Major Bombshell : Manifesto For A Post-Materialistic Science :

  • 1132 Replies
  • 192766 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1461
    • 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.

I asked for one solid study as an example of the "over whelming body of evidence" you keep referring to.
« Last Edit: 21/10/2014 21:24:39 by cheryl j »

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1461
    • 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 ?

How does materialist cognitive therapy differ from non-materialist cognitive therapy and how can you tell which one you or your therapist is using?

So if someone tells you that angels or crystals  healed their pneumonia or sprained ankle, Don, do you believe it?

I'm not talking about any placebo effect.  Let's say a friend comes to you and says she believes crystals have healing power. She gives you links to youtube videos with crystalologists explaining the various properties of crystals and their "energy fields." She gives you page after page of testimonials by people who say they have been healed by crystals. When you are skeptical, she demands you prove absolutely that they can't have any effect on the outcome of disease or injury.  You actually manage to find a study that shows no physiological effects of crystals; she claims it was biased or incomplete.  She shows you a manefesto signed by several scientists saying there should be more research about power of crystals.

On what basis do you, you yourself, believe or dismiss these claims? What would you need to be convinced?

« Last Edit: 21/10/2014 22:12:51 by cheryl j »

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1441
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
I asked for one solid study as an example of the "over whelming body of evidence" you keep referring to.
As Yogi Berra said, "It's deja-vu all over again". We've been on this merry-go-round before.

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1461
    • View Profile


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


One good study.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Reminiscent of Einstein's quote. A paper had been signed by 100 Nazi professors, denouncing his "Jewish science". Asked what he thought of this massive consensus of experts he said "I am delighted. Had I been wrong, one student would have been able to prove it." 
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2794
    • View Profile
Quote from: cheryl j
I asked for one solid study as an example of the "over whelming body of evidence" you keep referring to.
Hi Cheryl,

I read the first post of this thread and read the first link where it said this: The authors of the manifesto are all scientific mavericks whose viewpoints are not mainstream. There's another name for such mavericks, i.e. crackpots! LOL!!

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1281
    • View Profile
Quote from: cheryl j
I asked for one solid study as an example of the "over whelming body of evidence" you keep referring to.
Hi Cheryl,

I read the first post of this thread and read the first link where it said this: The authors of the manifesto are all scientific mavericks whose viewpoints are not mainstream. There's another name for such mavericks, i.e. crackpots! LOL!!
Astute observation Pete...........crackpots are never in short supply.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
There's a difference. Mavericks survive when the herd runs over a cliff. Crackpots generally selfdestruct, regardless of the circumstances.

In science, mavericks quietly point out the particular mistakes or inadequate observations of others, whilst crackpots shout about the supernatural and claim to have a Grand Solution to Everything, which they never actually demonstrate. Hence Galileo = maverick, Holy Office of the Pope = crackpots.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • 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.

I have watched the video : it's quite impressive and very clear indeed, not to mention amusing too , from time to time  .

But , how come  that the standard model of quantum field theory cannot account for or rather detect the mental in nature ? if it is a good approximation of how the everyday -scale world works ?

Any materialist claims regarding the nature of reality should be a -priori dismissed as being false , since materialism is false .

Any materialist claims regarding how the world works should be also a -priori partly dismissed as being incomplete ,or as being just a distortion of the nature of the world or reality , since the nature of reality is not exclusively material or physical .



« Last Edit: 22/10/2014 18:05:19 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg442690#msg442690 date=1413845324]
... 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).

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

There are many interpretations of quantum physics , you know .

Quote
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 .
Quote
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).

A historical footnote ? How come that many physicists , even today , still take it for granted as a physic's fact,  such as quantum physicist Amit Goswami and many others then ? :

See what Goswami says about the wave function collapse and more .He's an idealist monist .I don't necessarily agree with the latter philosophy though : The man is still alive and kicking : has he been deluded ? or is he no expert of quantum physics ? : lol :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnQ63AOrs6s

As you know , there are many interpretations of quantum theory , what makes you then think that the materialist one is the approximately 'correct " one ?


Regarding Stapp's work in relation to ions : see this new discovery concerning potassium channels  :

Researchers reach 'paradigm shift' in understanding potassium channels :

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-10-paradigm-shift-potassium-channels.html

Not to mention Wilder Pnefield's and Eccles' work regarding the mind -body problem :


Excerpt from a book by Chris Carter :

