Major Bombshell : Manifesto For A Post-Materialistic Science :

  • 1132 Replies
  • 194143 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4893
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
So what does the "nonmaterialist theory of reality" predict?
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
So what does the "nonmaterialist theory of reality" predict?

The ...future  .
Well, it has much more explanatory power than the materialist fundamentally false one :  a bit  like how the probabilistic non-local dualistic quantum world view has proven to have more explanatory power than the classical determinist mechanical Newtonian world view .

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Cheryl, alancalverd :
This will rock your false  materialist world view : Why Science Must Become Non-Materialist  ? : 


Excerpt from "Brain Wars ..." By Canadian neuroscientist Mario Beauregard :



Conclusion :

A Great Shift in Consciousness:

"The Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine."
—PHYSICIST AND ASTRONOMER JAMES JEANS

In the quantum universe—in which we increasingly live—there is no mind-brain problem because there is no radical separation between the mental world and the physical world. The new paradigm is here; we just need to open our eyes. It is my fervent hope that Brain Wars will be an important part of that process.
The wealth of scientific studies you have read about in the chapters of this book indicate that our thoughts, beliefs, and emotions can greatly influence what is happening in our brains and bodies and play a key role in our health and well-being:
Norman Cousins was one of a number of people who have demonstrated that our beliefs and expectations about medical treatments can stimulate our self-healing capacity, even in diseases as severe as cancer and Parkinson’s disease. And recent research suggests that our thoughts and emotions can even affect how our bodies can turn certain genes on or off.
Jake’s success in controlling his seizures and behaviors is one of many examples of how we can use neurofeedback to deliberately change brain processes that are normally not under voluntary control and improve our mental functions. As you have seen, other studies show that we can intentionally train our minds—through meditative practices—to enhance the activity of brain areas implicated in emotional well-being, compassion, and attention. Meditative practices can even alter the physical structure of the brain.
Our minds can be extremely powerful—far more powerful than we thought only a few decades ago.
The effects of the mind and mental abilities are not limited to the confines of the body. For instance, psi studies show that we can sometimes receive meaningful information without the use of ordinary senses and in ways that transcend the habitual space and time constraints. Still other psi research demonstrates that we can intentionally influence—at a distance—not only random number generators but living organisms, including human beings.
NDE studies show that people like Pam Reynolds can have veridical perceptions—corroborated by independent witnesses—during OBEs triggered by a cardiac arrest. These perceptions concern events that occur while the heart is not functioning. We know that the activity of the brain ceases within a few seconds following a cardiac arrest. Given this, the findings of NDE research strongly challenge the idea that mind is “only” a product of brain activity, giving rather more credence to the view that mind may be dependent on the brain “much as a radio transmission is dependent upon a receiver and broadcast unit.”
 Additionally, the mystical (or transcendental) component of NDEs occurring during a cardiac arrest supports the idea that the brain usually acts as a filter that prevents the perception of what could be dubbed other realms of reality. This aspect of NDEs also corroborates the idea that we are more than our physical bodies.
Mental activity is not the same as brain activity, and we are not “meat puppets,” totally controlled by our brains, our genes, and our environments.
 Indeed, our minds and our consciousness can significantly affect events occurring in the brain and body, and outside the body.
We do have these immensely important capacities, and it is time for science to begin taking them seriously. But for this to happen, science—and all of us—must change the lens through which we view reality.
Fortunately, the scientific enterprise (as a method, not as materialist ideology) allows for all of these
possibilities, and infinitely more.
Materialist science, based on the classical Newtonian physics, took science out of the Dark Ages, showing us a world no one had ever seen before. Now there is another heretofore invisible world for us to see, one that the dogmas of materialist science obscure but that is brought into focus by the discoveries of quantum physics.
Toward the end of the nineteenth century, it became obvious that classical physics was limited; it was just not able to explain certain phenomena at the atomic level.
The acknowledgment of these limitations led to the development of a revolutionary new branch of physics called quantum mechanics (QM), which smashed the scientific materialist worldview. In the words of theoretical physicist Amit Goswami, QM is “a new paradigm of science based on the primacy of consciousness. .
. . The new paradigm resolves many paradoxes of the old paradigm and explains much anomalous data.”
The work of QM has effectively dematerialized the classical universe by showing that it is not made of minuscule billiard balls, as drawings of atoms and molecules would lead us to believe.
QM has shown that atoms and subatomic particles are not really objects—they do not exist with certainty at definite spatial locations and definite times. Rather, they show “tendencies to exist,” forming a world of potentialities within the quantum domain.
Werner Heisenberg, winner of the 1932 Nobel Prize in Physics, explained, “The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real, they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.”
The quantum world appears different from the physical world, but some elements may sound familiar. For example, a central feature of QM is called the observer effect: particles being observed and the observer—the physicist and the method used for observation—are linked, and the results of the observation are influenced by the observer’s conscious intent. This effect implies that the consciousness of the observer is vital to the existence of the physical events being observed.
 In otherwords, QM acknowledges that the physical world cannot be fully understood without making reference to mind and consciousness.7
In QM, the physical world is thus no longer viewed as the primary or sole component of reality.
Most contemporary physicists agree with Wolfgang Pauli—one of the founders of QM—that the physical and the psychological, physis and psyche, should be recognized and embraced as distinct but complementary aspects of one reality.
 Regarding this issue, the mathematician and physicist John von Neumann raised the possibility that mind and consciousness constitute not an emergent property but rather a fundamental component of the universe. Regardless of whether it is the case, QM teaches us that we must consider mind and consciousness if we are to reach a more adequate conception of nature and reality.
Nonlocality (or nonseparability)—which Albert Einstein memorably referred to as “spooky actions at a distance”—is another remarkable discovery of QM. This concept is based on entanglement, the instantaneous connections that persist between particles (such as photons, electrons) that interacted physically and then become separated. These connections remain even if the particles are separated by enormous distances (for instance, billions of light-years). This counterintuitive aspect of nature has been demonstrated experimentally in a number of labs since the beginning of the 1970s. Nonlocality and entanglement suggest that the universe constitutes an undivided whole.
Naturally, contemporary materialists strongly disagree with the conclusion that scientific materialism has failed and is currently breaking down. They argue that sooner or later, neuroscience will be able to completely explain mind and consciousness. These materialists do not seem to realize that future technological development will only allow neuroscientists to measure more refined correlates of mental activity.
Belief in the materialist worldview compels certain scientists and philosophers to neglect the subjective dimension of human experience and downplay the importance of mind and consciousness.
In so doing, they create a severely distorted and impoverished understanding of human beings and reality.
Materialist scientists and philosophers are also led to consider certain phenomena such as psi, NDE, and mystical experiences (MEs) as anomalous. These phenomena are anomalous only to the extent
that we cling to the false assumptions of scientific materialism. Seen and understood through the lens of QM, most of these phenomena do not appear anomalous at all. So-called paranormal events are, in effect, perfectly normal.
Physicists were forced to abandon the assumptions of classical physics and the scientific materialist worldview nearly a century ago, but the battles of the brain wars are still being fought by many neuroscientists. The time has come for my colleagues to embrace the many possibilities of the universe opened by the new physics and free their minds from the shackles and blinders of the scientific materialist credo.
The expanded model of reality you have read about in this book offers infinite and exciting concepts for science—and you—to freely explore:
• This model acknowledges all the empirical evidences related to mind and consciousness, not only those that appear at first sight to be compatible with materialist theories.
• It includes the mental and the physical, the subjective and the objective, the first-person perspective, and the third-person perspective.
• It assumes that mind and consciousness are a prerequisite for reality because they allow us to perceive and experience the world. Stated otherwise, they represent an aspect of reality as fundamental as the physical world.
• It assumes that mind and the physical world are continually interacting because they are not really separated—they only appear to be separated. This means that there is a deep interconnectedness between the mental world and the physical world, which both arise out of the same source. This basic interconnectedness renders the mind capable of influencing various phenomena and events belonging to the physical world. Information may act as a bridge between these complementary aspects of reality. Some physicists go as far as to suggest that the whole of reality can be seen as a pattern of information.
• It assumes that mind and consciousness are not produced by the brain. This idea suggests that mental functions and personality can survive physical death.
In other respects, MEs indicate that we are not encapsulated within our brains and bodies but, rather, connected—within the deepest levels of the psyche—with everything in the universe, as well as with the underlying source giving birth to both mind and matter. In this way, MEs represent a direct, intuitive apprehension of the undivided wholeness.
The scientific evidence you have read about in this book makes two things clear: scientific materialism is just plain false, and we humans are not powerless, biochemical machines. Together with exciting possibilities of the quantum universe, this evidence tells us that it is time to enlarge our concept of the natural world to reintegrate mind and consciousness.
This emerging scientific model of reality—this new paradigm of what is possible—has far-reaching implications. Perhaps most important, it fundamentally alters the vision we have of ourselves, giving us back our dignity and power, as humans and as scientists.
We are no longer at the mercy of Big Pharma: in many instances we can willfully choose to positively influence our health and mental functioning by being aware of our thoughts and emotions, and by training our brains.
Scientists, free of the materialist box, are now invited to embark on research into the whole gamut of psi phenomena, expanded and altered consciousness, and spiritual experiences.
Last but not least, the new paradigm fosters positive values such as compassion, respect, and peace.
By emphasizing a deep connection between ourselves and nature at large, it also promotes environmental awareness and the preservation of our biosphere.
When mind and consciousness are recognized as one, we are again connected to ourselves, to each other, to our planet, and to the universe.
A great shift in consciousness has begun, bringing with it a profound transformation of our world.
« Last Edit: 15/10/2014 18:27:40 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
David Cooper :

One of the main gateways to consciousness has been ...quantum physics : See the excerpt above .
You should study QM thus  . Cheers .

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1463
    • View Profile
Cheryl, alancalverd  ...  :

I am in fact no full  fan of US ID or of any other theory of nature or beyond .....I never stick to any theory of nature , knowledge , models ...or beyond, a full  100 % , so to speak , since all knowledge is hypothetical , including the scientific one,and can thus never proven to be "true ", ever   .


Back peddling.


Quote

That said :

Neither of you did address the above key mentioned  issues or objections  raised by either my earlier posts ,or  by that  excerpt of Meyer here above , concerning Darwinism , the origin of life , life information ...,


Yes, we did. Go back and read it.

Quote
Nobody is denying that there is some form of natural selection at work through mutations ....

Well, I'm glad you concede that much at least.

Quote
It's just that natural selection ( Analogous to the mysterious  " invisible hand " of the market lol ) cannot account for the rich diversity and complexity of life , let alone for the added biological or life information that's necessary to account for novel forms and novel body plans ....to mention just that .

You keep saying "it can't account for" but are unable to explain specifically why or what can't be accounted for. We've already given you examples of macroevolution.

Quote

Not to mention the Cambrian explosion where whole complex species appeared suddenly without preexisting simpler forms or simpler ancestors ,and where the fossil record or evidence contradicted Darwinism .
Darwin himself was puzzled by that and admitted that he could find no explanation to that , and that his theory might turn out to be false  ,if future scientists wouldn't be able to solve that Cambrian dilemma ,for example .
Many attempts have been conducted so far to solve the Cambrian dilemma ,since Darwin, up to this date , in vain still ,as far as i can tell at least .


Here is some information to update you since the 1800s about the Cambrian explosion.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090108082914.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061209083521.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130912131753.htm





*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1463
    • View Profile


P.S.: Cheryl :

How about the surgery you seem to have been gone through ? It did go well, i see . I am glad for you .Nice to have you back .


