0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Which of these three statements best describes your stance?(1) All aspects of the immaterial can be verified scientifically.(2) Some aspects of the immaterial can be verified scientifically, but others cannot.(3) No aspects of the immaterial can be verified scientifically.
Walker's 'Physics of Consciousness' looks to me like yet another version of 'quantum mechanics is weird and unexplained, consciousness is weird and unexplained, let's mash them together', that makes the common mistake of reifying the wavefunction as something physical that must be 'collapsed' by an observer. I found Penrose's quantum microtubules more interesting (though equally unsustainable). But that's just my take on it - here's a couple of reviews that point out some other flaws:Donald - Cavendish LaboratoryVanderman - Neuroquantology.
Quote from: dlorde on 29/11/2013 09:56:56Walker's 'Physics of Consciousness' looks to me like yet another version of 'quantum mechanics is weird and unexplained, consciousness is weird and unexplained, let's mash them together', that makes the common mistake of reifying the wavefunction as something physical that must be 'collapsed' by an observer. I found Penrose's quantum microtubules more interesting (though equally unsustainable). But that's just my take on it - here's a couple of reviews that point out some other flaws:Donald - Cavendish LaboratoryVanderman - Neuroquantology.I'd be facinated if consciousness involved quantum mechanics. I've read articles about quantum mechanics in olfaction and in photosynthesis. But if one is just looking to use quantum mechanics as a bridge to the mystical, I think they will be dissatisfied with the outcome in the end, and it won't necessarily endow consciousness with the qualities they are hoping for. And it seems odd that all along that the argument was that consciousness is not physical, it's not in the brain, so it doesn't have to obey the laws of physics, but now suddenly, the argument is "The brain is a physical entity and we have no reason to suppose that it evades the rules of quantum physics."
It shouldn't surprise any one of us that Mr. D...............has chosen to use this tactic. In an effort to evade answering these challenges, to coin football slang, 'He keeps moving the goal post'.
Quote from: Ethos_ on 29/11/2013 17:31:06It shouldn't surprise any one of us that Mr. D...............has chosen to use this tactic. In an effort to evade answering these challenges, to coin football slang, 'He keeps moving the goal post'. He can move the goal post to any position he likes, but I don't see how using quantum mechanics as a bridge to some mystical version of the homunculuscircumvents any of the logical contradictions arising from the previous model of the homunculus.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 28/11/2013 20:41:17Is the elusive physical so-called unified theory of "everything " = nothing not try to explain everything ,just in terms of physics and chemistry ?No. Because there is no such thing as "the theory of everything =nothing" You made it up.
Is the elusive physical so-called unified theory of "everything " = nothing not try to explain everything ,just in terms of physics and chemistry ?
Quote from: dlorde on 29/11/2013 09:56:56Walker's 'Physics of Consciousness' looks to me like yet another version of 'quantum mechanics is weird and unexplained, consciousness is weird and unexplained, let's mash them together', that makes the common mistake of reifying the wavefunction as something physical that must be 'collapsed' by an observer. I found Penrose's quantum microtubules more interesting (though equally unsustainable). But that's just my take on it - here's a couple of reviews that point out some other flaws:Donald - Cavendish LaboratoryVanderman - Neuroquantology.I'd be fascinated if consciousness involved quantum mechanics, and I think it would result in a whole new level of understanding as far as how it works. I've read articles about quantum mechanics in olfaction and in photosynthesis. But if people are just looking to use quantum mechanics as a bridge to the mystical, I think they will be dissatisfied with the outcome in the end, and it won't necessarily endow consciousness with the qualities they are hoping for. And it seems odd that all along that the argument was that consciousness is not physical, it's not in the brain, so it doesn't have to obey the laws of physics, but now suddenly, the argument is "The brain is a physical entity and we have no reason to suppose that it evades the rules of quantum physics."
Greyson has also elaborated on this confusion. He states, “Materialists often claim credit for thescientific advances of the past few centuries. But it is the scientific method of empirical hypothesistesting, rather than a materialistic philosophy, that has been responsible for the success of science inexplaining the world.
Quote from: Supercryptid on 29/11/2013 06:07:24Which of these three statements best describes your stance?(1) All aspects of the immaterial can be verified scientifically.(2) Some aspects of the immaterial can be verified scientifically, but others cannot.(3) No aspects of the immaterial can be verified scientifically.I asked essentially the same question in regards to the material, or chemistry and physics, and Don said I was "playing the silly wise girl." It seemed like a pretty straight forward question to me:1)Some things can, but others can’t be explained by chemistry or physics or 2)Everything always involves an immaterial explanation, even if there is sometimes chemistry and physics involved in the process, or3)Chemistry and physics do not explain anything that happens. They do not matter at all, they are irrelevant. They explain nothing. They explain nothing by themselves or even when combined with a immaterial explanation.
...NDE ...
... it is the scientific method of empirical hypothesis testing, rather than a materialistic philosophy, that has been responsible for the success of science in explaining the world.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 29/11/2013 18:36:25Greyson has also elaborated on this confusion. He states, “Materialists often claim credit for thescientific advances of the past few centuries. But it is the scientific method of empirical hypothesistesting, rather than a materialistic philosophy, that has been responsible for the success of science inexplaining the world.True, but it's kind of a silly argument. That's like saying that one could be a gourmet chef and prepare a meal without actually using any ingredients or cooking utensils. Sure, you can invent imaginary recipes, but that's as far as you'll get.
If you strip scientists of material tools and methods, exclude their senses or instruments that extend them, exclude the very material itself that one is observing or testing, there is no way to gather empirical evidence or test your predictions.
Quote from: cheryl j on 29/11/2013 19:48:25Quote from: DonQuichotte on 29/11/2013 18:36:25Greyson has also elaborated on this confusion. He states, “Materialists often claim credit for thescientific advances of the past few centuries. But it is the scientific method of empirical hypothesistesting, rather than a materialistic philosophy, that has been responsible for the success of science inexplaining the world.True, but it's kind of a silly argument. That's like saying that one could be a gourmet chef and prepare a meal without actually using any ingredients or cooking utensils. Sure, you can invent imaginary recipes, but that's as far as you'll get. You still do not get it yet , amazing :That's what i have been saying all along : all scientific achievements were /are being and will be accomplished by scientists, whether they happen to be materialists or non-materialists ( Many great scientists were / are and will be religious ones , for example : Newton and many others ) , all scientific achievements thus were / are being / and will be accomplished by scientists just through, and just thanks to, the effective and unparalled scientific method that's like no other = materialism as a false ideology has absolutely nothing to do with all those scientific achievements indeed .
... I am not really interested in parasychology or in any so-called psychic phenomena ...
... but that does not mean they [psychic phenomena] are necessarily false: they might either turn out to be false or true , either way : that's something that must be left to science ...
First established in 1957, the PA has been an affiliated organization of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) since 1969. The PA is a non-profit, non-adjudicating organization that endorses no ideologies or beliefs other than the value of rigorous scientific and scholarly inquiry.
PEAR Lab Closes, Ending Decades of Psychic ResearchThe Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) group is shutting down after some twenty-eight years of searching for proof of the paranormal. On February 10, 2007, PEAR issued a press release that stated, in part: “The PEAR program was established at Princeton University in 1979 by Robert G. Jahn, then Dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Science, to pursue rigorous scientific study of the interaction of human consciousness with sensitive physical devices, systems, and processes common to contemporary engineering practice.