Wilder Penfield started his career as a neurosurgeon trying to explain the mind in terms of physical processes in the brain. In the course of surgical treatment of patients who have temporal lobe seizures, Penfield stumbled upon the fact that electrical stimulation of certain areas of the cortex could activate a stream of memories that had been laid down years or even decades earlier. In fact, the patient would “relive” the earlier episode, recalling incidents in far greater detail than would be possible by voluntary recall, but during the flashback, the patient would remain completely aware of what was happening in the operating room. Penfield summed up the conclusions he formed on the basis of these experiments by stating:
The patient’s mind, which is considering the situation in such an aloof and critical manner, can only be something quite apart from neuronal reflex action. It is noteworthy that two streams of consciousness are flowing, the one driven by input from the environment, the other by an electrode delivering sixty pulses per second to the cortex. The fact that there should be no confusion in the conscious state suggests that, although the content of consciousness depends in large measure on neuronal activity, awareness itself does not.
On the basis of his experiments and examinations of patients with various forms of epilepsy, Penfield concluded that the mind interacts with the brain in the upper brain stem, an ancient structure that humans share with reptiles. Penfield, who won the Nobel Prize for his work, considers the rest of the brain to be a magnificent biological computer, programmed by the mind. He found that electrical stimulation of most parts of the brain resulted either in memories relived in vivid detail, involuntary movement of a part of the body, or paralysis of some function, such as speech. By contrast, injury to or epileptic discharge in the higher brain stem always simply resulted in loss of consciousness, leading Penfield to conclude, “Here is the meeting of mind and brain. The psychico-physical frontier is here.”
Penfield thought that the brain as a computer could accomplish a great deal by automatic mechanisms, but that “what the mind does is different. It is not to be accounted for by any neuronal mechanism that I can discover.” He also stated:
There is no area of gray matter, as far as my experience goes, in which local epileptic discharge brings to pass what could be called “mindaction” … there is no valid evidence that either epileptic discharge or electrical stimulation can activate the mind.
If one stops to consider it, this is an arresting fact. The record of consciousness can be set in motion, complicated though it is, by the electrode or by epileptic discharge. An illusion of interpretation can be produced in the same way. But none of the actions that we attribute to the mind has been initiated by electrode stimulation or epileptic discharge. If there were a mechanism in the brain that could do what the mind does, one might expect that the mechanism would betray its presence in a convincing manner by some better evidence of epileptic or electrode activation.
In other words, Penfield argues that if the brain produced or generated consciousness, then we would expect that consciousness itself could be influenced by epilepsy or electrical stimulation in some way other than simply being switched off; that is, we would expect beliefs or decisions to be produced. The complete absence of any such effect in Penfield’s experience led him to reject the production hypothesis in favor of dualistic interaction.
Edwards argues that the most Penfield has shown is that brain activity is not a sufficient condition of consciousness; Edwards argues that it may still be a necessary condition. Edwards refers to this alleged confusion of sufficient and necessary conditions as “the confusions of Penfield.” Edwards wrote, “The fact that Penfield could not produce beliefs or decisions by electrical stimulation of the brain in no way shows that they do not need what we may call a brain-base any less than memories and sensations.” But Penfield fully agrees that the brain might still be a necessary condition for consciousness. He wrote, “When death at last blows out the candle that was life … what can one really conclude? What is the reasonable hypothesis in regard to this matter, considering the physiological evidence? Only this: the brain has not explained the mind fully.Penfield’s point is simply that there is nothing in brain physiology that precludes the possibility of consciousness in the absence of a brain, contrary to what Edwards would have us believe. Once again it is Edwards who is confused—in this case, about what Penfield actually thought.
In direct contrast to Edwards’ statement that “the instrument theory is absurd,” Penfield writes: “To expect the highest brain-mechanism or any set of reflexes, however complicated, to carry out what the mind does, and thus perform all the functions of the mind, is quite absurd.”
Penfield sums up what he thinks the physiological evidence suggests for the relationship between mind and body.
On the basis of mind and brain as two semi-independent elements, one would still be forced to assume that the mind makes its impact upon the brain through the highest brain-mechanism. The mind must act upon it. The mind must also be acted upon by the highest brain-mechanism. The mind must remember by making use of the brain’s recording mechanisms… . And yet the mind seems to act independently of the brain in the same sense that a programmer acts independently of his computer, however much he may depend upon the action of that computer for certain purposes.
On the final pages of his book he states:
I worked as a scientist trying to prove that the brain accounted for the mind and demonstrating as many brain-mechanisms as possible hoping to show how the brain did so. In presenting this monograph I do not begin with a conclusion and I do not end by making a final and unalterable one. Instead, I reconsider the present-day neurophysiological evidence on the basis of two hypotheses: (a) that man’s being consists of one fundamental element, and (b) that it consists of two. In the end I conclude that there is no good evidence, in spite of new methods, such as the employment of stimulating electrodes, the study of conscious patients and the analysis of epileptic attacks, that the brain alone can carry out the work that the mind does. I conclude that it is easier to rationalize man’s being on the basis of two elements than on the basis of one.
The relevance of Penfield’s arguments can be summarized as this: if the neurophysiological evidence suggests that man’s being consists of two elements rather than one, then the separate existence of these two elements cannot be ruled out by consideration of this evidence.
A second prominent neuroscientist to endorse a dualistic model of mind-brain interaction was John Eccles, who found the conscious integration of visual experience impossible to account for in terms of known neurological processes because nerve impulses related to visual experience appear to be fragmented and sent to divergent areas of the brain. This difficulty led Eccles to postulate the existence of a conscious mind existing separate from and in addition to the physical brain, with the raison d’etre of the former being the integration of neural activity.
In addition to noting that there is a unitary character about the experiences of the self-conscious mind despite the fragmentary nature of brain activity, Eccles also held that there can be a temporal discrepancy between neural events and conscious experiences* and that there is a continual experience that the mind can act on brain events, which is most apparent in voluntary action or the attempt to recall a word or a memory. These considerations, combined with his lifelong study of the brain and its neurons, form the basis of his opinions on the mind-body relationship.
Eccles hypothesizes that the mind may influence the brain by exerting spatio-temporal patterns of influence on the brain, which operates as a detector of these fields of influence. In his book Facing Reality: Philosophical Adventures of a Brain Scientist, Eccles first discusses the structure and activity of the brain in great detail and then writes:
In this discussion of the functioning of the brain, it has initially been regarded as a “machine” operating according to the laws of physics and chemistry. In conscious states it has been shown that it could be in a state of extreme sensitivity as a detector of minute spatiotemporal fields of influence. The hypothesis is here developed that these spatio-temporal fields of influence are exerted by the mind on the brain in willed action. If one uses the expressive terminology of Ryle, the “ghost” operates a “machine,” not of ropes and pulleys, valves and pipes, but of microscopic spatio-temporal patterns of activity in the neuronal net woven by the synaptic connections of ten thousand million neurons, and even then only by operating on neurons that are momentarily poised close to a just threshold level of excitability. It would appear that it is the sort of machine a “ghost” could operate, if by ghost we mean in the first place an “agent” whose action has escaped detection even by the most delicate physical instruments. *
Eccles postulated a two-way interaction between brain and mind, with “brain receiving from conscious mind in a willed action and in turn transmitting to mind in a conscious experience.”
 It is not clear whether Eccles was convinced of the existence of an afterlife, but he did write, “Atleast I would maintain that this possibility of a future existence cannot be denied on scientific grounds.”
It needs to be stressed that the findings of modern neuroscience do not alter the argument one bit, as they are equally compatible with both production and transmission. Gary Schwartz, professor of psychology, neurology, psychiatry, medicine, and surgery at the University of Arizona, points out that among neuroscientists with a materialist bent, the belief that consciousness arises from physical processes in the brain is based on three kinds of investigation:
1. Correlation studies (e.g., electroencephalogram, or EEG, correlates of visual perception)
2. Stimulation studies (e.g., electrical or magnetic stimulation)
3. Ablation studies (e.g., the effect of brain lesions).
However, analogous methods are applied during television repair with parallel results, yet no one comes to the conclusion that pictures on the screen are created inside the television. Schwartz describes the brain as the “antenna-receiver” for the mind and points out that the evidence from neuroscience, like the evidence from television repair, is just as compatible with the hypothesis of reception-transmission as it is with the hypothesis of production.
Like Penfield and Eccles before him, Schwartz has also come to the conclusion that the mind is a separate entity from the brain, and that mental processes cannot be reduced to neurochemical brain processes but on the contrary direct them. Like Penfield and Eccles, he also thinks that a mind may conceivably exist without a brain. Since Edwards has not succeeded in showing that the possibility of survival is inconsistent with the facts of neurology, and since we have seen that three prominent neuroscientists do not share Edwards’ opinion that the transmission theory is “absurd,” we can now clearly see Edwards dismissal as what it is: dogmatic prejudice against an empirical possibility that does not coincide with his materialistic faith.


« Last Edit: 22/10/2014 18:10:52 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

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

I thought i was clear enough .I have no time for silly games . Cheers.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
James A. Shapiro - Revisiting Evolution in The 21st Century :


http://vimeo.com/17592530

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
"The Spiritual Brain , A Neuroscientist's Case For The Existence of The Soul  " By Mario Beauregard and Denyse O'Leary

(Prior note : Cheryl : why didn't you download the audio version of this book for which i provided you with a link to download it from ? Why didn't you use the library's wifi for that then, lazy sis , since you pretend to be interested in what these scientists had to say ?  , not to mention your cameleon-like mood swings that make this discussion with you a very Kafkaian weird one .
Non-materialist cognitive therapy might help you with that , i guess .
I tried to fix the display of this excerpt , almost in vain ...sorry .)


Introduction :