Yes, doing better, thanks. Not moving around too much, but home from the hospital, and reading, sketching, and a lot of sleeping, with my cats to keep me company.

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1463
    • View Profile
Cheryl, alancalverd :
This will rock your false  materialist world view : Why Science Must Become Non-Materialist  ? : 


Excerpt from "Brain Wars ..." By Canadian neuroscientist Mario Beauregard :



All of this seems based on a false dichotomy. That the "mental" affects the physiological processes of the body is only evidence of some non-material mechanism if you believe that mental processes do not arise from the physical.

Sensory information, whether it's a physical threat, bad news, a stressful environment - is transmitted through the nervous system, processed in the brain, and undoubtedly has physiological effects on the rest of the body via nervous system, hormones, etc. This is well understood and not magical. Likewise the positive effects of meditation can also be explained without resorting to anything immaterial or mystical.

The idea that our internal thoughts, imagery, emotions have physiological effects is also not a violation of materialism. There is no contradiction in the idea of "top down control" or the whole constraining the parts. The brain contains a wealth of two way tracts, up and down communication. (I am not referring to sensory/motor systems, but processing in brain itself)
The flow of information from higher- to lower-order cortical areas plays a role equal in importance to the feedforward pathways.  In this respect, there is no starting point for information flow - that is - you cannot point to a part of the loop and say the beginning or stimulus is here, and the effect is there.

There is no need to invoke the supernatural to explain how our conscious thoughts affect other aspects of brain function or physiology. On the other hand, suggesting that people can cure their cancer with a positive attitude is cruel and reckless and no different than believing that I can fix the transmission in my car by thinking happy thoughts about it.

Here is a critique of Beauregard's work.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non-materialist_neuroscience


*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4893
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
So what does the "nonmaterialist theory of reality" predict?

The ...future  .


Full marks for a statement worthy of  Sam Goldwyn at his best. I won't even mutter "tautology" if you can give me one actual example.

I can't waste time reading the rest of the stuff because it talks about "consciousness" which is undefined.
« Last Edit: 15/10/2014 23:59:34 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
So what does the "nonmaterialist theory of reality" predict?

The ...future  .


Full marks for a statement worthy of  Sam Goldwyn at his best. I won't even mutter "tautology" if you can give me one actual example.

I can't waste time reading the rest of the stuff because it talks about "consciousness" which is undefined.

"Predict the future " was just a metaphor (Science is full of metaphors like the natural selection, the machine or computer metaphors regarding the nature of life  ...)  , in the sense that the future non-materialist science will be having more explanatory power than the current materialist science : the already born and prospering non-materialist science has already been proving that : see the excerpt above on the subject .

Consciousness is a key component or a key "building block " of this universe ,and a primary one at that , that is , so, science has no choice but to integrate it in any scientific theory of reality or nature , so .

That consciousness cannot be defined clearly is no argument against approaching it scientifically ( We can't define what electricity is , for example, but we know what it does and how it works , how it can be stored , generated ...) : see how quantum physics has been opening a gateway to consciousness .

Science will not stop trying to explain phenomena or processes it cannot define clearly , otherwise , science would have 'shut its doors " a long time ago ....

« Last Edit: 16/10/2014 18:16:43 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Cheryl, alancalverd :
This will rock your false  materialist world view : Why Science Must Become Non-Materialist  ? : 


Excerpt from "Brain Wars ..." By Canadian neuroscientist Mario Beauregard :



All of this seems based on a false dichotomy. That the "mental" affects the physiological processes of the body is only evidence of some non-material mechanism if you believe that mental processes do not arise from the physical.

Sensory information, whether it's a physical threat, bad news, a stressful environment - is transmitted through the nervous system, processed in the brain, and undoubtedly has physiological effects on the rest of the body via nervous system, hormones, etc. This is well understood and not magical. Likewise the positive effects of meditation can also be explained without resorting to anything immaterial or mystical.

The idea that our internal thoughts, imagery, emotions have physiological effects is also not a violation of materialism. There is no contradiction in the idea of "top down control" or the whole constraining the parts. The brain contains a wealth of two way tracts, up and down communication. (I am not referring to sensory/motor systems, but processing in brain itself)
The flow of information from higher- to lower-order cortical areas plays a role equal in importance to the feedforward pathways.  In this respect, there is no starting point for information flow - that is - you cannot point to a part of the loop and say the beginning or stimulus is here, and the effect is there.

There is no need to invoke the supernatural to explain how our conscious thoughts affect other aspects of brain function or physiology. On the other hand, suggesting that people can cure their cancer with a positive attitude is cruel and reckless and no different than believing that I can fix the transmission in my car by thinking happy thoughts about it.

Here is a critique of Beauregard's work.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non-materialist_neuroscience

First of all :

 There was not even a hint or  any  implicit allusion whatsoever to any 'supernatural " intervention in the above displayed excerpt, regarding the mind-body interaction  : the non-physical non-local nature of consciousness is perfectly normal , not "super or paranormal " .

Quantum physics has been opening revolutionary gateways that can account for  psi and other phenomena like the placebo/nocebo effects and more , in total contrast with what the materialist false theory of reality  wanna make people believe reality is .

Quantum physics has been proving that consciousness is a key component or a key "building block " of this universe , and a primary one at that , that is ,so, consciousness must be integrated in any serious scientific theory of reality .Science has no choice but to do that , if science wanna try to deliver some relatively accurate reflection or representation of reality , instead of that materialist false and distorted version of reality .

Materialists just resort to branding non-materialist world views as some forms of "supernatural " , just because they reject the materialist false world view in science .

When you would consider all those "paranormal " phenomena like psi phenomena from the non-materialist perspective , they would appear to you as they are in reality : perfectly normal .

Only from the materialist perspective do they seem to be 'supernatural " , simply because they cannot be explained materialistically via material processes . The latter are  just one part or one level of reality , not the whole part .

In fact , there is no separate matter and separate consciousness : they are inseparable = our "reality " is psycho-physical ,as one of the founders of quantum physics , Pauli , used to say, for example .

Quantum physics has even proved that there is no matter as such : has revolutionized our classical or conventional Newtonian conception of what matter might be .

What are you talking about then ? Go re-read that excerpt  once more , because you clearly did not understand what Beauregard  was talking about .

For example, some forms of materialism assume that consciousness is just a product of the evolutionary complexity of the brain , just an epiphenomena , a side effect of evolution without (absurd )   any causal effects on matter brain or body :  How can then consciousness trigger or have influence on the physical reality, on the self-directed neuro-plasticity ...How can meditation through consciousness have influence on the brain , body ...How can consciousness work through neurofeedback ...?
How can the placebo or nocebo effects be explained in materialistic terms ?
How can belief that shapes consciousness have influence on our biology , brain and even genes ?, heal our bodies ? ... if the mind has no causal effects on matter brain or body . as those materialist lunatics wanna make us believe it is ? , or if the mind is in the brain or just brain activity ...

Just re-read that above displayed excerpt more carefully then .




« Last Edit: 16/10/2014 19:26:12 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile


P.S.: Cheryl :

How about the surgery you seem to have been gone through ? It did go well, i see . I am glad for you .Nice to have you back .


Yes, doing better, thanks. Not moving around too much, but home from the hospital, and reading, sketching, and a lot of sleeping, with my cats to keep me company.

I am happy for you , Cheryl . Nice recovery .Best wishes .

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Cheryl, alancalverd  ...  :

I am in fact no full  fan of US ID or of any other theory of nature or beyond .....I never stick to any theory of nature , knowledge , models ...or beyond, a full  100 % , so to speak , since all knowledge is hypothetical , including the scientific one,and can thus never proven to be "true ", ever   .


Back peddling.


Quote

That said :

Neither of you did address the above key mentioned  issues or objections  raised by either my earlier posts ,or  by that  excerpt of Meyer here above , concerning Darwinism , the origin of life , life information ...,


Yes, we did. Go back and read it.

Quote
Nobody is denying that there is some form of natural selection at work through mutations ....

Well, I'm glad you concede that much at least.

Quote
It's just that natural selection ( Analogous to the mysterious  " invisible hand " of the market lol ) cannot account for the rich diversity and complexity of life , let alone for the added biological or life information that's necessary to account for novel forms and novel body plans ....to mention just that .

You keep saying "it can't account for" but are unable to explain specifically why or what can't be accounted for. We've already given you examples of macroevolution.

Quote

Not to mention the Cambrian explosion where whole complex species appeared suddenly without preexisting simpler forms or simpler ancestors ,and where the fossil record or evidence contradicted Darwinism .
Darwin himself was puzzled by that and admitted that he could find no explanation to that , and that his theory might turn out to be false  ,if future scientists wouldn't be able to solve that Cambrian dilemma ,for example .
Many attempts have been conducted so far to solve the Cambrian dilemma ,since Darwin, up to this date , in vain still ,as far as i can tell at least .


Here is some information to update you since the 1800s about the Cambrian explosion.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090108082914.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061209083521.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130912131753.htm

First of all :

Thanks for your above displayed links regarding the Cambrian explosion ,appreciate indeed .I did not have time enough to study them more closely , and research about them .

Second : macro-evolution cannot be extrapolated from micro-evolution , simply because the natural selection cannot account for the  added biological information that's necessary for "building " novel forms and novel body plans, not to mention that the highly unlikely blind unguided random lottery of the natural selection can never account for all that complexity and diversity of life on earth , via gradual, step by step , trial and error attempts , so to speak ( Not in trillions of years or more thus, so to speak  ) : that's mathematically impossible , not to mention that even computer science has proved that  gradual  simple or small random variations cannot account for or ever lead to large scale variations : random variations can work only in a limited small way  .

Many biologists have been doubting the creative power of the natural selection , as that excerpt of Meyer showed ,and much more : Go back and re-read it more carefully , please .

I will even supply you with more relevant excerpts on the subject as well, if you want to .

That's all i have time for right now , sorry .
I am in the middle of something , so, please forgive me for not having time to elaborate on this or on the rest here above .

P.S.: All my posted comments of today were written very quickly ,due to my tight time -framework right now , so, my apologies for the inevitable errors you might encounter while reading them .

Thanks for your time, efforts , and replies , appreciate indeed .

Take care .
« Last Edit: 16/10/2014 19:51:32 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1463
    • View Profile

 There was not even a hint or  any  implicit allusion whatsoever to any 'supernatural " intervention in the above displayed excerpt, regarding the mind-body interaction  : the non-physical non-local nature of consciousness is perfectly normal , not "super or paranormal " .

"Normal" or not, as long as you repeatedly fail to explain how it works, as long as you cant demonstrate the mechanism,supernatural is as good as any other descriptive term.

Quote

When you would consider all those "paranormal " phenomena like psi phenomena from the non-materialist perspective , they would appear to you as they are in reality : perfectly normal .

Again, call it whatever name you care to make up. Just explain how it works.

Quote
Go re-read that excerpt  once more , because you clearly did not understand what Beauregard  was talking about .
What's to understand? They are just statements of various claims, not explanations.  What particular claim of his do you want me to address. Did you read the Rationalwiki link?

Quote

For example, some forms of materialism assume that consciousness is just a product of the evolutionary complexity of the brain , just an epiphenomena , a side effect of evolution without (absurd )   any causal effects on matter brain or body.

I haven't said that, and I don't think it's an epiphenomena.

