[dlorde]

C'mon, these are interesting experimental results; you said there are non-materialist interpretations of them - such as what? what is your interpretation?

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

C'mon, these are interesting experimental results; you said there are non-materialist interpretations of them - such as what? what is your interpretation?

Reread what i said then :

There are none , since all theories of consciousness, including the materialist one , are unfalisfiable = unscientific, but not all are necessarily false , as materialism is .

[dlorde]

Non-materialists might interpret those experiments totally  differently , as they do actually .

... you said there are non-materialist interpretations of them - such as what? what is your interpretation?

There are none ...

[]

'Nuff said.

[Ethos_]

Non-materialists might interpret those experiments totally  differently , as they do actually .

... you said there are non-materialist interpretations of them - such as what? what is your interpretation?

There are none ...

[]

'Nuff said.

Tou-che............................

[RD]

... life is too short .

If "Consciousness Survives Death" as your guru claims then life is not short it's indefinitely long.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

... life is too short .

If "Consciousness Survives Death" as your guru claims then life is not short it's indefinitely long.

I have no guru ,while you do have yours ,in the forms of all those materialist scientists  out there  .
At the other hand , consciousness or the soul does survive death ,to go to the next one : this life is temporary as you will find out about that personally ,soon enough .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Non-materialists might interpret those experiments totally  differently , as they do actually .

... you said there are non-materialist interpretations of them - such as what? what is your interpretation?

There are none ...

[]

'Nuff said.

Tou-che............................

Look who's talking :

Well, do tell us about your own falsifiable = scientific interpretation of those experiments ,genius,  since you are so paradoxical ,absurd ,surreal ...as to both believe in the following mutually exclusive conceptions of nature ,without being able so far to realise that paradox :

You do believe both in the materialist mainstream "all is matter ,including the mind -scientific world view " , and in the immaterial realm out there .....bizarre...

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Non-materialists might interpret those experiments totally  differently , as they do actually .

... you said there are non-materialist interpretations of them - such as what? what is your interpretation?

There are none ...

[]

'Nuff said.

Don't quote me out of context , please :

I said there is no scientific interpretation of those experiments you did mention earlier , since all theories of consciousness or the mind are unfalsifiable = unscientific ,including the materialist ones mainly .

[cheryl j]

In short :

The image of the process is not the cause of the process .

Ironically, this is an unfalsifiable statement that could be applied to anything, even  Popper's example of Einstein's prediction about the effect of gravity on light, and the experiment that confirmed it. No matter what evidence is presented it allows you say there is no causal relationship. But if one really believes that to be the case, it should apply logically to any immaterial process as well.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

the mental is more fundamental than matter

How do you know this? Do you believe that before there were humans to think about the universe, nothing existed or could exist?

Ironically enough , the most physical science of them all , modern physics or quantum mechanics , have been superseding materialism , to the point where they can raise the issue of the fundamental form of causation of them all : that of the mental causal effect on matter :

See this fascinating summary on the subject :


The von Neumann/Wigner interpretation of quantum physics, supported now by the experiments of Schmidt and others, may bring to mind the idealism of Bishop Berkeley, who thought that ordinaryobjects, such as trees and furniture, did not exist unless observed.
But this interpretation does not deny that an external reality exists independent of anyone observing it.
Properties of quantum phenomena are divided into static and dynamic properties, with the former, such as mass and charge, having definite and constant values for any observation.
 It is the dynamic properties, those that do not have constant values— such as position, momentum, and direction of spin—that are thought to exist as
potentialities that become actualities only when observed.
But as quantum theorist Euan Squires points out, this raises a very strange question:
The assumption we are considering appears even more weird when we realize that throughout much of the universe, and indeed throughout all of it in early times, there were presumably no conscious observers. . . .
Even worse are the problems we meet if we accept the modern ideas on the early universe in which quantum decays (of the ‘vacuum,’ but this need not trouble us here) were necessary in order to obtain the conditions in which conscious observers could exist.