When my doctoral student Vincent Paquette and I first began studying
the spiritual experiences of Carmelite nuns at the Université de Montréal,
we knew that our motives were quite likely to be misunderstood.
First, we had to convince the nuns that we were not trying to prove that
their religious experiences did not actually occur, that they were delusions,
or that a brain glitch explained them. Then we had to quiet both the
hopes of professional atheists and the fears of clergy about the possibility
that we were trying to reduce these experiences to some kind of “God
switch” in the brain.
Many neuroscientists want to do just that. But Vincent and I belong to
a minority—nonmaterialist neuroscientists. Most scientists today are materialists who believe that the physical world is the only reality. Absolutely everything else—including thought, feeling, mind, and will—can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena, leaving no room for the possibility that religious and spiritual experiences are anything but illusions.
Materialists are like Charles Dickens’s character Ebeneezer
Scrooge who dismisses his experience of Marley’s ghost as merely “an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato.”
Vincent and I, on the other hand, did not approach our research with
any such materialist presumption. As we are not materialists, we did not
doubt in principle that a contemplative might contact a reality outside
herself during a mystical experience. In fact, I went into neuroscience in
part because I knew experientially that such things can indeed happen.
Vincent and I simply wanted to know what the neural correlates—the activity of the neurons—during such an experience might be. Given the
overwhelming dominance of materialism in neuroscience today, we count
ourselves lucky that the nuns believed in our sincerity and agreed to help us and that the Templeton Foundation saw the value of funding our studies.
Of course, you may well ask, can neuroscience studies of contemplative
nuns demonstrate that God exists? No, but they can—and did—demonstrate
that the mystical state of consciousness really exists. In this state, the
contemplative likely experiences aspects of reality that are not available in
other states. These findings rule out various materialist theses that the
contemplative is faking or confabulating the experience. Vincent and I
also showed that mystical experiences are complex—a finding that challenges a vast variety of simplistic materialist explanations such as a “God gene,” “God spot,” or “God switch” in our brains.
Toronto-based journalist Denyse O’Leary and I have written this book to
discuss the significance of these studies, and more generally, to provide a neuroscientific approach to understanding religious, spiritual, and mystical experiences.
The discipline of neuroscience today is materialist. That is, it assumes
that the mind is quite simply the physical workings of the brain. To see what this means, consider a simple sentence: “I made up my mind to buy a bike.”
One would not say, “I made up my brain to buy a bike.” By contrast, one
might say, “Bike helmets prevent brain damage,” but not “Bike helmets prevent ideological system.
” But materialists think that the distinction you make between
your mind as an immaterial entity and your brain as a bodily organ
has no real basis. The mind is assumed to be a mere illusion generated by the workings of the brain. Some materialists even think you should not in fact use terminology that implies that your mind exists.
In this book, we intend to show you that your mind does exist, that it
is not merely your brain. Your thoughts and feelings cannot be dismissed
or explained away by firing synapses and physical phenomena alone. In a
solely material world, “will power” or “mind over matter” are illusions,
there is no such thing as purpose or meaning, there is no room for God.
Yet many people have experience of these things, and we present evidence
that these experiences are real.
In contrast, many materialists now argue that notions like meaning or
purpose do not correspond to reality; they are merely adaptations for
human survival. In other words, they have no existence beyond the evolution of circuits in our brains. As co-discoverer of the genetic code
Francis Crick writes in The Astonishing Hypothesis, “Our highly developed brains, after all, were not evolved under the pressure of discovering scientific truths but only to enable us to be clever enough to survive and leave descendants.”
But are questions about our meaning or purpose merely survival
mechanisms? If such an airy dismissal of the intellectual life of
thousands of years sounds vaguely unconvincing, well, perhaps it should.
Suppose, for example, a healthy man donates a kidney for free to a
dying stranger. The materialist may look for an analogy among moles,
rats, or chimpanzees, as the best way to understand the donor’s motives.
He believes that the donor’s mind can be completely explained by the hypothesis
that his brain evolved slowly and painstakingly from the brains of
creatures like these. Therefore, his mind is merely an illusion created by
the workings of an overdeveloped brain, and his consciousness of his situation is actually irrelevant as an explanation of his actions.
This book argues that the fact that the human brain evolves does not
show that the human mind can be dismissed in this way. Rather, the
human brain can enable a human mind, whereas the mole brain cannot
(with my apologies to the mole species). The brain, however, is not the
mind; it is an organ suitable for connecting a mind to the rest of the universe.
By analogy, Olympic swimming events require an Olympic class
swimming pool. But the pool does not create the Olympic events; it
makes them feasible at a given location.
From the materialist perspective, our human mind’s consciousness and
free will are problems to be explained away. To see what this means, consider Harvard cognitive scientist Steven Pinker’s comments on consciousness in a recent piece in Time magazine entitled “The Mystery of
Consciousness” ( January 19, 2007). Addressing two key problems that
scientists face, he writes, Although neither problem has been solved, neuroscientists agree on many features of both of them, and the feature they find least controversial is the one that many people outside the field find the most shocking.
Francis Crick called it “the astonishing hypothesis”—the idea that our thoughts, sensations, joys and aches consist entirely of physiological activity in the tissues of the brain. Consciousness does not reside in an ethereal soul that uses the brain like a PDA [personal digital assistant]; consciousness is the activity of the brain.
Given that Pinker admits that neither problem concerning consciousness
is either solved or anywhere close to being solved, how can he be so
sure that consciousness is merely “the activity of the brain,” implying that
there is no soul? .
One convenient aspect of Pinker’s materialism is that any doubt can be
labeled “unscientific” in principle. That preempts a discussion of materialism’s plausibility .
 Certainly, materialism is a faith that many intellectuals
would never think of questioning. But the strength of their conviction
neither shows that it is a correct account of reality nor provides evidence
in its favor. A good case can be made for the opposite view, as this book
will demonstrate.
Yes, this book—departing from a general trend in books on neuroscience
aimed at the general public—does question materialism. Much more
than that, it presents evidence that materialism is not true. You will see for
yourself that the evidence for materialism is not nearly so good as Steven
Pinker would like you to believe. You can only retain your faith in materialism by assuming—on faith—that any contrary evidence you read about must be wrong.
For example, as we will show, a materialist readily believes—without
any reliable evidence whatsoever—that great spiritual leaders suffer from
temporal-lobe epilepsy rather than that they have spiritual experiences that
inspire others as well as themselves. Where spirituality is concerned, this
experiential data is an embarrassment to narrow materialism. That is because a system like materialism is severely damaged by any evidence against it.
Consequently, data that defy materialism are simply ignored by many
scientists. For instance, materialists have conducted a running war against
psi research (research on knowledge or action at a distance, such as extrasensory perception, telepathy, precognition, or telekinesis) for decades,because any evidence of psi’s validity, no matter how minor, is fatal to their ideological system.
Recently, for example, self-professed skeptics have attacked atheist neuroscience grad student Sam Harris for having proposed,
in his book entitled The End of Faith (2004), that psi research has validity.
Harris is only following the evidence, as we shall see. But in doing so, he is
clearly violating an important tenet of materialism: materialist ideology
trumps evidence.
But other challenges to materialism exist. Materialists must believe that
their minds are simply an illusion created by the workings of the brain
and therefore that free will does not really exist and could have no influence in controlling any disorder. But nonmaterialist approaches have
clearly demonstrated mental health benefits. The following are a few examples discussed in this book.
Jeffrey Schwartz, a nonmaterialist UCLA neuropsychiatrist, treats
obsessive-compulsive disorder—a neuropsychiatric disease marked by distressing,intrusive, and unwanted thoughts—by getting patients to reprogram their brains. Their minds change their brains.
Similarly, some of my neuroscientist colleagues at the Université de
Montréal and I have demonstrated, via brain imaging techniques, the
following:
• Women and young girls can voluntarily control their level of
response to sad thoughts, though young girls found it more difficult
to do so.
• Men who view erotic films are quite able to control their responses
to them, when asked to do so.
• People who suffer from phobias such as spider phobia can
reorganize their brains so that they lose the fear.
Evidence of the mind’s control over the brain is actually captured in
these studies. There is such a thing as “mind over matter.” We do have will
power, consciousness, and emotions, and combined with a sense of purpose
and meaning, we can effect change.
At one time, materialist explanations of religion and spirituality were at
least worth considering. For example, Sigmund Freud argued that childhood
memories of a father figure led religious people to believe in God.
Freud’s explanation failed because Christianity is the only major religion
that emphasizes the fatherhood of God. But his idea, while wrong, was
not ridiculous. Relationships with fathers, happy or otherwise, are complex
human experiences, with some analogies to religion. Similarly, anthropologist
J. G. Frazer thought that modern religions grew out of primal
fertility cults and were only later spiritualized. Actually, the evidence
points more clearly to spiritual experiences as the source of later religious
beliefs and rituals. Still, Frazer’s idea was far from trivial. It derived from a
long and deep acquaintance with ancient belief systems.
But recently, materialistic explanations of religion and spirituality have
gotten out of hand. Influenced by this materialistic prejudice, popular
media jump at stories about the violence gene, the fat gene, the monogamy
gene, the infidelity gene, and now, even a God gene! The argument goes like this: evolutionary psychologists attempt to explain human spirituality and belief in God by insisting that cave dwellers in the remote past who believed in a supernatural reality were more likely to pass on their genes than cave dwellers who didn’t. Progress in genetics and neuroscience has encouraged some to look, quite seriously, for such a God gene, or else a God spot,module, factor, or switch in the human brain. By the time the amazing God helmet” (a snowmobile helmet modified with solenoids that purportedly could stimulate subjects to experience God) in Sudbury,Canada,
became a magnet for science journalists in the 1990s (the Decade of the
Brain), materialism was just about passing beyond parody. Nonetheless,
materialists continue to search for a God switch. Such comic diversions
aside, there is no escaping the nonmaterialism of the human mind.
Essentially, there is no God switch. As the studies with the Carmelite
nuns have demonstrated and this book will detail, spiritual experiences are
complex experiences, like our experiences of human relationships. They
leave signatures in many parts of the brain. That fact is consistent with
(though it does not by itself demonstrate) the notion that the experiencer
contacts a reality outside herself.
The fact is materialism is stalled. It neither has any useful hypotheses
for the human mind or spiritual experiences nor comes close to developing
any. Just beyond lies a great realm that cannot even be entered via
materialism, let alone explored. But the good news is that, in the absence
of materialism, there are hopeful signs that spirituality can indeed be entered and explored with modern neuroscience.
Nonmaterialist neuroscience is not compelled to reject, deny, explain
away, or treat as problems all evidence that defies materialism. That is
promising because current research is turning up a growing body of such
evidence. Three examples addressed in this book are the psi effect, near
death experiences (NDEs), and the placebo effect.
The psi effect, as seen in such phenomena as extrasensory perception
and psychokinesis, is a low-level effect, to be sure, but efforts to disconfirm it have failed. NDEs have also become a more frequent subject of research in recent years, probably because the spread of advanced resuscitation techniques has created a much larger population that survives
to recount them. As a result of the work of researchers such as Pim
van Lommel, Sam Parnia, Peter Fenwick, and Bruce Greyson, we now
have a growing base of information. The results do not support a materialist
view of mind and consciousness, as advanced by Pinker, who writes
in Time “when the physiological activity of the brain ceases, as far as
anyone can tell the person’s consciousness goes out of existence.”
Most of us have not experienced unusual effects like psi or NDE, but
we have all probably experienced the placebo effect: have you ever gone to your doctor to get a letter saying you can’t go to work because you have a bad cold—and suddenly begun to feel better while sitting in the clinic, leafing through magazines? It’s embarrassing, but easy to explain: your mind generates messages to begin the analgesic or healing processes when you accept that you have in fact started on a path to recovery.
Materialist neuroscience has long regarded the placebo effect as a problem, but it is one of the best attested phenomena in medicine. But for nonmaterialist neuroscience, it is a normal effect that can be of great therapeutic value when properly used.
Materialism is apparently unable to answer key questions about the
nature of being human and has little prospect of ever answering them intelligibly. It has also convinced millions of people that they should not seek to develop their spiritual nature because they have none.
Some think that the solution is to continue to uphold materialism a bit
more raucously than before. Currently, key materialist spokespersons have
launched a heavily publicized and somewhat puzzling “anti-God” crusade.
Antitheistic works such as Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (Daniel Dennett), The God Delusion (Richard Dawkins), God:
The Failed Hypothesis—How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist (Victor
J. Stenger), God Is Not Great (Christopher Hitchens), and Letters to a
Christian Nation (Sam Harris) are accompanied by conferences such as
the Science Network’s “Beyond Belief ” and campaigns such as the You-
Tube Blasphemy Challenge.
The remarkable thing is that there isn’t a single new idea in anything
they have to say. Eighteenth-century philosophes said it all long ago, to as
much or little purpose. Granted, recent works have been spiced with the
questionable assumptions of evolutionary psychology—the attempt to
derive religion and spirituality from the practices that may have enabled a
few of our Pleistocene ancestors to pass on their genes. But the Pleistocene ancestors are long gone, and not much can really be learned from a discipline that lacks a subject. There are also plenty of assurances about the illusory nature of mind, consciousness, and free will, and the uselessness or danger of spirituality.
A variety of experts of the mid-twentieth century had predicted that
spirituality would slowly but surely disappear. Once supplied with abundant
material goods, people would just stop thinking about God. But the
experts were wrong. Spirituality today is more varied, but it is growing all
over the world. Thus, its continuing vitality prompts speculations, fears,
and some pretty wild guesses—but most of all, a compelling curiosity, a
desire to investigate.
But how can we investigate spirituality scientifically? To start with, we
can rediscover our nonmaterialist inheritance. It has always been there,
just widely ignored. Famous neuroscientists such as Charles Sherrington,
Wilder Penfield, and John Eccles, were not in fact reductive materialists,
and they had good reasons for their position. Today, nonmaterialist neuroscience is thriving, despite the limitations imposed by widespread misunderstanding and, in a few cases, hostility. Readers are urged to approach all the questions and evidence presented in this book with an open mind.
This is a time for exploration, not dogma.
Our book will establish three key ideas. The nonmaterialist approach
to the human mind is a rich and vital tradition that accounts for the evidence much better than the currently stalled materialist one. Second,
nonmaterialist approaches to the mind result in practical benefits and
treatments, as well as promising approaches to phenomena that materialist
accounts cannot even address. Lastly—and this may be the most important
value for many readers—our book shows that when spiritual experiences
transform lives, the most reasonable explanation and the one that best accounts for all the evidence, is that the people who have such experiences have actually contacted a reality outside themselves, a reality that has brought them closer to the real nature of the universe.