Quote


 :  How can then consciousness trigger or have influence on the physical reality, on the self-directed neuro-plasticity ...How can meditation through consciousness have influence on the brain , body ...How can consciousness work through neurofeedback ...?
How can the placebo or nocebo effects be explained in materialistic terms ?
How can belief that shapes consciousness have influence on our biology , brain and even genes ?, heal our bodies ? ... if the mind has no causal effects on matter brain or body . as those materialist lunatics wanna make us believe it is ? , or if the mind is in the brain or just brain activity ...

Just re-read that above displayed excerpt more carefully then .


Go read re-read the answers I just gave you to all of those questions!




[/quote]

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1463
    • View Profile


Second : macro-evolution cannot be extrapolated from micro-evolution , simply because the natural selection cannot account for the  added biological information that's necessary for "building " novel forms and novel body plans, not to mention that the highly unlikely blind unguided random lottery of the natural selection can never account for all that complexity and diversity of life on earth , via gradual, step by step , trial and error attempts , so to speak ( Not in trillions of years or more thus, so to speak  ) : that's mathematically impossible , not to mention that even computer science has proved that  gradual  simple or small random variations cannot account for or ever lead to large scale variations : random variations can work only in a limited small way  .


Yet, macroevolution does happen - it's an observable event. Species do split into other species that are morphologically different and no longer genetically compatible with the original, parent stock.
I don't understand why you feel recombination of genetic material in sexual reproduction, mutation and natural selection cannot account for "added information." When a base pair is added, that's new information, when it's deleted, the shift can result in new information, when genes are accidentally duplicated, that's new information. When some of those duplicated genes mutate and become different genes, that's new information. Surprisingly small and simple mutations can have big affects, such as relocating entire appendages or wings.  What confuses you about this?
Quote
Many biologists have been doubting the creative power of the natural selection , as that excerpt of Meyer showed ,and much more : Go back and re-read it more carefully , please .

I'm not sure who these "many biologists" are, but they're not the ones publishing research in thousands of peer reviewed scientific journals.

Quote

I will even supply you with more relevant excerpts on the subject as well, if you want to .


knock yourself out.

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1463
    • View Profile
Don, isn't it rather telling that after a year or more, and all the investigation that you yourself have done, we are still referring to the non-material, as the "non-material," that it doesn't even have its own name, other than what it is not?

Why is that?
« Last Edit: 17/10/2014 03:21:03 by cheryl j »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg442393#msg442393 date=1413504533]

 There was not even a hint or  any  implicit allusion whatsoever to any 'supernatural " intervention in the above displayed excerpt, regarding the mind-body interaction  : the non-physical non-local nature of consciousness is perfectly normal , not "super or paranormal " .

"Normal" or not, as long as you repeatedly fail to explain how it works, as long as you cant demonstrate the mechanism,supernatural is as good as any other descriptive term.

Look :

First of all :

You're making a false premise from the very start on which you have been building all your materialist sand castles , like all materialist are :

 Is there any empirical evidence supporting the materialist theory of consciousness , for example ? , in the sense that consciousness is in the brain or just brain activity ,without any causal effects on matter brain and body .
 If consciousness is just that , then, it can have no causal effects on the brain that "produces " it ,let alone on the physical reality in general , or on the body or its biology , genes ....How then can this false materialist theory of consciousness account for psi-phenomena , the placebo /Nocebo effects , for self -directed neuroplasticity, ...., neurofeedback and the rest of those "anomalies " ? or just for your daily decisions and actions ? It cannot , despite those  reductionist materialist "explanations " you have been providing ,that reduce the whole universe to just material processes (That's what materialists call "methodological naturalism " by the way = reducing the universe to just material processes ,"methodological naturalism " which is in fact just a consequence of materialism ) ... unless you think of yourself as being just some sort of a mindless machine , a hardware programmed by software : how can the consciousness software that's allegedly produced by the "hardware" of the physical brain  ( neuroplasticity is an evidence for the fact that the brain is NOT hardwired , and that  its anatomy , physiology or structure are NOT fixed )   have any effects on the latter then ? See the inherent materialist contradictions , incoherence and inconsistency here ?    .

The answer is a big absolutely certain NO : there is absolutely no empirical evidence for that materialist claim : correlations between mind and brain are NO causations ( IT has been proven by NDE , by psi phenomena ...that the brain is just a physical medium for consciousness .The brain that  can filter , reduce or limit the scope of consciousness .The brain as some sort of a valva , so to speak , through which consciousness has to express itself .that's why some drugs can expand consciousness , for example , to mention just that .That's why when certain areas of the brain are damaged , some correlating or 'corresponding " aspects of consciousness  seem to be reduced , limited or gone )  , not to mention that the quantitative neurophysiology cannot account for conscious subjective qualitative experiences or states , despite all that materialist non-sense in the form of computation ,and despite that materialist machine -like , computer-like metaphor regarding the nature of life ...

Look, once again : The non-materialist model of consciousness has more explanatory power than the materialist false one .The former can account for all the 'anomalies " for which the latter cannot account  and more, almost in the same fashion quantum physics has more explanatory power than the fundamentally false and approximately correct determinist mechanical classical Newtonian world view upon which materialism was built  .

That quantum physics is NOT yet complete , if ever , or that it cannot explain that quantum weird world completely is NO evidence against it .The same goes for the non-materialist theory of reality or consciousness .
And there is no war on science , as that wiki link of yours wanna make people believe there is .There is only a rejection of the false materialist theory of reality that's been underlying the current materialist science .

Furthermore , correlation between mind and brain is no causation .

See this simple summary on the subject  here below  , regarding the fact that neuroscience will never be able to explain consciousness , not to mention the materialist neuroscience , simply because neuroscientists will only keep on finding correlations between neural networks and the mind , and simply because the mind is not in the brain or brain activity , not a product of the brain : that much we know for sure , despite all those silly and unscientific materialist gymnastics on the subject in the form of computation and the rest :

http://harmoniaphilosophica.wordpress.com/2011/05/17/human-consciousness-and-the-end-of-2jszrulazj6wq-58/

Quote
Quote
When you would consider all those "paranormal " phenomena like psi phenomena from the non-materialist perspective , they would appear to you as they are in reality : perfectly normal .

Again, call it whatever name you care to make up. Just explain how it works.
[/quote]

See above .

Quote
Quote
Quote
Go re-read that excerpt  once more , because you clearly did not understand what Beauregard  was talking about .
What's to understand? They are just statements of various claims, not explanations.  What particular claim of his do you want me to address. Did you read the Rationalwiki link?

Well, once again : the materialist theory of nature or reality has been proven to be false , together with all its extensions, including the materialist theory of consciousness , so, that wiki link of yours is just a desperate materialist attempt to equate materialism with science , by explaining away the non-materialist refutations of materialism as a 'war on science ", while it is in fact just a rejection of the materialist false theory of reality in science through an overwhelming body of evidence .

There are are only , once again, just correlations between mind and brain, no causation : the mind is NOT in the brain or  brain activity ....

You assume that the materialist theory of consciousness is supported by empirical evidence , it is not , not even remotely close thus .There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that neurons' firings "produce " thought " : that's just materialist bullshit that has been proven to be false .

Hebb's law and other physical laws to which the physical brain obeys  is no evidence for the "material of physical " nature of the mind : we can't extrapolate the latter from the former ,as we can't assume that correlations between brain and mind are "evidence " for the materialist "fact ", or rather for the materialist belief assumption that the mind is caused or produced by the brain's activity .... .

Quote
Quote
For example, some forms of materialism assume that consciousness is just a product of the evolutionary complexity of the brain , just an epiphenomena , a side effect of evolution without (absurd )   any causal effects on matter brain or body.

I haven't said that, and I don't think it's an epiphenomena.
[/quote]

Then, you're NOT well informed regarding the materialist theory of consciousness you seem to be  so eager and so passionate to "defend " :You're trying to defend the indefensible .

One form of materialism assumes that consciousness is identical with the brain : identity theory .

Another one assumes that the mind is in the brain or just brain activity =  consciousness as a so-called product of the evolutionary complexity of the brain (emergent property theory , that's rejected by even our friend here David Cooper   , and rightly so . ), and so consciousness is regarded as just an epiphenomena , a useless side effect of evolution , without any causal effects on matter brain or body .

An extreme form of materialism that's represented by lunatics such as Dennett even denies the existence of consciousness as such, period ....

All forms of materialism and physicalism , realism , positivism ,...assume that consciousness is material or physical without any causal effects on matter brain or body , without any empirical evidence supporting those claims : they are just materialist dogmatic acts of faith , no science .



Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
:  How can then consciousness trigger or have influence on the physical reality, on the self-directed neuro-plasticity ...How can meditation through consciousness have influence on the brain , body ...How can consciousness work through neurofeedback ...?
How can the placebo or nocebo effects be explained in materialistic terms ?
How can belief that shapes consciousness have influence on our biology , brain and even genes ?, heal our bodies ? ... if the mind has no causal effects on matter brain or body . as those materialist lunatics wanna make us believe it is ? , or if the mind is in the brain or just brain activity ...

Just re-read that above displayed excerpt more carefully then
.




Go read re-read the answers I just gave you to all of those questions!
[/quote]

All those "answers " you assume to have given me , together with that materialist wiki link of yours , do assume that the materialist theory of consciousness and reality have been supported by empirical evidence ,and that materialist science  and materialist scientists are  the only real forms of science and real scientists .

Both claims or premises are false , and have been proven to be so by an overwhelming body of evidence for which Beauregard had just delivered a small summary in his above displayed excerpt .

Science does neither require materialism nor is it condemned to be materialist or condemned to be confined within the materialist false theory of reality and all its false extensions thus .

Materialism or "methodological naturalism " are not synonymous of science .Only the scientific method is .

Materialism assumes , for example , that the universe can be explained only by material processes (That's the definition of the materialist reductionist "methodological naturalism " by the way )  , since materialism assumes that everything is matter , including the mind : that's no empirical claim , just a materialist dogmatic act of faith .

It now has been proven that consciousness and what we call matter are inseparable : through one particular interpretation of quantum theory that's supported by Von Neumann school and by most founders of quantum physics . In fact : the very fact that quantum theory has many interpretations , and the very fact that science itself is just a human social activity , and to some extent a cultural one also ( See how the Eurocentric materialism has been taken for granted as science , or as the scientific world view , without question, since the 19th century and counting ) , then , our "reality " cannot but be observer-dependent , and therefore consciousness is a key component or a key "building block " of this universe ,and a primary one at that , that is , once again ,so, any serious scientific theory of reality has no choice but to integrate consciousness in it , if science wanna deliver some relatively accurate reflection or representation of reality , instead of that materialist distorted and false version of reality .


« Last Edit: 17/10/2014 19:44:45 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Don, isn't it rather telling that after a year or more, and all the investigation that you yourself have done, we are still referring to the non-material, as the "non-material," that it doesn't even have its own name, other than what it is not?

Why is that?

See above :

You're falsely assuming that materialism is scientific , in the sense that everything is matter , including the mind , and hence the whole universe can be basically and actually explained only by material processes = that's what reductionist materialists call "methodological naturalism " = that's just a consequence of the false reductionist materialist theory of reality in science , no science ( Methodological naturalism is reductionist materialist thus , and reductionism has also been proven to be false , so ) .

Furthermore , science  is no synonymous of the reductionist materialist so-called methodological naturalism .

Science is  just a synonymous of the scientific method that should incite scientists to follow the evidence wherever it might take them .