Who, or what, did the observations necessary to create the observers?
Squires enters the realm of theology with great trepidation and considers what seems to be the only possibility under this interpretation: that conscious observations can be made by minds outside of the physical universe.

This, of course, is one of the traditional roles of God, or of the gods.
Whether expressed in theological terms or not, the suggestion that conscious minds are in some way connected and that they might even be connected to a form of universal, collective consciousness appears to be a possible solution to the problem of quantum theory.
It is not easy to see what it might mean, as we understand so little about consciousness.
 That there are“ connections” of some sort between conscious minds and physical matter is surely implied by the fact that conscious decisions have effects on matter.

 Thus there are links between conscious minds that go through the medium of physical systems.

Whether there are others, that exploit the nonphysical and presumably nonlocalised nature of consciousness, it is not possible to say.
Some people might wish to mention here the “evidence” for telepathy and similar extra-sensory effects.
Professor Squires concludes his discussion on the role of consciousness in physics with this remark:
It is remarkable that such ideas should arise from a study of the behavior of the most elementary of systems.
 That such systems point to a world beyond themselves is a fact that will be loved by all who believe that there are truths of which we know little,
that there are mysteries seen only by mystics, and that there are phenomena inexplicable within our normal view of what is
possible.
 There is no harm in this—physics indeed points to the unknown.
 The emphasis, however, must be on the unknown,
on the mystery, on the truths dimly glimpsed, on things inexpressible except in the language of poetry, or religion, or
metaphor.

Chris Carter .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Objections of Daniel Dennett :




Daniel Dennett’s book Consciousness Explained has a chapter titled “Why Dualism is Forlorn,” which
begins with the following words: “The idea of mind as distinct from the brain, composed not of
ordinary matter but of some other 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.”49
Dennett then asks, “What, then, is so wrong with dualism? Why is it in such disfavor?” His answer:
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’s own day, and is widely regarded as the inescapable
flaw in dualism.50
Shortly after this, he writes: “This fundamentally antiscientific stance of dualism is, to my mind, it
most disqualifying feature, and is the reason why in this book I adopt the apparently dogmatic rule
that dualism is to be avoided at all costs.”51
Commenting on the argument Dennett presents, Stapp writes,
The argument depends on identifying ‘standard physics’ with classical physics. The argument
collapses when one goes over to contemporary physics, in which 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
mechanics. 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.52 (emphasis in original)
Rosenblum and Kuttner also reject Dennett’s arguments:
Some theorists deny the possibility of duality by arguing that a signal from a non-material mind
could not carry energy and thus could not influence material brain cells. Because of this inability
of a mind to supply energy to influence the neurons of the brain, it is claimed that physics
demonstrates an inescapable flaw of dualism. However, no energy need be involved in
determining to which particular situation a wave function collapses. Thus the determination of
which of the physically possible conscious experiences becomes the actual experience is a
process that need not involve energy transfer. Quantum mechanics therefore allows an escape
from the supposed fatal flaw of dualism. It is a mistake to think that dualism can be ruled out on
the basis of physics.53
Finally, as Broad pointed out decades ago, at a time when quantum mechanics was still in its
infancy, even if all physical-to-physical causation involves transfer of energy, we have no reason to
think that such transfer would also be required in mental-to-physical or physical-to-mental
causation.54 This, of course, is completely consistent with the point made above by Rosenblum and
Kuttner.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

A NEW CONCEPTION OF MATTER:


One of the most striking differences between classical physics and quantum mechanics is the changed
conception of matter. Atoms are no longer thought of as tiny billiard balls that have definite
properties, regardless of whether they are observed. Physicist Werner Heisenberg expressed it this
way:
Atoms are not things. The electrons which form an atom’s shells are no longer things in the sense
of classical physics, things which could be unambiguously described by concepts like location,
velocity, energy, size. When we get down to the atomic level, the objective world in space and
time no longer exists, and the mathematical symbols of theoretical physics refer merely to
possibilities, not to facts.18
Atoms are no longer thought of as “solid, massy, hard, impenetrable moveable particles,” as
Newton described them, but rather as potentialities, possibilities with a wavelike structure that can
interfere like waves. Their dynamic properties are intrinsically linked to the mental. Possibilities that
become fully real only when observed are more like ideas than like tiny, observer-independent billiard
balls. Quantum theorist Henry Stapp has remarked on how the purely physical aspects of reality are no
longer thought of as having the qualities assigned to rocks by classical physics: “In quantum theory
the purely physically described aspects are mere potentialities for real events to occur. A potentiality
is more like an idea than a persisting material substance, and is treated in the theory as ‘an idea of
what might happen.’”19
This new conception of matter, along with nonmechanical causation, is what physicist James Jeans
was referring to when he wrote that “the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a
machine.”20

Chris Carter

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

In short :

The image of the process is not the cause of the process .

Ironically, this is an unfalsifiable statement that could be applied to anything, even  Popper's example of Einstein's prediction about the effect of gravity on light, and the experiment that confirmed it. No matter what evidence is presented it allows you say there is no causal relationship. But if one really believes that to be the case, it should apply logically to any immaterial process as well.

You're confusing apples with oranges , lady :
Einstein's example was about pure physical phenomena ,while no  single  given theory of consciousness out there so far can be falsifiable,simply because any given theory of consciousness is just a matter of its underlying metaphysical world view ,including the materialist theories of consciousness .
Science is not yet able to say anything so far about consciousness ,the latter that's subjective and irreducible to the physical or to the material .

It is in fact very convenient for materialists to assume that "all is matter ,including the mind ", and hence "the mind is in the brain , or the mind is just brain acivity ", and then, they misinterpret scientific experiments on the subject , in order to make them fit into that  false  materialist unfalsifiable a-priori  held concepion of nature .
Materialists should first try to put their false theory of nature or their conception of nature to the test empirically , to see whether or not it turns out to be "falsifiable " ,not the other way around thus .
Besides :
We still do not know yet , for example, what matter exactly is , matter that's not only matter , so to speak , matter that might turn out to be not made of matter ,as some thinker said .

Plus , the mental is more fundamental than matter can ever be : so, i think that the most fundamental form of causation of them all is the mental non-physical one that must be and should be underlying the laws of physics themselves : the non-physical mental or the mind is the one running  the whole show , not the other way around , not matter or the physical brain or body  .

See above .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Since science cannot be metaphysically neutral , and hence since objectivity in science is a myth , scientists will always  have to try to interpret scientific experiments and results within the dominating meta or paradigm of the moment,within the mainstream "scientific world view " of the moment ,untill the latter gets proven to be false and so on,otherwise they would be automatically branded as heretics , pseudo-scientists ,charlatans or worse  ......

Which also means that there is no objective  definite  'scientific world view " out there as well thus,simply because science is just a human activity that gets practiced under the supremacy of the "scientific world view " of the moment ...untill the latter gets successfully falsified ,and so on ...

So, the question is : the question is not to be or not to be haha :
The question is rather :

What makes you, folks , think that the current mainstream materialist 'scientific world view " is true ?,and hence , what makes you think that the materialist "the mind is in the brain, or the mind is just brain's activity " extension of the false materialist conception of nature is true  .
Science is not about the truth though  ,just about conjectures ,or approximate temporary knowledge though.

And how, on earth , are average people supposed to differentiate between the materialistic ideological science of the moment thus , and between the utopian mythical metaphysically neutral science then ? Cannot be done thus .

[dlorde]

Don't quote me out of context , please

I said there is no scientific interpretation of those experiments you did mention earlier

We can all see exactly what you said in post #1181.

But anyway, let's try again:

Non-materialists might interpret those experiments totally  differently , as they do actually .

So how do non-materialists interpret these observations? how do you interpret them?

[cheryl j]

You're confusing apples with oranges , lady :
Einstein's example was about pure physical phenomena ,

By what criteria do you distinguish "purely physical" phenomena from some other kind?
Again, how do you know that any physical causal relationship isn't just "the image" of the process, a "misinterpretation" of what's really happening because of some unknown underlying process - resulting in an infinite regression of "unknown" "underlying" causes.