Mario Beauregard
Montreal, Canada
March 4, 2007
« Last Edit: 22/10/2014 21:12:16 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
I did not really succeed in fixing the display of the above posted excerpt ,sorry .I didn't have enough time for that at my disposal either ,so .
For much more solid scientific non-materialist stuff, later then ,if i have time for that at least .Cheers.

P.S.:

dlorde :
See my replies to your posts here above .Thanks.
« Last Edit: 22/10/2014 21:16:47 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1441
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Quote
Decoherence.

There are many interpretations of quantum physics , you know .
Decoherence isn't an interpretation, it's a central feature.

Quote
The man is still alive and kicking : has he been deluded ?
So it would seem.
 
Quote
As you know , there are many interpretations of quantum theory , what makes you then think that the materialist one is the approximately 'correct " one ?
There are many interpretations. It really doesn't matter which is 'correct', what matters is that the the field theory works - and it does, regardless of the presence of consciousness.

Quote
<book extract>
TL;DR. Try summarising in your own words.

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1461
    • View Profile
"The Spiritual Brain , A Neuroscientist's Case For The Existence of The Soul  " By Mario Beauregard and Denyse O'Leary

(Prior note : Cheryl : why didn't you download the audio version of this book for which i provided you with a link to download it from ? Why didn't you use the library's wifi for that then, lazy sis , since you pretend to be interested in what these scientists had to say ?  , not to mention your cameleon-like mood swings that make this discussion with you a very Kafkaian weird one .
Non-materialist cognitive therapy might help you with that , i guess .
I tried to fix the display of this excerpt , almost in vain ...sorry .)




How do you know what I did or didn't download? You said I was wasting your time with silly games, so I did not think you would be interested in my comments.

Now if you'll excuse me, I seem to have transformed inexplicably into an insect like creature with a large tail, and I am going down to the bureau to file some papers about it.
« Last Edit: 23/10/2014 02:15:55 by cheryl j »

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8175
    • View Profile
"The Spiritual Brain , A Neuroscientist's Case For The Existence of The Soul  " By Mario Beauregard and Denyse O'Leary

(Prior note : Cheryl : why didn't you download the audio version of this book ...

Don't bother downloading : their work is summarised on rationalwiki ...

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

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Denyse_O'Leary


[ also see  ... http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_woo ]

« Last Edit: 23/10/2014 03:41:50 by RD »

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1441
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
OK, I had enough free time to read the extract from Carter's book.

The summary? three prominent neuroscientists use the argument from incredulity to espouse a dualist interpretation of mind-brain for which there is no empirical evidence. Is that a scientific approach? Clearly not.

However, Carter does say, "It needs to be stressed that the findings of modern neuroscience do not alter the argument one bit, as they are equally compatible with both production and transmission."

Although this is far from the impression I get from my reading, for the sake of argument, let's evaluate this statement as it stands. When two theories can't be distinguished on the evidence alone, Popper says we should prefer the one with the highest degree of empirical content (The Logic of Scientific Discovery). Poincare suggested simplicity (best expressed in Ockham's Razor); more contemporary criteria are to choose the theory which provides the best (and novel) predictions, the one with the highest explanatory potential, the one which offers better problems or the most elegant and simple one. Alternatively a theory may be preferable if it is better integrated into the rest of contemporary knowledge.

In each case, the dualist theory falls - it has no empirical content, requires additional unexplained entities, has no predictive power, no explanatory potential, has intractable problems (not least interaction itself), is neither elegant nor simple, nor does it integrate into contemporary knowledge.

However, we've only examined this in an isolated context - what does the rest of science tell us? thermodynamics and information theory tells us that persistent information patterns, such as an independent mind, require some persistent medium and energy source to maintain them. Interaction involves energy transfer. Quantum field theory tells us that only electromagnetism has the range and strength to support neural interaction. Extensive research involving the brain has shown no evidence of any such extraneous fields, no information supporting medium, no extraneous energy source or consumption, and no interaction; and EMF disruptions, such as MRI scanners, and Faraday cage shielding helmets have no effect on consciousness. If such a field and its interactions were too delicate to detect or measure, they'd be too delicate to influence the relatively crude (by modern measurement standards) electrochemical activity of neurons, and would be swamped and disrupted by the everyday fields of household wiring & electrical devices, not least mobile phones.

In short, it's a busted flush.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg442871#msg442871 date=1414018956]
"The Spiritual Brain , A Neuroscientist's Case For The Existence of The Soul  " By Mario Beauregard and Denyse O'Leary

(Prior note : Cheryl : why didn't you download the audio version of this book for which i provided you with a link to download it from ? Why didn't you use the library's wifi for that then, lazy sis , since you pretend to be interested in what these scientists had to say ?  , not to mention your cameleon-like mood swings that make this discussion with you a very Kafkaian weird one .
Non-materialist cognitive therapy might help you with that , i guess .
I tried to fix the display of this excerpt , almost in vain ...sorry .)




How do you know what I did or didn't download?


Well, your strange cameleon-like mood swings make this discussion with you a very Kafkaian weird one , as i said earlier .
You kept asking me for what non-materialist scientists had to say , so, i replied to that on many occasions, while reminding you of the fact that i did provide a link  through which you could download the audio version of the book for free ,to see for yourself .

And since , you kept on asking me the same non-sense , i presumed thus that you did not download that audiobook .

Quote
You said I was wasting your time with silly games, so I did not think you would be interested in my comments.