Reductionist materialism or its "methodological naturalism " consequence just confine science within the materialist false theory of reality in fact , by preventing science from going beyond that false materialist theory of reality : it's a bit like dictating to an adventurer NOT to go beyond a certain territory that's assumed to be the whole territory , and if that given adventurer would stumble upon evidence that would prove to him/her that that particular territory is NOT the whole territory , then , that adventurer would be branded as a heretic or worse .

Reminds me of 'The Village " movie , ironically enough , in a religious context : Nice movie : Replace religion in it by "scientific materialism " ,and see what happens :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctIjEa8Cu5A

Materialists have been confining science to a certain "village " of reality ,while assuming that that is the whole reality thus , assuming that their materialist reductionist key hole theory of reality is the real and whole reality thus .

...........

What name do you want to have for the non-material non-physical mental which is a key component or a key "building block " of the universe then ?

Call it what you want , but , that does not make the fact go away that the immaterial consciousness is a key part of reality , and a primary one at that , that is , so , any serious scientific theory of reality must integrate it , in accordance with the overwhelming evidence on the subject to which you seem to have been closing your mind and doors by believing so dogmatically ,  blindly and irrationally , not to mention, unscientifically , in the false materialist theory of reality .

Have fun with the latter then, if that would happen to make you happy at least, just don't equate it with or call it ....science  .

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg442394#msg442394 date=1413507594]


Second : macro-evolution cannot be extrapolated from micro-evolution , simply because the natural selection cannot account for the  added biological information that's necessary for "building " novel forms and novel body plans, not to mention that the highly unlikely blind unguided random lottery of the natural selection can never account for all that complexity and diversity of life on earth , via gradual, step by step , trial and error attempts , so to speak ( Not in trillions of years or more thus, so to speak  ) : that's mathematically impossible , not to mention that even computer science has proved that  gradual  simple or small random variations cannot account for or ever lead to large scale variations : random variations can work only in a limited small way  .


Yet, macroevolution does happen - it's an observable event. Species do split into other species that are morphologically different and no longer genetically compatible with the original, parent stock.
I don't understand why you feel recombination of genetic material in sexual reproduction, mutation and natural selection cannot account for "added information." When a base pair is added, that's new information, when it's deleted, the shift can result in new information, when genes are accidentally duplicated, that's new information. When some of those duplicated genes mutate and become different genes, that's new information. Surprisingly small and simple mutations can have big affects, such as relocating entire appendages or wings.  What confuses you about this?

That's a very broad subject , so, i recommend reading Meyer's excerpt more carefully .

Watch this great lecture by James A.Shapiro on the subject : Don't pay attention to the title that must have been added by some ID proponents : Just watch its content :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGCQSMsNAOc

I have learned to adopt no scientific theory or model of reality in particular permanently , by assuming it to be "true " .No scientific theory or model of reality can ever be proved to be "true ", ever thus (See Karl Popper on the subject )  .I just follow the scientific evidence , as much as possible, wherever it might take me ,and hence i keep my beliefs to myself and do not pretend that they are 'scientific " ,unlike materialists such as  yourself  .

All beliefs or world views , including materialism thus , are , once again, per definition, unscientific = unfalsifiable , but , they are NOT all false , as materialism most certainly IS .

Quote
Quote
Many biologists have been doubting the creative power of the natural selection , as that excerpt of Meyer showed ,and much more : Go back and re-read it more carefully , please .

I'm not sure who these "many biologists" are, but they're not the ones publishing research in thousands of peer reviewed scientific journals.

That's an argument from ignorance : those dissident scientists are prominent ones, la creme de la creme ,  with a lots of peer-reviewed works and more : see Meyer's excerpt on the subject , don't be lazy .

Quote
Quote

I will even supply you with more relevant excerpts on the subject as well, if you want to .


knock yourself out.
[/quote]

Well, since you seem not to have really read those above displayed excerpts fully and carefully, while misunderstanding them  in the process , i will not post any more excerpts , for the time being at least .

What for then ?

Instead of trying to read them and understand them well , you just try to find materialist sources that try to "debunk " them ,so .

Well, of course materialists would try to defend their indefensible dogmatic belief system in science .

I would be extremely surprised ,if they wouldn't .

Maybe , you just don't have time enough for that , i don't know .

In any case , you have to try to be open -minded regarding science that's an ever changing evolving process , instead of sub-consciously or consciously assuming that materialism is "true " (No scientific theory or model of reality can ever be  proved to be  "true ",ever,  including the non-materialist one thus ) , while science is not even about the "truth",  whatever the latter might be indeed .

There is also an overwhelming body of evidence proving materialism and all its extensions , including the materialist theory of consciousness thus , to be ...false , so .

If you wanna keep on believing in that materialist dogmatic belief system in science , that's up to you to do so thus .Just don't call it ...science .

Thanks, take care .

By the way : don't take the following the wrong way , please :

It's thanks to the  wonderful  discoveries and advances of science that've been achieved by materialist and non-materialist scientists alike  through the unparalleled scientific method only that your surgery was possible and successful  , NOT thanks to ...materialism that's just a false theory of reality that pretends to be ..."scientific " .

Best wishes , and nice weekend .



« Last Edit: 17/10/2014 20:59:39 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1463
    • View Profile
Don, isn't it rather telling that after a year or more, and all the investigation that you yourself have done, we are still referring to the non-material, as the "non-material," that it doesn't even have its own name, other than what it is not?

Why is that?

See above :

You're falsely assuming that materialism is scientific , in the sense that everything is matter , including the mind , and hence the whole universe can be basically and actually explained only by material processes = that's what reductionist materialists call "methodological naturalism " = that's just a consequence of the false reductionist materialist theory of reality in science , no science ( Methodological naturalism is reductionist materialist thus , and reductionism has also been proven to be false , so ) .

Furthermore , science  is no synonymous of the reductionist materialist so-called methodological naturalism .

Science is  just a synonymous of the scientific method that should incite scientists to follow the evidence wherever it might take them .



I'm not assuming anything, and have been perfectly willing to consider your evidence - you just haven't provided any. After months (years?)of investigation, all you seem to have for your work is the same list of phenomena you feel have not yet been adequately explained to your satisfaction, but not a single alternative explanation backed by evidence for that explanation. And again, this thing or concept of yours, for lack of a better word, doesn't even have it's own name, a definition, or a descriptive list of qualities, other than being "non-material."

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Don, isn't it rather telling that after a year or more, and all the investigation that you yourself have done, we are still referring to the non-material, as the "non-material," that it doesn't even have its own name, other than what it is not?

Why is that?

See above :

You're falsely assuming that materialism is scientific , in the sense that everything is matter , including the mind , and hence the whole universe can be basically and actually explained only by material processes = that's what reductionist materialists call "methodological naturalism " = that's just a consequence of the false reductionist materialist theory of reality in science , no science ( Methodological naturalism is reductionist materialist thus , and reductionism has also been proven to be false , so ) .

Furthermore , science  is no synonymous of the reductionist materialist so-called methodological naturalism .

Science is  just a synonymous of the scientific method that should incite scientists to follow the evidence wherever it might take them .



I'm not assuming anything, and have been perfectly willing to consider your evidence - you just haven't provided any. After months (years?)of investigation, all you seem to have for your work is the same list of phenomena you feel have not yet been adequately explained to your satisfaction, but not a single alternative explanation backed by evidence for that explanation. And again, this thing or concept of yours, for lack of a better word, doesn't even have it's own name, a definition, or a descriptive list of qualities, other than being "non-material."

I have to go , sorry .before i do, the following then, very quickly :

Let's be honest .Let's not be kidding ourselves , please :
You are a self-declared materialist , that's your choice : you have been assuming that the materialist theory of reality and all its extensions , including the materialist theory of consciousness , have been scientific ,and hence have been supported by empirical evidence : that's a false premise of yours .

You're thus a materialist first , and a scientific person only second , instead of following the scientific evidence wherever it might take you as you should have been doing .

For the rest : that's yet another argument from ignorance of yours :

How do you expect to have a glimpse of the extended non-materialist theory or model of reality , let alone of the extended non-materialist theory or model of consciousness , if you a -priori confine yourself within  the materialist ones ,by assuming the latter not only to be "true " (There is no such thing in science ) , but that it has been also supported by empirical evidence , and so in doing so , you cannot but close your non-material mind to any given non-materialist scientific evidence   ...a -priori thus .


In short :

You need to go through a major meta-paradigm shift to change your mind in the face of evidence  , otherwise , you would continue confining yourself within the false materialist key hole version of reality , while assuming it is the whole real reality .

You have to broaden your horizon thus by following the evidence wherever it might take you, not the other way around  .

The  overwhelming body of evidence that has been supporting the non-materialist theory or model of reality is there for everyone to take a closer look at : it's not some sort of a state  secret : it's public .

Start by checking out the main link of this thread that would open the public gates of the non-materialist science to you through the manifesto for a post-materialistic science site .

Gotta go, bye , thanks .


*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1463
    • View Profile


Well, since you seem not to have really read those above displayed excerpts fully and carefully, while misunderstanding them  in the process , i will not post any more excerpts , for the time being at least .


Well, that's too bad.
But, you can't assume that because someone does not agree with you or the author you have excerpted, they have not read it, or do not understand it, particularly if they take the time to explain why they do not agree.

The format of the argument in the Meyer excerpt is essentially the same as yours - you don't believe materialist mechanisms can account for everything, but offer nothing of substance as an alternative. Since you've read his book, perhaps you can tell me, how many chapters are devoted to what conventional evolutionary theory does not explain, and how many chapters are actually about intelligent design itself, who or what this designer is, how it interacts with physical matter, DNA, cells, etc., what experiments might provide more insight into the process, how or why certain organisms come into existence but not others, or take the morphological forms that they do, and so on. Those are the excerpts I'd really be interested in looking at.
« Last Edit: 17/10/2014 21:53:11 by cheryl j »

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1463
    • View Profile
ps. Does it not bother you in the least that none of the phenomena you have mentioned, psi, NDE, psychosomatic illness, consciousness, etc has ever been explained in any detail, "cannot be accounted for" by a non-material mechanism, either? How long do you intend to cling to your belief without evidence?

I believe that is called "faith."

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1449
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Regarding the OP - there's no bombshell there, it's just the same old pseudoscientific nonsense in a new paper. 

Let me know when 'Post-Materialistic Science' has produced something useful.

Oh, and while not everyone agrees that Popperian falsifiability is the last word, it certainly makes ID pseudoscience too.

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile

In short :

You need to go through a major meta-paradigm shift to change your mind in the face of evidence 


No "meta-paradigm shift" is appropriate in the "face of NO evidence".

This is the reason I do not participate in this thread. And even though I've taken the time to post this short reply, it will not inspire someone with no evidence to provide any. The reason: He has no evidence,....... period.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Cheryl :

This is the definition of naturalism or methodological naturalism from Encyclopædia Britannica : methodological naturalism goes beyond materialism thus :

I have made a slight mistake about it earlier :

Quote : " Naturalism :

 in philosophy, a theory that relates scientific method to philosophy by affirming that all beings and events in the universe (whatever their inherent character may be) are natural. Consequently, all knowledge of the universe falls within the pale of scientific investigation. Although naturalism denies the existence of truly supernatural realities, it makes allowance for the supernatural, provided that knowledge of it can be had indirectly—that is, that natural objects be influenced by the so-called supernatural entities in a detectable way.