[cheryl j]

It is in fact very convenient for materialists to assume that "all is matter ,including the mind ", and hence "the mind is in the brain , or the mind is just brain acivity ", and then, they misinterpret scientific experiments on the subject , in order to make them fit into that  false  materialist unfalsifiable a-priori  held concepion of nature .

And conveniently,  you reject any and all evidence, in order to support your a-priori immaterialist conception of nature.

[dlorde]

It is in fact very convenient for materialists to assume that "all is matter ,including the mind ", and hence "the mind is in the brain , or the mind is just brain acivity ", and then, they misinterpret scientific experiments on the subject , in order to make them fit into that  false  materialist unfalsifiable a-priori  held concepion of nature

So what, in your view, is the correct interpretation of those experiments?

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

You're confusing apples with oranges , lady :
Einstein's example was about pure physical phenomena ,

By what criteria do you distinguish "purely physical" phenomena from some other kind?
Again, how do you know that any physical causal relationship isn't just "the image" of the process, a "misinterpretation" of what's really happening because of some unknown underlying process - resulting in an infinite regression of "unknown" "underlying" causes.

I should have said the following instead :

One of the biggest errors ever made in science , is to confuse the image of the process with the cause of the process,especially when it comes to the mind-body relationship  :

Brain's activity is therefore just the image of the process of consciousness, not  its cause,that's analogous to ,not a comparison of course , analogous to confusing the image of lightening in the sky with its cause  :

See this concise and brief explanation of that :

The biggest error ever made in the name of science :

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

It is in fact very convenient for materialists to assume that "all is matter ,including the mind ", and hence "the mind is in the brain , or the mind is just brain acivity ", and then, they misinterpret scientific experiments on the subject , in order to make them fit into that  false  materialist unfalsifiable a-priori  held concepion of nature

So what, in your view, is the correct interpretation of those experiments?

(Once again, since the materialist mainstream "all is matter ,including the mind -scientific world view " is false ,mainly because it cannot account for consciousness , the latter that's irreducible to the physical ,  and since there is also no other faslifiable theory of consciousness out there yet , we can only guess or speculate ,at this stage , at least , regarding how the mind does have causal effects on matter ,brain or body ...and how the brain somehow interacts with consciousness via our senses ...)

The correct explanation, you mean, right ?  " Interpretation" is  an  ideologically loaded a term in fact ,as the major example of the materialist "the mind is in the brain, or the mind is just brain's activity " belief assumption shows ,so, any scientific experiments on the subject of brain-mind or mind-body relationship would be interpreted or rather misinterpreted materialistically ,as to make the empirical evidence fit into the materialist "all is matter ,including the mind " false conception of nature "scientific world view " .

So, those scientific experiments you mentioned were /are designed under the false underlying materialist assumption that consciousness or the mind are just  brain's activity , no wonder then, that they would be misinterpreted materialistically in that sense thus : how convenient thus .

That said :

Just consider for a moment that the mind or consciousness are non-physical ,non-local and more fundamental than matter or brain and body ever can be , and hence the non-local non-physical consciousness has a fundamental non-physical non-local causal effect on matter or on brain and body , in ways we still do not know nothing of : non-local and non-physical mental causal effect on matter that cannot be compared or be analogous to the physical-physical  causal effects  .

So, that detected brain activity  6 secs before the patients' in question  awareness of their own conscious decision making on the subject , in those experiments you mentioned , that detected brain activity prior to that specific conscious process was / is just the image of that specific conscious process , not its cause ,since any given conscious process would require no time space or energy : a bit like the phenomena of light : just an analogy : that take place instantly : when you turn on the light switch , for example ,the  electric current process seems thus to take place millisecs before the appearance of the light in the room .
Something like that , i don't know :
In short :
Since there is still no falsifiable theory of the mind out there , i can only guess at this stage in that regard : we should thus try first to know how the non-physical non-local consciousness has a causal effect on matter , and how matter , brain or body do interact with consciousness via our senses ...