I was just referring to yor repeated requests and mainly to that so-called crystal healing silly story ...

Quote
Now if you'll excuse me, I seem to have transformed inexplicably into an insect like creature with a large tail, and I am going down to the bureau to file some papers about it.

Very funny .
I was more referring to Kafka's "Trial " than to his "Metamorphosis " book .



*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
"The Spiritual Brain , A Neuroscientist's Case For The Existence of The Soul  " By Mario Beauregard and Denyse O'Leary

(Prior note : Cheryl : why didn't you download the audio version of this book ...

Don't bother downloading : their work is summarised on rationalwiki ...

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

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Denyse_O'Leary


[ also see  ... http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_woo ]

We already dealt with that in one form or another through Cheryl 's  same link on the subject from rationalwiki .

The latter is just a materialist approach that has nothing rational about it .

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg442882#msg442882 date=1414059557]
OK, I had enough free time to read the extract from Carter's book.

The summary? three prominent neuroscientists use the argument from incredulity to espouse a dualist interpretation of mind-brain for which there is no empirical evidence. Is that a scientific approach? Clearly not.

Thanks for taking the time to read that excerpt of Carter .I give you credit for that at least,and for your related open-mindedness as well thus .I salute that .

That said :

Who says there is no empirical evidence whatsoever for that dualist interpretation ?, even though i am no longer a dualist myself .

And what arguments from incredulity are you talking about ?

Penfield and Eccless were nobel prize winners , i guess , eminent scientists : the least they should have known is what a scientific approach was / is  all about .

If you said : they made a mistake or that they were wrong at least , instead of saying that their approach was not scientific ,or that they argued from incredulity , you might have had an argument there , but , you did not .

Are you projecting , dlorde ? Guess so :

It is in fact the materialist theory of consciousness that's not been supported by any empirical evidence whatsoever : absolutely zero : absolutely no empirical evidence has been able to show conclusively that neural networks , or neurons 'firings ' patterns or those of groups of neurons can create or produce thought , consciousness or awareness , or subjective experiences ..., ever : correlations between mind and brain are no causations , and that materialist computational model regarding the activity of the brain, in order to explain consciousness or the mind  is also a false premise , since claculating the brain activity of the brain will never tell us much about the nature , function or origin of consciosuness or about those of the mind  ( I have read a scientific article lately regarding the fact that it takes supercomputers 20 mns to calculate just 1 sec of brain activity , and even if the capacity of those supercomputers gets improved exponentially ,which is highly likely of course , through quantum supercomputers or other , calculating the brain activity will not tell us almost anything at all about the nature ,function or origin of consciousness or about those of the mind  : it's a bit  like trying to know about the broadcasting channels ,stations , devices,satellites ...through calculating the electro-magnetic activity of a radio device or a tv set : just an analogy : in this case , both the broadcasting transmitters and receivers are material or physical devices ...not to mention the fact that those materialist machine , computer metaphors regarding the nature of life are also false , since  studying life has shown that it has its unique features , properties and qualities that computers or machines do lack , even though life seems to have an automatic ,reflexive instinctive dimesion as well .)

Quote
However, Carter does say, "It needs to be stressed that the findings of modern neuroscience do not alter the argument one bit, as they are equally compatible with both production and transmission."

I don't see how any findings of neuroscience can be compatible with the materialist production theory : correlations between brain and mind are no casations , once again, for example . Carter's above mentioned quote was puzzling to me at least .

Quote
Although this is far from the impression I get from my reading, for the sake of argument, let's evaluate this statement as it stands. When two theories can't be distinguished on the evidence alone, Popper says we should prefer the one with the highest degree of empirical content (The Logic of Scientific Discovery). Poincare suggested simplicity (best expressed in Ockham's Razor); more contemporary criteria are to choose the theory which provides the best (and novel) predictions, the one with the highest explanatory potential, the one which offers better problems or the most elegant and simple one. Alternatively a theory may be preferable if it is better integrated into the rest of contemporary knowledge.

Who can argue with that ?
What makes  you think the materialist theory of consciousness is the one that passes the above tests then ?

Let me remind you of the fact that the materialist theory of consciousness is not supported by any empirical evidence whatsoever : materialist belief assumptions regarding the mind-body relationship are no empirical evidence:  brain-mind  correlations  are , once again, no causations , to mention just that fact .


Quote
In each case, the dualist theory falls - it has no empirical content, requires additional unexplained entities, has no predictive power, no explanatory potential, has intractable problems (not least interaction itself), is neither elegant nor simple, nor does it integrate into contemporary knowledge.

Well, i am not a dualist anymore , as i said earlier , but , dualism is more scientific than materialist monism , to some extent at least (See below , in my next reply to your next quote ) .

How can the false materialist theory of consciousness account for all those "anomalies " such as psi phenmena , palcebo/nocebo effects and more ?

How can the materialist false theory of consciousness account for just your own daily conscious decisions and actions , dlorde ? ,since materialism assumes that the mind is just in the brain or just brain activity ,without any causal effects on matter brain or body whatsoever , let alone on the rest of the physical world , and hence consciousness and the mind are just side effects of evolution, just useless epiphenomena (absurd ) : we are just mindless machines or computers , hardware programmed by software ...Who's insane enough as to believe in that materialist non-sense ? Yeah, right , only materialists and fools would /do , i suppose , no offense .

Quote
However, we've only examined this in an isolated context - what does the rest of science tell us? thermodynamics and information theory tells us that persistent information patterns, such as an independent mind, require some persistent medium and energy source to maintain them. Interaction involves energy transfer. Quantum field theory tells us that only electromagnetism has the range and strength to support neural interaction. Extensive research involving the brain has shown no evidence of any such extraneous fields, no information supporting medium, no extraneous energy source or consumption, and no interaction; and EMF disruptions, such as MRI scanners, and Faraday cage shielding helmets have no effect on consciousness. If such a field and its interactions were too delicate to detect or measure, they'd be too delicate to influence the relatively crude (by modern measurement standards) electrochemical activity of neurons, and would be swamped and disrupted by the everyday fields of household wiring & electrical devices, not least mobile phones.

You would be right only if consciousness was just a product of the brain : a materialist assumption that has absolutely no empirical basis  whatsoever .

The study of , together with thousand of documented cases and experiments ,of psi pheniomena , placebo/nocebo effects , meditation , self-directed neuroplasticity , neurofeedback , the fact that our beliefs and expectations can even have impacts on our biology and even on our genes by turning them on or off (See biologist Bruce Lipton, for example , regarding the latter at least and more  ) , can change even the structure anantomy and physiology of the brain ,   the study of epigentics and its challenge to the materialist world view , and much more can only lead to the conclusion that consciousness and the mind are non-physical processes , and hence cannot be detected direcly through empirical evidence , just indirectly thus .

In the same Carter's book from which i quoted the man , he made the case for dualism ,(I am , personally , inclined to support the idea that was uttered by one founder of quantum physics at least , Pauli , who said that our "reality " is psycho-physical = there is no separate matter as such and no separate mind as such  : they are inseparable = 1 .
I don't believe anymore in substance dualism or in any other substance philosophy such as monist idealism , let alone in substance monistic materialism . I think that the universe is not made of any substance at all , but of information in the non-materialist sense , that is .) .

In the same carter's book, he made the case for dualism ,or so it seems at least , through dealing with the conservation of energy law by arguing that consciousness has instantanoeus effects on matter brain and body ,without any transfer of energy through the conscious collapse of the wave function (You don't agree with that ) ,by also raising the non-locality of quantum physics , entanglement , and by dealing with the false classical Newtonian causally closed universe argument  ,  by arguing that quantum physics shows that the universe is not causally closed , and hence consciousness or the mind can effect the physical world through instantaneous action ,without any transfer of energy whatsoever.

So, consciousness or its interaction (we can hardly speak of ineraction , since matter and mind are inseparable = 1 thus .) with matter seems to happen instantanoeusly without any transfer of energy ...so, it cannot be directly detected/detectable  empirically , just indirectly as some non-materialist scientists extrapolated or deduced from all the data , experiments ,documented cases relating to pis phenomena and more .....I don't know for sure, not even remotely close thus .Who does ?

Quote
In short, it's a busted flush.

No, it's not .

You can see it , as follows :

I-The materialist theory of consciousness is false .
II- Dealing with a non-physical and non-local process or phenomena through non-materialist science is an extremely unusal scientific endeavour , since science is just learning to deal with the non-physical ,while it has been confined to the materialist false version of the nature of reality for so long  and counting ,and hence , you can't expect from the newly born and unexperimented non-materialist science  to deliver results that would match how science deals with the physical level of reality .