Naturalism presumes that nature is in principle completely knowable. There is in nature a regularity, unity, and wholeness that implies objective laws, without which the pursuit of scientific knowledge would be absurd. Man's endless search for concrete proofs of his beliefs is seen as a confirmation of naturalistic methodology. Naturalists point out that even when one scientific theory is abandoned in favour of another, man does not despair of knowing nature, nor does he repudiate the “natural method” in his search for truth. Theories change; methodology does not.

While naturalism has often been equated with materialism, it is much broader in scope. Materialism is indeed naturalistic, but the converse is not necessarily true. Strictly speaking, naturalism has no ontological preference; i.e., no bias toward any particular set of categories of reality: dualism and monism, atheism and theism, idealism and materialism are all per se compatible with it. So long as all of reality is natural, no other limitations are imposed. Naturalists have in fact expressed a wide variety of views, even to the point of developing a theistic naturalism.

Only rarely do naturalists give attention to metaphysics (which they deride), and they make no philosophical attempts to establish their position. Naturalists simply assert that nature is reality, the whole of it. There is nothing beyond, nothing “other than,” no “other world” of being.

Naturalism's greatest vogue occurred during the 1930s and '40s, chiefly in the United States among philosophers such as F.J.E. Woodbridge, Morris R. Cohen, John Dewey, Ernest Nagel, and Sidney Hook." End quote .
 

    * MLA Style:   "naturalism." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite.  Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 2013.
    * APA Style:   naturalism. (2013). Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite.  Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica.


*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg442477#msg442477 date=1413627978]
Regarding the OP - there's no bombshell there, it's just the same old pseudoscientific nonsense in a new paper. 

(Hiiii, dlorde : nice to "talk " to you again this way .I am delighted to see you landing on this thread,so to speak   . Welcome .
My sincere apologies for being so rude to you the last times when we interacted with each other on this forum  .I am not the same man i used to be, so.How are you , man ? Fine, i hope .)

Would you care to elaborate on that , please ? What's so pseudo-scientific about non-materialist science then ? Is it just because it refutes materialism and its "scientific world view " ,and hence proposes a new , unprecedented and radical meta-paradigm shift in science ?

Who says  that  science has to be materialist , or that science does require materialism then ?

Quote
Let me know when 'Post-Materialistic Science' has produced something useful.

That's an argument from ignorance : check out the manifesto for a post-materialistic science site at least then to figure that out for yourself .

Quote
Oh, and while not everyone agrees that Popperian falsifiability is the last word, it certainly makes ID pseudoscience too.

Popperian falsifiability is certainly NOT the last word indeed, but it does offer  the best criterion so far for distinguishing between science and psuedo-science .

P.S.: ID does not necessarily reflect my own views regarding evolution, the origin of life ....I just brought it up to raise the issues regarding the many flaws and false claims of Darwinism .The latter that's more of an ideology or a secular atheist religion than a scientific theory .

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg442441#msg442441 date=1413579095]


Well, since you seem not to have really read those above displayed excerpts fully and carefully, while misunderstanding them  in the process , i will not post any more excerpts , for the time being at least .


Well, that's too bad.
But, you can't assume that because someone does not agree with you or the author you have excerpted, they have not read it, or do not understand it, particularly if they take the time to explain why they do not agree.

Well, i could only conclude from what you were saying about Beauregard ' s conclusion   that i posted  from  his "Brain wars ..." book that you did not understand it , while resorting to materialist 'authority "  for help,  in the form of that rationalwiki link as an "counter-argument",so  .

All your 'explanations " came from that materialist link thus ,so .

Quote
The format of the argument in the Meyer excerpt is essentially the same as yours - you don't believe materialist mechanisms can account for everything, but offer nothing of substance as an alternative. Since you've read his book, perhaps you can tell me, how many chapters are devoted to what conventional evolutionary theory does not explain, and how many chapters are actually about intelligent design itself, who or what this designer is, how it interacts with physical matter, DNA, cells, etc., what experiments might provide more insight into the process, how or why certain organisms come into existence but not others, or take the morphological forms that they do, and so on. Those are the excerpts I'd really be interested in looking at.

Actually , Meyer's excerpt should have given you enough clues about that book of his to start from , not to mention that i have provided you with a lecture by James A.Shapiro on the subject .Shapiro who agrees with some arguments against Darwinism that were raised by ID proponents ,while offering third way alternatives to both darwinism and ID thus .

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
ps. Does it not bother you in the least that none of the phenomena you have mentioned, psi, NDE, psychosomatic illness, consciousness, etc has ever been explained in any detail, "cannot be accounted for" by a non-material mechanism, either? How long do you intend to cling to your belief without evidence?

I believe that is called "faith."

You're just projecting , Cheryl :

The materialist dogmatic belief system in science is the one that's only an act of faith that's not supported by any empirical evidence whatsoever , not the other way around .

Well, this  is yet another argument from ignorance from your part + misunderstanding of what those excerpts said and of what i said .

New scientific theories or models , scientific knowledge ...in general, including the new scientific theories of the nature of reality , theories of consciousness ....must be both falsifiable and must also have more explanatory power than the previous ones (the materialist ones in this case ) ,and thus account for all the 'anomalies " which were not accounted for by the materialist ones thus .

The non-materialist theory of the nature of reality ,together with its extension in the form of the non-materialist theory of consciousness have been accounting for all those 'anomalies " that were/are not accounted for by materialism , have been relatively falsifiable , and to some extent reproducible via thousands of cases and experiments ,and they do clearly have more explanatory power than the materialist false ones .

Not to mention that those non-materialist theories or models have been backed by quantum physics or just by one particular interpretation of quantum theory that's more plausible than the other interpretations of quantum  theory thus ....and also by the only  plausible interpretations of neuroscience , biology , chemistry, by the fine tuning of the universe ,  and by the only plausible interpretations of all sciences in fact .

It all comes down thus to the interpretation -dilemma in science in the face of an overwhelming body of evidence : Occam's razor is NOT on the side of materialist science thus , so to speak .

I can only add that you seem to be reading both my words and those of my excerpts in a selective manner through the filter or lens of materialism only , so .
« Last Edit: 18/10/2014 17:21:22 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1463
    • View Profile


 "Although naturalism denies the existence of truly supernatural realities, it makes allowance for the supernatural, provided that knowledge of it can be had indirectly—that is, that natural objects be influenced by the so-called supernatural entities in a detectable way."


I'm fine with that. The "influence" that is "detectable" is whats known as evidence.

Quote

 Naturalists simply assert that nature is reality, the whole of it. There is nothing beyond, nothing “other than,” no “other world” of being.

This statement would seem to be more problematic for you than helpful. If some mechanism or new force was found to be responsible for psi, and could be "detectable" - verifiable - it would no longer be considered supernatural, but another aspect of the natural world, no different than say, the discovery of electromagnetism.

The sticking point, though, is that all of our means for "detecting" and verifying tend to be material in nature - observation by people or instruments, the effects of the phenomena on other physical things, or the effects of different physical variables on the phenomena being studied.

Secondly, "detectable", does not mean proof by process of elimination, which is generally what psi experiments at their most convincing rely on, and never get beyond.  "There is no way we can think of that this person could have access to that information, so it must be.....esp, or out of body consciousness, or remote viewing."
Process of elimination is not the same as detection or demonstrating a mechanism.
« Last Edit: 18/10/2014 17:31:13 by cheryl j »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Cheryl :

Why did you skip this quote from "Naturalism " through Encyclopedia Britannica ? :

Quote : "While naturalism has often been equated with materialism, it is much broader in scope. Materialism is indeed naturalistic, but the converse is not necessarily true. Strictly speaking, naturalism has no ontological preference; i.e., no bias toward any particular set of categories of reality: dualism and monism, atheism and theism, idealism and materialism are all per se compatible with it. So long as all of reality is natural, no other limitations are imposed. Naturalists have in fact expressed a wide variety of views, even to the point of developing a theistic naturalism." End quote .

There is also what can be called theistic naturalism thus , after all,  , not just atheistic naturalistic materialism ....

And who says that that naturalist philosophy that was developed in the last century is the final world on naturalistic science ?

Who says that if scientists would discover that the nature of reality goes beyond nature itself , science should not go beyond nature or discard that ?

In short :

Who says that science has to be exclusively naturalistic then ? ,if scientists would discover someday that nature is not the whole reality thus .

I thought that science was / is an ever -changing process , and that scientists should follow the evidence wherever it might take them , not confine science within their preferred world view of the moment or within the zeitgeist of the moment then ...
« Last Edit: 18/10/2014 17:42:18 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1463
    • View Profile
Cheryl :

Why did you skip this quote from "Naturalism " through Encyclopedia Britannica ? :

"While naturalism has often been equated with materialism, it is much broader in scope. Materialism is indeed naturalistic, but the converse is not necessarily true. Strictly speaking, naturalism has no ontological preference; i.e., no bias toward any particular set of categories of reality: dualism and monism, atheism and theism, idealism and materialism are all per se compatible with it. So long as all of reality is natural, no other limitations are imposed. Naturalists have in fact expressed a wide variety of views, even to the point of developing a theistic naturalism."

I didn't skip or ignore that passage. The author simply says there is no bias for or against these things, providing there is evidence, a detectable influence, not just a theory or an idea about it,  which is exactly what I've been saying.

Quote
There is also what can be called theistic naturalism , not just atheistic materialism ....

And who says that that naturalist philosophy that was developed in the last century is the final world on naturalistic science ?

Who says that if scientists would discover that the nature of reality goes beyond nature itself , science should not go beyond nature or discard that ?

I assumed the excerpt about naturalism was the one you wanted to discuss and put forth for a reason, so those were the remarks I addressed. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "beyond nature" what exactly that refers to, so unless you can be a little clearer or specific about what that even is, there is not much I can say about it.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg442504#msg442504 date=1413649246]


 "Although naturalism denies the existence of truly supernatural realities, it makes allowance for the supernatural, provided that knowledge of it can be had indirectly—that is, that natural objects be influenced by the so-called supernatural entities in a detectable way."


I'm fine with that. The "influence" that is "detectable" is whats known as evidence.

Agree indeed . Detectable can also mean indirectly detectable , not just directly detetctable thus .

Quote

Quote
Naturalists simply assert that nature is reality, the whole of it. There is nothing beyond, nothing “other than,” no “other world” of being.

This statement would seem to be more problematic for you than helpful. If some mechanism or new force was found to be responsible for psi, and could be "detectable" - verifiable - it would no longer be considered supernatural, but another ashttp://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/Themes/naksci3/images/bbc/bold.gifpect of the natural world, no different than say, the discovery of electromagnetism.

First of all : clearly : no material process can ever account for psi phenomena , the placebo/nocebo effect , for the fact that beliefs and expectations that shape consciousness can heal the body , turn genes on or off, change the structure and physiology of the brain through self- directed neuroplasticity , neurofeedback and much more ...let alone for the origin of life , .......

Second : Why would it seem to be problematic for me ?

Non-materialist science has been proving the fact that psi-phenomena and the rest of those 'anomalies " for which materialism can never account are perfectly natural , normal , NOT "supernatural or paranormal " .The latter labels are just hollow semantics used by materialists to explain away what materialism cannot account for or deal with in fact .

Quote
The sticking point, though, is that all of our means for "detecting" and verifying tend to be material in nature - observation by people or instruments, the effects of the phenomena on other physical things, or the effects of different physical variables on the phenomena being studied.

