply illogical to reduce human consciousness to a pure biological mecanism.

See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3489624/   

[xersanozgen]

This forum needs a section of philosophy/science philosophy.

I looked for a word "energy" in messages but I did not see.

Whereas, everything in universe is originated by energy. We may say that even a knowledge is a derivation of energy.

We can  declare these similar determinations and then we can complete interval of first and last steps (adding little energy to Bose -Einstein density, the synthesis of proteins etc). Energy is forcemajor.