The non-physical non-local nature , function and origin of consciousness are  of a totally different caliber issue ,than those relating to the physical level of reality ,so.

Maybe , the new science must ,and maybe will, develop novel innovative or creative scientific methods and tools to deal with the non-physical level of reality more efficientely than it is the case today . I don't know .

So, how can you expect the relatively still too primitive human science, the materialist and the non-materialist science alike ,  to be able to account for the mental scientifically and explain it completely (via predictions, falsifiability , verifiability ..scientific criterions ) , despite all that hi-tech technology ...?

Non-materialist science has been entering a totally new and unique "domain" ,almost blindly and fearfully , hesitantly , reluctantly ... (a non-local "one" in fact , a non-physical placeless timeless process or level of reality ) ,while also embracing the material or physical level of reality , so, the scientific study of the non-physical level of reality requires wholly new novel unique methods and tools that will most probably be developed by future scientists , so .

Current non-materialist science is thus still in its early infancy , but it has been going far beyond what materialist science can ever dream of  , so to speak , but , it has been nevertheless delivering some amazing results so far .
Imagine what that science can do in the future ,for the benefit of all mankind : our whole human history , evolution, history of earth , the big bang , our whole spirituality and what it really means to be human, our morality and ethics , our knowledge , societies , politics , economics ....will  be rewritten in radical unprecedented ways ...Who knows ...

The extended non-materialist theory of the nature of reality will be triggering so many radical and unprecedented changes like never before , while expanding the horizon of  science and all other human activity ...exponentially , you have no idea , dlorde .

Thanks .Best wishes.Cheers.




« Last Edit: 23/10/2014 19:32:07 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1441
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
How can the false materialist theory of consciousness account for all those "anomalies " such as psi phenmena , palcebo/nocebo effects and more ?
Psi phenomena don't exist. Placebo/nocebo effects are the autonomic nervous system at work.

Quote
... materialism assumes that the mind is just in the brain or just brain activity ,without any causal effects on matter brain or body , let alone on the rest of the physical world , and hence consciousness and the mind are just side effects of evolution, just useless epiphenomena (absurd ) : we are just mindless machines or computers , hardware programmed by software
That's either a deliberate strawman, or a lack of understanding of a level known in the trade as 'not even wrong'.
 
Quote
...Who's insane enough as to believe in that materialist non-sense ?
No-one, I would hope. It's a complete misrepresentation. If that's really what you think the materialist position is, it's no wonder you have difficulty with it. Personally, I think it's a deliberate misrepresentation intended to cover a depressing lack of reasoned argument against the real position.

I notice none of your post attempts to address any of my points with reasoned counter argument. Counterfactual assertions don't constitute argument. But you've been told about that many times in other threads, so it comes as no surprise.

ETA - oh wait, I see you quote Carter as suggesting an energyless and instantaneous transfer of information via quantum non-locality. Sadly that too is 'not even wrong'. Whatever the mechanism, information transfer requires state change; state change requires energy. Quantum mechanics and general relativity tell us that information transfer can not exceed the speed of light, i.e. cannot be instantaneous; and quantum entanglement is actually an example of that.

If Carter really made that argument, he's gone seriously off the rails in trying to use quantum mechanics to break the laws of quantum mechanics... [:o][:o)]
« Last Edit: 23/10/2014 19:42:45 by dlorde »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

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

(Prior note : One form of materialism says that .I was  referring to the so-called evolutionary emergent property theory regarding the origin ,nature and function of consciousness , grosso modo thus ...later , more on that ....
Furthermore , i wrote the above very quickly , since i have duties to attend to .I am already a bit late , so .)

I see that you have been raising  some important and legetimate issues and questions .Thanks .

We're getting somewhere ,after all,  i guess .

Unfortunately , duty calls right now .I have to go . See ya tomorrow then .

Cheers .

P.S . : Oh , yeah , oeps : I see i might have made a serious mistake .I am not sure Carter used that entanglement argument i talked about, to be honest (I am genuine regarding that ,take my word for it .Carter's arguments get mixed up with those of Dean Radin and others in my mind sometimes .I am referring here at least to Radin"s "Entangled minds " book  , i guess .This is no exit strategy or something like that )  . I felt i was not sure about that when i wrote it ,I will have to check out the Carter's book in question then .I will have to check out both Radin's and Carter's books in question in fact , just to be sure .
Bye.Thanks.
« Last Edit: 23/10/2014 20:18:01 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1281
    • View Profile


P.S . : Oh , yeah , oeps : I see i might have made a serious mistake .I am not sure Carter used that entanglement argument i talked about,
Now.........................that's very refreshing DonQ. There may be some hope for you yet. I'll give you credit for that sir, anyone that can admit to error has some genuine honesty hiding somewhere within.

Bravo my man,......................Bravo
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1461
    • View Profile

I was just referring to yor repeated requests and mainly to that so-called crystal healing silly story ...

"Silly" story or not, my request for one representative study was a reasonable request on a science forum,  I think my other question is valid as well - How do you, yourself, evaluate factual claims? Not broad general ones like materialism is false or democracy is good, but specific factual statements like "fluoridated water causes brain damage" or "Child vaccines cause autism" etc. Do replicated peer reviewed studies, mechanisms supported by evidence have any value at all in your estimation?

If you believe in psi, do you accept as true any and all claims about it? How do sort through them and decide which are reasonable and likely to be true, and which are hoaxes or delusions? What's your criteria for that? I'm genuinely curious.

Your repeated cries that correlation is not causation is basically an attempt to argue that no amount of empirical evidence, no number of successful predictions a theory makes, no functional utility, is ever sufficient to establish that something is more likely than not to be a "cause" of another thing - all knowledge is an irrational choice. (When all else fails, drag out Hume. ) That's the last gasp strategy for every discredited theory, and is completely disingenuous - "No Ebola antiserum for me, thanks, correlation does not prove causation after all!"
 And that is essentially Carter's position - "We can't know any thing for sure. That biological function and anatomy corresponds to mental activity is just some crazy coincidence, doesn't prove a thing." Bizarrely, Beauregard's own experiments are the best evidence that he's wrong. They are exactly what you'd expect to find if consciousness was a product of the brain, and not a receiver or transmitter of it.



*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Don: please provide one example where whatever system you are proposing has actually produced a more accurate prediction than the system you decry. Then, at least, as selfstyled scientists, we will have to consider that there is merit in your system. That's how Galileo, Newton, Planck, Einstein, Pasteur, Jenner, Lavoisier, maybe even Darwin.... got into the history books.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1441
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
... an attempt to argue that no amount of empirical evidence, no number of successful predictions a theory makes, no functional utility, is ever sufficient to establish that something is more likely than not to be a "cause" of another thing - all knowledge is an irrational choice. (When all else fails, drag out Hume. )
I love the counterpoint between Hume who said causation is just the experience of constant conjunction of events (just custom and habit); and Kant who said that without causation we would not experience constant conjunction...

Kant wins on statistical grounds  [;)] (although their arguments were deeper than that, and not really so directly opposed).

Quote
Bizarrely, Beauregard's own experiments are the best evidence that he's wrong. They are exactly what you'd expect to find if consciousness was a product of the brain, and not a receiver or transmitter of it.
Quite; the problem seems to be that if you start out with a dualist mindset, it's very hard to see things otherwise, e.g. that the mind is the physical activity of the brain, and so it's no surprise that such activity can have physical effects.
« Last Edit: 24/10/2014 15:10:47 by dlorde »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

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


P.S . : Oh , yeah , oeps : I see i might have made a serious mistake .I am not sure Carter used that entanglement argument i talked about,
Now.........................that's very refreshing DonQ. There may be some hope for you yet. I'll give you credit for that sir, anyone that can admit to error has some genuine honesty hiding somewhere within.

Bravo my man,......................Bravo

Error is human , you know .There is nothing fancy , glorifying  or honorable about admitting it when it happens.