One can deduce from all those thousands of cases and experiments relating to psi phenomena that can all come down to the mind -body relationship that the influence of consciousness is detectable indirectly , and that consciousness cannot but be non-physical , non -material and non-local .See also the entanglement phenomena in quantum physics : explain that instantaneous action from huge distances between particles through some material process of yours then ? I thought nothing in the universe can travel faster than the speed of light .

Explain what Einstein called instantaneous "spooky action at a distance " throught some faster than the speed of light material process of yours then . Entanglement that has been proved  to occur via a lots of duplicated experiments .

Why can't consciousness work through entanglement also , via instantaneous action on  "matter" or via minds-minds interactions from a distance then ? ,to mention just that .

Quote
Secondly, "detectable", does not mean proof by process of elimination, which is generally what psi experiments at their most convincing rely on, and never get beyond.  "There is no way we can think of that this person could have access to that information, so it must be.....esp, or out of body consciousness, or remote viewing."
Process of elimination is not the same as detection or demonstrating a mechanism.

So, materialism can afford to be eliminative , and the rest not ???

Regardless of that :

Do you think that the great physicist and mathematician Von Neumann did detect the role of consciousness in physics through any form of elimination, or direct detection  ?

He concluded through rigorous maths that the measurement problem in quantum physics could not be solved but by concluding that there must be a process of some sort that collapses the wave function , a process outside of the laws of physics . He could not think of anythingelse than the consciousness of the observer , albeit reluctantly .That's how real scientists should work : follow the evidence wherever it might take them , not make it fit into their a-priori held beliefs or theories , deny it as such or ignore it as such , as materialists do whenever  the data or evidence contradicts their materialist dogmatic belief .

P.S.: Physicists have been talking about the eixtence of THE field ,field of information or otherwise , where everything  seem to come from .

They can't prove the existence of that field indirectly . let alone directly , through empirical evidence , just ...mathematically . Should we discard that ?
« Last Edit: 18/10/2014 18:15:19 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg442507#msg442507 date=1413650734]
Cheryl :

Why did you skip this quote from "Naturalism " through Encyclopedia Britannica ? :

"While naturalism has often been equated with materialism, it is much broader in scope. Materialism is indeed naturalistic, but the converse is not necessarily true. Strictly speaking, naturalism has no ontological preference; i.e., no bias toward any particular set of categories of reality: dualism and monism, atheism and theism, idealism and materialism are all per se compatible with it. So long as all of reality is natural, no other limitations are imposed. Naturalists have in fact expressed a wide variety of views, even to the point of developing a theistic naturalism."

I didn't skip or ignore that passage. The author simply says there is no bias for or against these things, providing there is evidence, a detectable influence, not just a theory or an idea about it,  which is exactly what I've been saying.

Well, you seem to have some sort of argument from ignorance thought pattern of some sort , Cheryl : I am tired of repeating that fact :

Non-materialist science is in fact all about an overwhelming body of evidence that has been supporting  its claims and theories, models .... and all about detecting , albeit indireclty, the influence of consciousness as a key component of reality on matter brain and body , and much more , through psi-phenomena , through the impact of beliefs and expactations on body brain and biology genes ... via thousands of experiments and documented cases ...

Quote
Quote
There is also what can be called theistic naturalism , not just atheistic materialism ....

And who says that that naturalist philosophy that was developed in the last century is the final world on naturalistic science ?

Who says that if scientists would discover that the nature of reality goes beyond nature itself , science should not go beyond nature or discard that ?

I assumed the excerpt about naturalism was the one you wanted to discuss and put forth for a reason, so those were the remarks I addressed. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "beyond nature" what exactly that refers to, so unless you can be a little clearer or specific about what that even is, there is not much I can say about it.

Well, you said that that particular quote which you posted from my post about " naturalism" was a problem for me, so, i replied why should science be confined to that naturalist philosophy that was developed in the last century, that's all, while providing you with another quote from that same post of mine regardin naturalism , to show you that there is also what can be called theistic naturalism ,so....., that's all  .

Who says then thus that science has to be materialist  all this time and counting , or that science has to require materialism , like that rationalwiki link of yours said , the more when we see that materialism has been challenged and refuted by an overwhelming body of evidence ?

In short :

Who says that real science or real scientists have to be materialists ,as that rationalwiki link of yours also said , in the sense that science or scientists have to seek only material or physical biological explanations of the universe and life in it , via only   material processes then ?

Think about that then .
« Last Edit: 18/10/2014 18:40:45 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1463
    • View Profile

Well, you seem to have some sort of argument from ignorance thought pattern of some sort , Cheryl : I am tired of repeating that fact :

Non-materialist science is in fact all about an overwhelming body of evidence that has been supporting  its claims and theories, models .... and all about detecting , albeit indireclty, the influence of consciousness as a key component of reality on matter brain and body , and much more , through psi-phenomena , through the impact of beliefs and expactations on body brain and biology genes ... via thousands of experiments and documented cases ...

First, I'm not sure you understand what the phrase "argument from ignorance" means. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance 

It does not mean that some one simply disagrees with the veracity of your facts or your line of reasoning. Your premises seem much worthy of the label of 'argument from ignorance', since you are the one saying that if materialism cannot disprove the immaterial, the immaterial must be accepted as true.
I never have said the the immaterial does not exist, I just (repeatedly) asked for evidence and demonstrations of a mechanism.

Quote

And who says that that naturalist philosophy that was developed in the last century is the final world on naturalistic science ?

Who says that if scientists would discover that the nature of reality goes beyond nature itself , science should not go beyond nature or discard that ?



Who says then thus that science has to be materialist  all this time and counting , or that science has to require materialism , like that rationalwiki link of yours said , the more when we see that materialism has been challenged and refuted by an overwhelming body of evidence ?

In short :

Who says that real science or real scientists have to be materialists ,as that rationalwiki link of yours also said , in the sense that science or scientists have to seek only material or physical biological explanations of the universe and life in it , via only   material processes then ?

Think about that then .

No one says it.

But it's interesting that some how in 80 something pages and claims of "overwhelming evidence," we have never taken the time to look closely at anyone of these studies or examples. And it seems, that when we talk specifically about a particular area, like macroevolution, and you are provided with facts or examples that contradict your claims, you ignore them or change the subject to physics. When physics is discussed (as with the lengthy Stapp debate or discussions about wave function collapse) and you are again backed into into a corner,  you switch topics yet again, without any attempt to address the other person's comments or support what you've said earlier.

Then many posts later, you repeat the same claims over as if they were never addressed.

You began this thread with the announcement that important scientists were rejecting materialism in great numbers. If true, they seem a bit slow out of the gate in engaging in any research along those lines or producing any new findings. But if they do, I'm willing to take a look at it.

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1463
    • View Profile
At any rate, thanks for providing me with an activity to pass the time during my convalescence.

I can't help but wonder, what if some new type of force involving consciousness , or some new form of  "stuff" was discovered? What difference would it make? It would just become another aspect of the natural world and no longer mysterious or magical, like  electromagnetism,  and no more amazing than my cell phone (which actually, still amazes me.)

If it were proven that fairies or angels existed, why should I find them more interesting or awe inspiring than birds or octopi?

I can't help but think in the end, all this fervent pursuit and debate about a post material paradigm shift isn't about science at all. It's a desperate search for a God who will protect, and the possibility of an afterlife. That is the motive that drives the whole anti-materialist quest. Otherwise, they wouldn't bother, since they don't seem all that interested in any kind of science in the first place.


*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg442605#msg442605 date=1413748089]
At any rate, thanks for providing me with an activity to pass the time during my convalescence.

You're welcome . It would be more entertainning and educative to listen to the "Spiritual Brain " By Beauregrad . Did you get it yet ? For much more solid scientific non-materialist stuff , i would provide you with relevant books on the subject that would rock your false materialist sand castles , if you want to at least  . 

"Spiritual brain ..." is  a funny derision of materialism , and shows how it is false , ridiculous , dogmatic , contradictoty  paradoxical incoherent , unscientific and much more , while offering some alternate scientific explanations to the false materialist ones .

It deals with Darwinism, consciousness , neuroscience and much more .

Quote
I can't help but wonder, what if some new type of force involving consciousness , or some new form of  "stuff" was discovered? What difference would it make? It would just become another aspect of the natural world and no longer mysterious or magical, like  electromagnetism,  and no more amazing than my cell phone (which actually, still amazes me.)

You see ? You can't get out of your materialist key hole box . I hate to tell you : " I told you so ", didn't i ?

What makes you think that materialistic "explanations " , through material processes or causes are the only explanations of natural phenomena then ?

The natural world or naturalism are no synonymous of materialism : material causes or material processes are not the only ways through which science can explain the universe : they are just a part of the picture , not the whole picture .

Quote
If it were proven that fairies or angels existed, why should I find them more interesting or awe inspiring than birds or octopi?

Very funny .
Your materialism cannot account for such things , remember , even if they would exist .
Materialism that denies everything that's beyond the illusory physical world or reality .In fact , materialism assumes that the latter is all what there is "out there "  .

Quote
I can't help but think in the end, all this fervent pursuit and debate about a post material paradigm shift isn't about science at all. It's a desperate search for a God who will protect, and the possibility of an afterlife. That is the motive that drives the whole anti-materialist quest

About a post materialistic ....you mean : there is a difference between material and materialist . The former is all about the physical or material universe , the latter is all about reducing   the whole universe to just material processes .

Non-materialist science embraces both the material and the immaterial mental in nature , so : it even says that our "reality " is psycho-physical .

How do you know that's the motive ? Science is not about motives ,and is not concerned by them either , even though materialist science reduces even motives to just physics and chemistry , ironically enough , to just survival strategies or illusions .

The manifesto for a post-materialistic science is all about the fact that materialist science has been delivering a false , dogmatic and distorted version of nature or reality, a false  version  of the nature of reality that pretend to be scientific ,thanks to materialism.

Science is all about trying to explain the universe or the nature of reality or nature ,so, science must abandon materialism , if science wanna be able to deliver some relatively accurate reflections of representations of reality .

"Scientific materialism " is false , so, science has no choice but to become non-materialst , if science doesn't wanna loose its ceredibility and reliability as a valid source of knowledge , otherwise science under materialism would remain just a dogmatic ideology or atheist religion that would remain confined within the false materialist version of reality  , despite all  scientific advances, discoveries ...that were achieved only through the scientific method by materialist and non-materialist scientists alike .

The non-materialist scientists thus are more scientific than the materialist ones could ever be , simply because the former  follow what emiprical evidence show to them , and the latter  just try to make empirical evidence fit into their a-priori held materialist world view ,or just deny it , ignore it as such ,or just call it pseudo-science or worse whenever that empirical evidence would contradict their a-priori held materialist belief or world view .

Science has become a servant or a slave of materialists and materialism , in the sense that science gets misused for the service of the materialist ideology , in order to vindicate it , in vain ,while science should be used to explore the universe through free inquiry .


Quote
Otherwise, they wouldn't bother, since they don't seem all that interested in any kind of science in the first place.

What are you talking about in Zeus' name , Cheryl ?

There is a whole pseudo-scientific materialist dogmatic belief syetem at the very heart of materialist science that has been proven to be not only as such ,but also as false .

So, non-materialist scientists wanna liberate science from materialism ,while offering alternatives to the latter .
« Last Edit: 20/10/2014 19:14:15 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg442560#msg442560 date=1413679307]



In short :

Who says that real science or real scientists have to be materialists ,as that rationalwiki link of yours also said , in the sense that science or scientists have to seek only material or physical biological explanations of the universe and life in it , via only   material processes then ?

