0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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."
... have better falsifiable theories on the subject then, since the immaterial mind cannot be in the physical brain , since the immaterial mind cannot be the "product " of the physical brain's activity ?
.... what makes you think that "all is matter ,including the mind " ? : that's just the false materialist conception of nature, no empirical fact .
Otherwise , try to prove to the people here that "all is matter , including the mind " then ?
Amazing ....
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 29/11/2013 20:46:01... have better falsifiable theories on the subject then, since the immaterial mind cannot be in the physical brain , since the immaterial mind cannot be the "product " of the physical brain's activity ?The words are English, but the sentence is gibberish - care to rephrase it so it makes sense? Quote.... what makes you think that "all is matter ,including the mind " ? : that's just the false materialist conception of nature, no empirical fact .You seem to have a knack of clumsy and inaccurate generalisations. My position is that all the evidence I've seen indicates that the mind, including consciousness, is a product of interacting processes of material origin. We've already posted some of that evidence; I've said this all before, but for me there are two complementary sides to it: positive circumstantial evidence, and negative circumstantial evidence:Positive - the experimental and observational evidence that specific physical influence or damage to the brain produces consistent and specific effects on consciousness that are inconsistent with the idea that consciousness is an external influence on the brain, and entirely consistent with the idea that it is internally generated.Negative - the lack of any indications in the neurophysiology or structural anatomy of the brain of support for any interface to an external controlling consciousness, and the lack of any evidence of such control during years of observation from whole brain level down to the function of individual neurons. Despite years of parapsychological research, and years of experimental physics with the most sensitive instruments, no evidence of any immaterial influences has been confirmed; there is no model or even coherent definition for the immaterial, or for how consciousness can be part of it. The basic idea of the immaterial affecting the material is itself incoherent, but if you try to define something in terms of what it isn't, these are the kinds of problems you'll get.QuoteOtherwise , try to prove to the people here that "all is matter , including the mind " then ? Why on Earth would I want to do that? Science isn't about proof, it's about explanatory models with utility and predictive power. If you suggest ways by which the 'immaterial hypothesis' can be tested, i.e. how it is falsifiable, and describe how it has greater utility, explanatory, and predictive power than the current materialistic models, I'm sure people will jump at the chance to make history. As it is, you're just parrotting an unsupported (and apparently unsupportable) assumption that consciousness can't have a material origin - contradicting all available evidence; and the lame straw man that mainstream science is about absolute truths and facts. Both assertions are full of holes, and won't hold water. You've ignored repeated requests to support any of your assertions with evidence or reasonable argument, but you can't. You're a timewaster. QuoteAmazing ....Thanks []
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 29/11/2013 20:26:16Quote 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 .And you still cannot explain how you would construct an experiment to test the immaterial, which you said repeatedly is impossible. Hence, Popper's article is useless for your purposes, as is quantum mechanics since you've thoroughly explained that the immaterial and the mental is not in the brain, is not physical. It "escapes the laws of physics" is, I believe, the phrase you used a few pages ago. You've painted yourself into a corner.
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 .
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.
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.
I must also admit that it is indeed inconceivable at this stage,and in this time and age ,to imagine how the immaterial consciousness can effect the physical brain,or vice versa , the physical brain that has to obey to the laws of physics anyway and either way ...Maybe , some genius in the future will be able to solve that mystery puzzle .Who knows ?
Note that science should be in fact metaphysically neutral ,not materialist or otherwise , but that's just an utopia .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 30/11/2013 17:25:46I must also admit that it is indeed inconceivable at this stage,and in this time and age ,to imagine how the immaterial consciousness can effect the physical brain,or vice versa , the physical brain that has to obey to the laws of physics anyway and either way ...Maybe , some genius in the future will be able to solve that mystery puzzle .Who knows ?We're all holding our collective breath...................NOT
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 30/11/2013 17:00:37Note that science should be in fact metaphysically neutral ,not materialist or otherwise , but that's just an utopia . It is. But you aren't looking for neutrality. You're looking for total acceptance of your beliefs by everyone in the field. Earlier you said, "all scientific achievements were /are being and will be accomplished by scientists, whether they happen to be materialists or non-materialists." Let's set aside for the moment the fact that "non-materialist" scientists, those who might have believed in God, didn't incorporate the immaterial into their actual scientific work. If you acknowledge that scientists have made valid discoveries in chemistry and physics, there's nothing false about what they did or do. If your complaint is that science should encourage more studies about the immaterial, fine. No ones hands are tied from doing just that, unless you believe in some kind of conspiracy against it. Nevertheless, there's certainly no way of preventing someone from thinking up experimental designs to test the immaterial.Lets say that some rich person left you, DonQuichotte, a large sum of money to fund such research. What aspect of the immaterial would you choose to study, and how would you design an experiment to test it? Have any of your sources described specific experiments they would do if they had the opportunity and funding?
Wrong :The false "all is matter ,including the mind " mainstream materialist "scientific world view " does exclude , per definition , a priori and per se any scientific attempts to deal with consciousness as a non-physical process : see how the current majority of the mainstream scientific priesthood have been dealing with Sheldrake and co ,for example .
Folks : This is "dynamite ", this is "controlled demolition " of materialism by an ex-materialist : This might be the last nail to be knocked on the coffin of materialism : Enjoy
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 30/11/2013 16:47:32Folks : This is "dynamite ", this is "controlled demolition " of materialism by an ex-materialist : This might be the last nail to be knocked on the coffin of materialism : Enjoy Your "dynamite" looks like an introduction to his book, which outlines what he is about to discuss. Since you've read it, what is the empirical evidence for his theory about how consciousness works? How does he propose to test his newer ideas?
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 30/11/2013 17:44:34Wrong :The false "all is matter ,including the mind " mainstream materialist "scientific world view " does exclude , per definition , a priori and per se any scientific attempts to deal with consciousness as a non-physical process : see how the current majority of the mainstream scientific priesthood have been dealing with Sheldrake and co ,for example .Sheldrake has received the treatment he has because he has offered no evidence for his theories; they are un-testable, unfalsifiable. So his work so far has been relegated to pseudoscience, just as Popper says a theory like that should be. Comets are discovered by amateur astronomers, whose equipment is not as big and fancy as research institution's. They may also lack advanced degrees or published papers. But their findings are taken seriously. Why? Because when other astronomers look, they can see the same thing. Regardless of what a priori assumptions you think exist in the minds of scientists, if the evidence is there, people pay attention.
Guys :See here below "The conscious mind ..." By David J.Chalmers , especially the comments there below :https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/144960.The_Conscious_Mind