Well, see what Dean radin says about entaglement in his "Entangled Minds ..." book :

"If you do not get schwindlig [dizzy] sometimes when you think about these
things then you have not really understood it [quantum theory]."
Niels Bohr

One of the most surprising discoveries of modern physics is that objects aren’t as separate as they may seem. When you drill down into the core of even the most solid-looking material, separateness dissolves. All that remains, like the smile of the Cheshire Cat from Alice in Wonderland, are relationships extending curiously throughout space and time. These connections were predicted by quantum theory and were called “spooky action at a distance” by Albert Einstein. One of the founders of quantum theory, Erwin Schrödinger, dubbed this peculiarity entanglement, and said “I would not call that one but rather the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics.”
The deeper reality suggested by the existence of entanglement is so unlike the world of everyday experience that until recently, many physicists believed it was interesting only for abstract theoretical reasons. They accepted that the microscopic world of elementary particles could become curiously entangled, but those entangled states were assumed to be fleeting and have no practical consequences for the world as we experience it. That view is rapidly changing.
Scientists are now finding that there are ways in which the effects of microscopic entanglements “scale up” into our macroscopic world. Entangled connections between carefully prepared atomic-sized objects can persist over many miles.
There are theoretical descriptions showing how tasks can be accomplished by entangled groups without the members of the group communicating with each other in any conventional way. Some scientists suggest that the remarkable degree of coherence displayed in living systems might depend in some fundamental way on quantum effects like entanglement. Others suggest that conscious awareness is caused or related in some important way to entangled particles in the brain. Some even propose that the entire universe is a single, self-entangled object.
If these speculations are correct, then what would human experience be like in such an interconnected universe? Would we occasionally have numinous feelings of connectedness with loved ones, even at a distance? Would such experiences evoke a feeling of awe that there’s more to reality than common sense implies? Could “entangled minds” be involved when you hear the telephone ring and somehow know—instantly—who’s calling? If we did have such experiences, could they be due to real information that somehow
bypassed the usual sensory channels? Or are such reports better understood as coincidences or delusions?
These are the types of questions explored in this book. We’ll find that there’s substantial experimental evidence for a few types of genuine psi phenomena.
And we’ll learn why, until very recently, science has largely ignored these
interesting effects. For centuries, scientists assumed that everything can be explained by mechanisms analogous to clockworks. Then, to everyone’s
surprise, over the course of the twentieth century we learned that this
commonsense assumption is wrong. When the fabric of reality is examined very closely, nothing resembling clockworks can be found. Instead, reality is woven from strange, “holistic” threads that aren’t located precisely in space or time. Tug on a dangling loose end from this fabric of reality, and the whole cloth twitches, instantly, throughout all space and time.
Science is at the very earliest stages of understanding entanglement, and there is much yet to learn. But what we’ve seen so far provides a new way of thinking about psi. No longer are psi experiences regarded as rare human talents, divine gifts, or “powers” that magically transcend ordinary physical boundaries.
Instead, psi becomes an unavoidable consequence of living in an
interconnected, entangled physical reality. Psi is reframed from a bizarre
anomaly that doesn’t fit into the normal world—and hence is labeled paranormal —into a natural phenomenon of physics.
The idea of the universe as an interconnected whole is not new; for millennia it’s been one of the core assumptions underlying Eastern philosophies.
What is new is that Western science is slowly beginning to realize that some elements of that ancient lore might have been correct. Of course, adopting a new ontology is not to be taken lightly. When it comes to serious topics like one’s view of
reality, it’s sensible to adopt the conservative maxim, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
So we’re obliged to carefully examine the evidence and see if psi is real or not.
If the conclusion is positive, then previous assumptions about the relationship between mind and matter are wrong and we’ll need to come up with alternatives.
As we explore the concept of psi as “entangled minds,” we’ll consider examples of psi experiences in life and lab, we’ll take a survey of the origins of psi research, we’ll explore the outcomes of thousands of controlled laboratory tests, and we’ll debunk some skeptical myths. Then we’ll explore the fabric of reality as revealed by modern physics and see why it’s becoming increasingly relevant to understanding why and how psi exists. At the end, we’ll find that the nineteenth century English poet Francis Thompson may have said it best:
All things by immortal power,
Near and Far
Hiddenly
To each other linked are,
That thou canst not stir a flower
Without troubling of a star




*

Offline DonQuichotte

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

You said earlier , and i quote :
Quote
"Psi phenomena don't exist. Placebo/nocebo effects are the autonomic nervous system at work." .
End quote .

Well , see what Carter had to say about that :


PHENOMENA QUANTUM MECHANICAL MODELS OF MIND CAN EXPLAIN :

Does a dualistic, nonmaterialistic model of mind-brain interaction account for the observed facts better than a materialistic model? The answer is clearly yes: such a model can account for several phenomena that remain utterly inexplicable by materialism. These would include:
-The placebo effect
-Cognitive behavioral therapy
-Psychic abilities, also known as psi
-The NDE
The placebo effect is well known in medicine. It refers to the healing effect created by a sick person’s belief that a powerful remedy has been applied when the improvement could not have been the physical result of the remedy. It should not be confused with the body’s natural healing process, as it depends specifically on the patient’s mental belief that a specific remedy will work. Neuroscientist Mario Beauregard describes the well-known effectiveness of placebos:
Since the 1970’s, a proposed new drug’s effectiveness is routinely tested in controlled studies against placebos, not because placebos are useless but precisely because they are so useful.
Placebos usually help a percentage of patients enrolled in the control group of a study, perhaps 35 to 45 percent. Thus, in recent decades, if a drug’s effect is statistically significant, which means that it is at least 5 percent better than a placebo, it can be licensed for use.
In 2005, New Scientist, hardly known for its support of nonmaterialist neural theory, listed “ Things That Don’t Make Sense,” and the placebo effect was number one on the list. Of course, the placebo effect “doesn’t make sense” if you assume that the mind either does not exist or is powerless.
A nonmaterialist approach to the mind has also been instrumental in developing treatments for various psychiatric disorders. Cognitive behavioral therapy is based on the assumption that directed, willed mental effort can reorganize a disordered brain and has been used to treat obsessivecompulsive disorder and various phobias. Jeffrey Schwartz, a nonmaterialist neuropsychiatrist at the University of California, Los Angeles, routinely treats obsessive-compulsive disorder as a case of an intact mind troubled by a malfunctioning brain. Schwartz has developed a treatment designed to help patients realize that faulty brain messages cause the problem and to help the patients actually rewire their brains to bypass the problem. PET scans of the patients’ brains before and after treatment showed that the patients really had changed their brains. Schwartz writes, “The time has come for science to confront the serious implications of the fact that directed, willed mental activity can clearly and systematically alter brain function.
Reports of demonstrated psychic abilities are a persistent embarrassment to materialism.
Considered as a scientific hypothesis, materialism makes a bold and admirable prediction: psychic abilities such as telepathy simply do not exist. If they are shown to exist, then materialism is clearly refuted. But psychic abilities—or psi as they are called—have been demonstrated again and again under the most rigorously controlled experimental conditions.*28 However, as I have shown in my previous book, Parapsychology and the Skeptics, the materialists have gone to extraordinary lengths to try to dismiss, explain away, and even suppress the data.
 In any other field of inquiry, the collective evidence would have been considered extremely compelling decades ago. However, parapsychology is not like any other field of inquiry. The data of parapsychology challenge deeply held worldviews, worldviews that are concerned not only with science but also with religious and philosophical issues. As such, the data arouse strong passions and, for many, a strong desire to dismiss them.
Refusing to accept data that proves a scientific theory false turns the theory into an ideology, a belief held as an article of faith; in other words, a belief that simply must be true, because it is considered so important. Concerning this point, Beauregard writes:
Materialists have conducted a running war against psi research for decades, because any evidence of psi’s validity, no matter how minor, is fatal to their ideological system. Recently, for example, self-professed skeptics have attacked atheist neuroscience grad student Sam Harris for having proposed, in his book titled The End of Faith (2004), that psi research has validity. Harris is only following the evidence. But in doing so, he is clearly violating an important tenet of materialism: materialist ideology trumps evidence.
The NDE, in which people have reported clear memories of conscious experience at times when their brains did not seem to be functioning, also strongly challenges materialism. As you read through this book, you may come to realize that many of the arguments challenging a transcendental interpretation of these experiences are motivated by an a priori commitment to a materialist worldview.



*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1441
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
... see what Dean radin says about entaglement in his "Entangled Minds ..." book
Yeah, that's typical Radin guff alright. Invoking the counter-intuitive strangeness of quantum theory in support of ideas (e.g. psi) that contradict quantum theory. He's been publicly corrected many time over the years, but still promotes the same errors, judiciously scattering 'if's and 'maybe's around to claim plausible deniability. It's a living...