Think about that then .

No one says it.

Prior note : Fact is : you have made many arguments from ignorance (I am well aware of what that means ) , not because you disagreed with me ....., but , simply because you implied that since you were  not familiar with or not informed regarding the evidence provided by non-materialist and other  scientists , then , there were none , and because of similar replies of yours ....Check that out in your own posts to me .

That said : 

No one says it ? Are you sure about that ? Think twice .
Your take on this is too naive and uninformed to be taken seriously .
Even that rationlawiki link of yours not only implied it , but also said it explicitly , in the sense that real scientists or real science are the ones who stick to the materialist methodological naturalism, come on .

Any given scientist who would even imply that some natural phenomena can be explained by non-material processes , or that they are non-material like in the case of the nature of consciousness, would be immediately or automatically considered as a heretic or worse who tries to introduce the "supernatural " into science : see what naturalism , naturalistic science or methodlogical naturalism are  all about , once again , through Encyclopedia Britannica 's quote here above : materialists reduce them to just the materialist ones , in the sense that the whole universe can be explained by or reduced only to material causes or processes .

Quote
But it's interesting that some how in 80 something pages and claims of "overwhelming evidence," we have never taken the time to look closely at anyone of these studies or examples. And it seems, that when we talk specifically about a particular area, like macroevolution, and you are provided with facts or examples that contradict your claims, you ignore them or change the subject to physics. When physics is discussed (as with the lengthy Stapp debate or discussions about wave function collapse) and you are again backed into into a corner,  you switch topics yet again, without any attempt to address the other person's comments or support what you've said earlier.

See below .

It's not possible to cover all those fields this way , let alone in detail ,so, that's why i was just referring you all to them through the work of some non-materialist scientists ...

I cannot do the whole work for you thus : the evidence is there to take a loot at , some of the evidence that's provided even by some mainstream scientists like Shapiro , Jay Gould and others .

It's up to you thus to check out my links and excerpts.

Quote
Then many posts later, you repeat the same claims over as if they were never addressed.

You did not provide any conclusive evidence against  my earlier claims , or against those of non-materialist scientists , so, except that link regarding the discovered fossils in relation to pre-cambrian period , and even that is no conclusive evidence for  macro-evolution ,or for the so-called creative power of the gradulal , step by step, natural selection that can never  account for macro-evolution , let alone for its added novel biological information ...

Regarding Stapp's work  where he connected Hebb's law ( neurons that fire together connect together ) to what he called the Zeno-effect ( a kindda "glue " that holds the created neural pathways or brain wiring  in place  through the power of conscious focus .The latter explains why habits are so difficult to break ,since focussing on them only strengthens their old neural pathways , and explains that focussing away from old habits regularily through excercises , meditation , discipline ... methodologically , away from them on healthier thoughts can create new neural pathways or brain wiring that would override the old neural pathways created by negative habits  ....  Non-materialist cognitive psychology or therapy  is built up on that: i tried it myself , and it does work .I can provide you with mind-blowing books on the subject also, if you want to, It even helped me get rid of many old habits , of  some form of light depression, mood swings, anger  ....It can also help people get rid of anxiety , depression, erroneous thinking , catastrophizing, wrong mind reading of others  , ....and much more , without any side effects whatsoever thus , without use of any medicine.Only severely mentally ill patients must  combine  the steps , excercises and techniques of cognitive psychology or therapy with ...their medication ... .Long story thus.)

Regarding Stapp's work thus : he relied on one particular interpretation of quantum theory that's supported by Von Neumann school + by many others and by most founders of quantum physics thus : it is more plausible then the rest of those interpretations of quantum theory . The latter is evidence enough , once again , for the fact that our "reality " is observer -dependent , otherwise we wouldn't have the interpretation dilemma in science in general, or elsewhere  .

Quote
You began this thread with the announcement that important scientists were rejecting materialism in great numbers. If true, they seem a bit slow out of the gate in engaging in any research along those lines or producing any new findings. But if they do, I'm willing to take a look at it.

Check out the main link of this thread, don't be lazy  :

I cannot do the whole work for you , once again :

I am only a messenger who can only refer you to their work via general ideas , insights ....Otherwise , it would be too much time and energy consuming to do that for you this way . I cannot afford to do that either .

Maybe , i will write a book that will be talking about all those books, work, experiments , data and much more that were written and delivered by some mainstream scientists as well as by non-materialist scientists alike : that book would be hundreds of miles long lol . 

http://opensciences.org/about/manifesto-for-a-post-materialist-science

The scientists who signed that manifesto, from Beauregard to Larry Dossey through Gary Schwartz , are just the top of the iceberg of those non-materialist scientists out there who have been delivering some important data and evidence on the subject .

If you want to , i can make it even easier for you by displaying the work of some of them through their own words .


« Last Edit: 20/10/2014 19:07:20 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1449
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
My sincere apologies for being so rude to you the last times when we interacted with each other on this forum  .I am not the same man i used to be, so.How are you , man ? Fine, i hope .)
I'm fine thank you.

Quote
Would you care to elaborate on that , please ? What's so pseudo-scientific about non-materialist science then ? Is it just because it refutes materialism and its "scientific world view " ,and hence proposes a new , unprecedented and radical meta-paradigm shift in science ?
Ah -  straight in with the straw man argument, just like the old days [;)]

When I say "the same old pseudoscientific nonsense in a new paper", I mean the paper contains pseudo-scientific nonsense that is unoriginal. I don't really care how it's labelled.

Quote
Quote
Let me know when 'Post-Materialistic Science' has produced something useful.
That's an argument from ignorance : check out the manifesto for a post-materialistic science site at least then to figure that out for yourself .
Keep your fallacy powder dry - it's not an argument at all, it's simply a request.

But you're right; I see now that the manifesto is a useful example of attention-seeking drivel. How could I have missed that.


*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1449
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
... See also the entanglement phenomena in quantum physics : explain that instantaneous action from huge distances between particles through some material process of yours then ? I thought nothing in the universe can travel faster than the speed of light .
Not quite. The rule is that nothing can accelerate to or past the speed of light (in vacuo), and that no information can travel faster than light (in vacuo).

Quote
Why can't consciousness work through entanglement also , via instantaneous action on  "matter" or via minds-minds interactions from a distance then ?
Decoherence.

Quote
Do you think that the great physicist and mathematician Von Neumann did detect the role of consciousness in physics through any form of elimination, or direct detection  ?

He concluded through rigorous maths that the measurement problem in quantum physics could not be solved but by concluding that there must be a process of some sort that collapses the wave function , a process outside of the laws of physics . He could not think of anythingelse than the consciousness of the observer , albeit reluctantly .
In the 82(!) years since von Neumann's publication, physics has moved on. Wave function collapse is just one of a number of interpretations of QM, and the idea of conscious collapse is now a historical footnote (except for a few fringe woosters, like Stapp).


*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1449
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
I can't help but wonder, what if some new type of force involving consciousness , or some new form of  "stuff" was discovered? What difference would it make?
If quantum field theory (the Standard Model) is even a reasonable approximation to the way the world works (and the evidence suggests it is far more than that - particularly now the long-predicted Higgs particle has been found), then such a force doesn't exist, and any 'stuff' would have to be made of familiar material. No unknown forces or particles relevant to everyday human-scale interactions remain to be discovered - there are probably plenty at other scales and strengths, but the fundamentals of our everyday environment are all accounted for (gravity, electromagnetism, electrons, protons, and neutrons).

It's a strong claim, but QFT is a strong theory. For the full, exciting, entertaining details, see Sean Carroll's talk The Higgs Boson and the Fundamental Nature of Reality. Skip to 33 minutes for the specific claim (although the whole thing is well worth watching). Please pay close attention to the caveats and limits that Carroll describes.

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1463
    • View Profile

"Spiritual brain ..." is  a funny derision of materialism , and shows how it is false , ridiculous , dogmatic , contradictoty  paradoxical incoherent , unscientific and much more ,

See, that is exactly why I think it will likely be a waste of time. I’m less interested in page after page of  their litany of criticisms about evolution or neuroscience. I want to see what alternative explanations and mechanisms they have, and the evidence that backs it, and I suspect that will be once again sorely  lacking and a waste of my time. 
Quote
while offering some alternate scientific explanations to the false materialist ones .

If I check it out at all, that is what I'd be most interested in seeing if only out of curiosity as to how they think they can pull that off.  But I'm not hopeful.



Quote
The manifesto for a post-materialistic science is all about the fact that materialist science has been delivering a false , dogmatic and distorted version of nature or reality, a false  version  of the nature of reality that pretend to be scientific ,thanks to materialism.

Science is all about trying to explain the universe or the nature of reality or nature ,so, science must abandon materialism , if science wanna be able to deliver some relatively accurate reflections of representations of reality .

"Scientific materialism " is false , so, science has no choice but to become non-materialst , if science doesn't wanna loose its ceredibility and reliability as a valid source of knowledge , otherwise science under materialism would remain just a dogmatic ideology or atheist religion that would remain confined within the false materialist version of reality  , despite all  scientific advances, discoveries ...that were achieved only through the scientific method by materialist and non-materialist scientists alike .

The non-materialist scientists thus are more scientific than the materialist ones could ever be , simply because the former  follow what emiprical evidence show to them , and the latter  just try to make empirical evidence fit into their a-priori held materialist world view ,or just deny it , ignore it as such ,or just call it pseudo-science or worse whenever that empirical evidence would contradict their a-priori held materialist belief or world view .

Science has become a servant or a slave of materialists and materialism , in the sense that science gets misused for the service of the materialist ideology , in order to vindicate it , in vain ,while science should be used to explore the universe through free inquiry .

For the life of me I’ll never understand the benefit you see in attacking all of conventional science based on physical processes, and characterizing it as “false” when clearly it has elucidated the mechanisms behind a vast number of phenomena, in physics, chemistry, biology, botany, medicine, etc and has completely altered the human experience and potential. And although you keep saying this progress in knowledge has nothing to do with materialism, it has had everything to do with it, and the belief that nature was intelligible and could be explained through physical processes without resorting to mystical elements or God. 

But fine, if you feel there is "more", or "something else" out there, what’s stopping you or anyone else from discovering it and using the scientific method to explain its workings? A mass conspiracy against such investigations is not tenable.



« Last Edit: 21/10/2014 01:17:07 by cheryl j »

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1463
    • View Profile

Prior note : Fact is : you have made many arguments from ignorance (I am well aware of what that means ) , not because you disagreed with me ....., but , simply because you implied that since you were  not familiar with or not informed regarding the evidence provided by non-materialist and other  scientists , then , there were none , and because of similar replies of yours ....Check that out in your own posts to me .
...It's not possible to cover all those fields this way , let alone in detail ,so, that's why i was just referring you all to them through the work of some non-materialist scientists ...

....I cannot do the whole work for you thus : the evidence is there to take a loot at , some of the evidence that's provided even by some mainstream scientists like Shapiro , Jay Gould and others .

It's up to you thus to check out my links and excerpts.
Check out the main link of this thread, don't be lazy  :

I cannot do the whole work for you , once again :



I am not asking you to  “do the work for” me. I am simply suggesting that you provide a link to particular study or two that you feel is most illustrative of the “overwhelming evidence” you keep referring to, and is an example of the kind of  non-material influences your theory proposes. You can’t expect in a discussion forum that people have the time or the motivation to read a dozen books and view countless videos   It is not “lazy” to request that you reference the most important studies that your ideas are based on. (In fact on another science forum, it’s mandatory after repeated requests, or the thread can be closed.)   I do not direct your attention to entire anatomy or neuroscience text books and complain that you are being lazy, narrow minded, or “arguing from ignorance” for not having read them.
If nothing else it would give us something new to do beside rehash the same philosophical disagreement, the general trueness and falseness of methodologies, over and over.

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1463
    • View Profile


Regarding Stapp's work  where he connected Hebb's law ( neurons that fire together connect together ) to what he called the Zeno-effect ( a kindda "glue " that holds the created neural pathways or brain wiring  in place  through the power of conscious focus .


You realize that makes absolutely no sense, right?  Not even metaphorically.

Quote
The latter explains why habits are so difficult to break ,since focussing on them only strengthens their old neural pathways , and explains that focussing away from old habits regularily through excercises , meditation , discipline ... methodologically , away from them on healthier thoughts can create new neural pathways or brain wiring that would override the old neural pathways created by negative habits  ....  Non-materialist cognitive psychology or therapy  is built up on that: i tried it myself , and it does work .

Why do you think cognitive therapy is non materialist?

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1463
    • View Profile
I can't help but wonder, what if some new type of force involving consciousness , or some new form of  "stuff" was discovered? What difference would it make?
If quantum field theory (the Standard Model) is even a reasonable approximation to the way the world works (and the evidence suggests it is far more than that - particularly now the long-predicted Higgs particle has been found), then such a force doesn't exist, and any 'stuff' would have to be made of familiar material. No unknown forces or particles relevant to everyday human-scale interactions remain to be discovered - there are probably plenty at other scales and strengths, but the fundamentals of our everyday environment are all accounted for (gravity, electromagnetism, electrons, protons, and neutrons).

It's a strong claim, but QFT is a strong theory. For the full, exciting, entertaining details, see Sean Carroll's talk The Higgs Boson and the Fundamental Nature of Reality. Skip to 33 minutes for the specific claim (although the whole thing is well worth watching). Please pay close attention to the caveats and limits that Carroll describes.

Thanks. Tomorrow is library night and I plan to catch up on some viewing with their wifi.
I really wish I had a better understanding of physics.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4893
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile

I am only a messenger


But unlike the Post Office or the internet, you have the last word over which messages you transmit, and like BBC television, you do yourself no credit by broadcasting rubbish.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1449
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Thanks. Tomorrow is library night and I plan to catch up on some viewing with their wifi.
I really wish I had a better understanding of physics.
I hope you enjoy the video - Carroll is that rare combination of high-level expertise, broad general knowledge, and a Feynman-like clarity of exposition - with a sense of humour.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
 
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg442699#msg442699 date=1413852051]


Regarding Stapp's work  where he connected Hebb's law ( neurons that fire together connect together ) to what he called the Zeno-effect ( a kindda "glue " that holds the created neural pathways or brain wiring  in place  through the power of conscious focus .


You realize that makes absolutely no sense, right?  Not even metaphorically.

That's a bit how neuroplasticity or self-directed neuroplasticity , grosso-modo , work, from the non-materialist neuroscience's perspective that relies on one particular interpretation of quantum theory , in total contrast with the materialist neuroscience that's still stuck within the classical determinist mechanical Newtonian world view . Non-materialist cognitive psychology or therapy rely on the above , and it works .I tried it myself, once again .I can tell . Many other people did try it also with success...


Why  does  it make no sense to you then ? You have admitted to dlorde that you weren't that into physics, for example  ? Haven't you ? How can you tell then ?

Quote
Quote
The latter explains why habits are so difficult to break ,since focussing on them only strengthens their old neural pathways , and explains that focussing away from old habits regularily through excercises , meditation , discipline ... methodologically , away from them on healthier thoughts can create new neural pathways or brain wiring that would override the old neural pathways created by negative habits  ....  Non-materialist cognitive psychology or therapy  is built up on that: i tried it myself , and it does work .

Why do you think cognitive therapy is non materialist?

You should try to read me well, Cheryl :  Be serious, please :

I said : the non-materialist cognitive therapy .....

There is  materialist and non-materialist cognitive therapy or spychology  ,as there is materialist and non-materialist neuroscience , as there is materialist science and non-materialist science ...

Comprende ?
« Last Edit: 21/10/2014 18:21:04 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile

Prior note : Fact is : you have made many arguments from ignorance (I am well aware of what that means ) , not because you disagreed with me ....., but , simply because you implied that since you were  not familiar with or not informed regarding the evidence provided by non-materialist and other  scientists , then , there were none , and because of similar replies of yours ....Check that out in your own posts to me .
...It's not possible to cover all those fields this way , let alone in detail ,so, that's why i was just referring you all to them through the work of some non-materialist scientists ...

....I cannot do the whole work for you thus : the evidence is there to take a loot at , some of the evidence that's provided even by some mainstream scientists like Shapiro , Jay Gould and others .

It's up to you thus to check out my links and excerpts.
Check out the main link of this thread, don't be lazy  :

I cannot do the whole work for you , once again :



I am not asking you to  “do the work for” me. I am simply suggesting that you provide a link to particular study or two that you feel is most illustrative of the “overwhelming evidence” you keep referring to, and is an example of the kind of  non-material influences your theory proposes. You can’t expect in a discussion forum that people have the time or the motivation to read a dozen books and view countless videos   It is not “lazy” to request that you reference the most important studies that your ideas are based on. (In fact on another science forum, it’s mandatory after repeated requests, or the thread can be closed.)   I do not direct your attention to entire anatomy or neuroscience text books and complain that you are being lazy, narrow minded, or “arguing from ignorance” for not having read them.
If nothing else it would give us something new to do beside rehash the same philosophical disagreement, the general trueness and falseness of methodologies, over and over.

Once again , i am just a messenger and i referred you all to that main particular site regarding the manifesto for a post-materialistic science at least ,as i talked about all that in general terms in my earlier posts via my own words , and also via posting links , excerpts from books, video links ...

That's all i can do for you , since i cannot afford to be spending too much time and energy here which i cannot afford anyway .

You keep repeating the same remarks i have responded to earlier , on many occasions .

That's not serious .

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg442693#msg442693 date=1413848542]

"Spiritual brain ..." is  a funny derision of materialism , and shows how it is false , ridiculous , dogmatic , contradictoty  paradoxical incoherent , unscientific and much more ,

See, that is exactly why I think it will likely be a waste of time. I’m less interested in page after paghttp://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/Themes/naksci3/images/bbc/bold.gife of  their litany of criticisms about evolution or neuroscience. I want to see what alternative explanations and mechanisms they have, and the evidence that backs it, and I suspect that will be once again sorely  lacking and a waste of my time. 
Quote

See ? That's exactly what i mean : you don't read me well : I said that that particular work showed how ridiculous , false ...materialism was / is , while offering alternate explanations to the materialist false ones , through evidence .

 
Quote
while offering some alternate scientific explanations to the false materialist ones .

If I check it out at all, that is what I'd be most interested in seeing if only out of curiosity as to how they think they can pull that off.  But I'm not hopeful.

How can you tell without listening to the evidence presented by "The spiritual brain ..." , for example .I have even offered you a link to download the audio version of the book for free ,remember, so .

Try to download it via the library 's wifi then .

Quote
Quote
The manifesto for a post-materialistic science is all about the fact that materialist science has been delivering a false , dogmatic and distorted version of nature or reality, a false  version  of the nature of reality that pretend to be scientific ,thanks to materialism.

Science is all about trying to explain the universe or the nature of reality or nature ,so, science must abandon materialism , if science wanna be able to deliver some relatively accurate reflections of representations of reality .

"Scientific materialism " is false , so, science has no choice but to become non-materialst , if science doesn't wanna loose its ceredibility and reliability as a valid source of knowledge , otherwise science under materialism would remain just a dogmatic ideology or atheist religion that would remain confined within the false materialist version of reality  , despite all  scientific advances, discoveries ...that were achieved only through the scientific method by materialist and non-materialist scientists alike .

The non-materialist scientists thus are more scientific than the materialist ones could ever be , simply because the former  follow what emiprical evidence show to them , and the latter  just try to make empirical evidence fit into their a-priori held materialist world view ,or just deny it , ignore it as such ,or just call it pseudo-science or worse whenever that empirical evidence would contradict their a-priori held materialist belief or world view .

Science has become a servant or a slave of materialists and materialism , in the sense that science gets misused for the service of the materialist ideology , in order to vindicate it , in vain ,while science should be used to explore the universe through free inquiry .

For the life of me I’ll never understand the benefit you see in attacking all of conventional science based on physical processes, and characterizing it as “false” when clearly it has elucidated the mechanisms behind a vast number of phenomena, in physics, chemistry, biology, botany, medicine, etc and has completely altered the human experience and potential. And although you keep saying this progress in knowledge has nothing to do with materialism, it has had everything to do with it, and the belief that nature was intelligible and could be explained through physical processes without resorting to mystical elements or God.


Material causes or material processes are one part of the picture , not the whole picture , that's why science has been successful , even within the boundaries of the materialist false theory of the nature of reality , since the physical or material world is also a part of the whole picture .

But, when materialist science tries to approach certain natural phenomena whose nature has been proven to be non-material or non-physical and non-local as well such as consciousness, for example, to mention just that one and its related psi phenomena , placebo/nocebo effects and much more , then materialist science cannot but break its materialist neck on those 'anomalies " it cannot account for .that's why the urgent need of a post -materialistic science that embraces both the material and the immaterial in nature through one particular interpretation of quantum theory .

So, only through the scientific method were /are and will scientists (materialist and non-materialist scientists alike thus ) advance science , make discoveries , acquire scientific knowledge , propose theories, models  .....
Materialism has been having absolutely nothing to do with all that amazing and wonderful success of science .Materialism has just been confining science within its materialist false theory of the nature of reality= within the material or physical level of reality that's not the whole reality thus  .That's why science was only successful at the physical or material level of reality only : there is more to reality than just that thus .And even at the level of the material or physical world ,materialist science has been breaking its materialist head on what  quantum theory tells us about the "nature of matter or the nature of reality " , or just one particular interpretation of quantum theory  that  has shown that there is no separate material or physical world as such , no separate matter as such thus , no separate mind as such : they are inseparable : Our "reality " is psycho-physical .

Quote
But fine, if you feel there is "more", or "something else" out there, what’s stopping you or anyone else from discovering it and using the scientific method to explain its workings? A mass conspiracy against such investigations is not tenable.

Non-materialist scientists were /are and will be doing just that : you're just not aware of their work ,theories, models , data or evidence .

Who talked about any form of conspiracy then ?

To claim that materialism is false is no 'conspiracy theory " lol : that's a claim that has been backed by a lots of evidence .
« Last Edit: 21/10/2014 18:58:19 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Cheryl :

Just responding to most of the posts here does cost me quite some time and energy (not to mention money as well lol ) , so, how do you expect me to tell you about all the work, models, theories, evidence , data of non-materialist scientists .? You gotta be kidding me .

I talked about all that in general terms in my own words , and via links , video links , excerpts of books ....That's all i can do for you , guys ...

It's up to you all to check all that out , or otherwise ,so : I can only take you to the fountain .I cannot make you drink from it , not that i necessarily care that you would  .

Got other things and duties to attend to as well like everybodyelse , so .

P.S .: dlorde, alancalverd...  :

No time left , sorry .Thanks .Cheers.
« Last Edit: 21/10/2014 19:14:03 by DonQuichotte »