*

Offline DonQuichotte

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

See also the following regarding psi phenomena and science :


Modern Science versus Classical Science :

"A serious problem has arisen. Most of the fundamental assumptions underlying classical science have been severely challenged in recent years. As the old assumptions dissolve because of advancements in many disciplines, new assumptions are carrying us toward a conception of the world that is entirely compatible with psi. Few scientists have paid attention to this dramatic shift in scientific fundamentals, and the general public has heard almost nothing about it. . . . Thus, the persistent controversy over psi can be traced back to the founding assumptions of modern science."
DEAN RADIN, THE CONSCIOUS UNIVERSE

Many of the skeptical arguments are based on the assumptions that current scientific theories are complete and that they are in conflict with the existence of psi.
The former is laughable to anyone familiar with the history of science. Until about one hundred years ago, Newtonian physics was assumed to be correct and complete, and was based upon the metaphysical assumptions of localism, determinism, the assumption that an observer did not affect a system being observed, and on an absolute view of space and time. Then two new theories replaced Newtonian physics.
Quantum mechanics did so by abandoning the first three assumptions while retaining the fourth, and Einstein’s theory of relativity did so by abandoning the fourth while retaining the first three. Because relativity retained most of the assumptions of classical physics while introducing a new conception of space and time, it is considered to be the crowning achievement of classical physics.
The predictions of quantum mechanics differ from those of Newtonian physics primarily but not entirely at the level of the molecule and below. Relativity differs from Newtonian physics most noticeably on the scale of the very large and the very fast—it is a theory of space, time, and gravity, so most of its predictions are corroborated by astronomical observations. Yet the theories are inconsistent: relativity breaks down at the atomic level, and quantum mechanics cannot accommodate relativity’s assumptions regarding space and time. Each theory is incomplete and limited.
It is thought that the reason the theories conflict is because each retained and abandoned different assumptions from Newtonian physics. Some or all of these assumptions must be either wrong or incomplete, and if a unified theory of physics is someday developed, then quantum mechanics and relativity will both be considered special cases of the unified theory.
Let us now examine the assumptions of classical science, assumptions that seem to be in conflict with the existence of psi.
Determinism—the idea that the future states of isolated systems can be predicted precisely (at least in principle) from current states.
Observer independence—the assumption that the act of observing a system or particle does not alter the behavior or characteristics of the system or particle.
Localism—the assumption that everything interacts only with its closest neighbors and that, therefore, there is no action at a distance.
Reductionism—the idea that complex systems can be explained as the sum of their parts.
Upward causation exclusively—related to the idea of reductionism, this idea asserts that causation only flows upward, from the simpler to the more complex.
Materialism—the idea that everything in the universe can ultimately be explained in terms of the fundamental particles and the four forces of physics.

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1441
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
You said earlier , and i quote :
Quote
"Psi phenomena don't exist. Placebo/nocebo effects are the autonomic nervous system at work." .
End quote .

Well , see what Carter had to say about that :
<snip book extract>

What about it? what are the salient points you'd like me to address?

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
... see what Dean radin says about entaglement in his "Entangled Minds ..." book
Yeah, that's typical Radin guff alright. Invoking the counter-intuitive strangeness of quantum theory in support of ideas (e.g. psi) that contradict quantum theory. He's been publicly corrected many time over the years, but still promotes the same errors, judiciously scattering 'if's and 'maybe's around to claim plausible deniability. It's a living...

What's exactly wrong about that particular above displayed Radin's excerpt regarding entanglement ? 

Well, I have been posting some relevant quotes from one or two of Carter's books to respond to your raised issues and arguments .
I request from you to try to pinpoint exactly what you think is wrong about Carter's arguments mainly , since almost all non-materialist scientists do rely heavily on one particular interpretation of quantum theory : the conscious collapse of the wave function .
Thanks , appreciate indeed . Cheers.

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1441
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
dlorde :

See also the following regarding psi phenomena and science :
OK. What's your point?

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
You said earlier , and i quote :
Quote
"Psi phenomena don't exist. Placebo/nocebo effects are the autonomic nervous system at work." .
End quote .

Well , see what Carter had to say about that :
<snip book extract>

What about it? what are the salient points you'd like me to address?

Well, Carter says , for example , through the work of many prominent scientists ...that QM has been opening the door to the existence of psi phenomena ....that QM can account for psi phenomena ...
Try to make time to read those excerpts , if you can at least .
I am afraid i would be just distorting Carter's arguments ,since i have read him quite some time ago , that's why i have been quoting him extensively on the subject .
Do , please , tell me what's exactly wrong about Carter's arguments then .
I don't know nearly enough of QM , so , i would be interested in what you have to  say on the subject .

Thanks .

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1441
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
What's exactly wrong about that particular above displayed Radin's excerpt regarding entanglement ?
He's claiming the support of quantum mechanics for things, such as psi, that quantum mechanics doesn't support - and has ruled out.   

Quote
I request from you to try to pinpoint exactly what you think is wrong about Carter's arguments mainly , since almost all non-materialist scientists do rely heavily on one particular interpretation of quantum theory : the conscious collapse of the wave function.
That's (bolded) quite enough on its own.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

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

See also the following regarding psi phenomena and science :
OK. What's your point?

That Caroll posted video of yours here above says that QM closes the door to the existence of any psi phenomena ,NDE , ....

Carter's book says the exact opposite .

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg443015#msg443015 date=1414170157]
What's exactly wrong about that particular above displayed Radin's excerpt regarding entanglement ?
He's claiming the support of quantum mechanics for things, such as psi, that quantum mechanics doesn't support - and has ruled out. 


Radin's and Carter's books say the exact oppposite .

Quote
Quote
I request from you to try to pinpoint exactly what you think is wrong about Carter's arguments mainly , since almost all non-materialist scientists do rely heavily on one particular interpretation of quantum theory : the conscious collapse of the wave function.
That's (bolded) quite enough on its own.

Carter's books prove the opposite of what Caroll 's video says .
Are all those scientists from whose work Carter  supported his claims are all worng ? Seriously , come on .

Classical physics also thought that no significant natural laws were left to be discovered , and that only the deatils remained to be filled in .

Caroll says almost the same regarding QM : that no significant detectable force remains to be discovered , just minor ones that are not relevant .

Well, see how  a minor "anomaly " toppled classical physics through the work of Max Planck.

« Last Edit: 24/10/2014 18:11:52 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

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

"The Dreaded Interaction Problem" :

Critics of dualism often question how two fundamentally different properties such as mind and matter could possibly interact (materialist philosopher William Lycan calls this the “dreaded” interaction problem).
 How can something nonspatial, with no mass, location, or physical dimensions, possibly influence spatially bound matter? As K. R. Rao writes:
The main problem with such dualism is the problem of interaction. How does unextended mind interact with the extended body? Any kind of causal interaction between them, which is presumed by most dualist theories, comes into conflict with the physical theory that the universe is a closed system and that every physical event is linked with an antecedent physical event. This assumption preempts any possibility that a mental act can cause a physical event.
Of course, we know now that the universe is not a closed system and that the collapse of the wave function—a physical event—is linked with an antecedent mental event. The objection Rao describes is of course based on classical physics.
By asking “How does unextended mind interact with the extended body?” Rao is making the implicit assumption that phenomena that exist as cause and effect must have something in common in order to exist as cause and effect. So is this a logical necessity or is it rather an empirical truth, a fact about nature? As philosopher and historian David Hume pointed out long ago, we form our idea of causation from observations of constant correlation; and since anything in principle could correlate with anything else, only observation can establish what causes what. Parapsychologist John Beloff considers the issue logically:
If an event A never occurred without being preceded by some other event B, we would surely want to say that the second event was a necessary condition or cause of the first event, whether or not the two had anything else in common. As for such a principle being an empirical truth, how could it be since there are here only two known independent substances, i.e. mind and matter, as candidates on which to base a generalization? To argue that they cannot interact because they are independent is to beg the question… .
 It says something about the desperation of those who want to dismiss radical dualism that such phony arguments should repeatedly be invoked by highly reputable philosophers who should know better.
Popper also rejects completely the idea that only like can act upon like, describing this as resting on obsolete notions of physics. For an example of unlikes acting on one another, we have interaction between the four known and very different forces, and between forces and physical bodies. Popper considers the issue empirically:
In the present state of physics we are faced, not with a plurality of substances, but with a plurality of different kinds of forces, and thus with a pluralism of different interacting explanatory principles.
Perhaps the clearest physical example against the thesis that only like things can act upon each other is this: In modern physics, the action of bodies upon bodies is mediated by fields —by gravitational and electrical fields. Thus like does not act upon like, but bodies act first upon fields, which they modify, and then the modified field acts upon another body.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

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

You also said earlier , and i quote :

Quote
"ETA - oh wait, I see you quote Carter as suggesting an energyless and instantaneous transfer of information via quantum non-locality. Sadly that too is 'not even wrong'. Whatever the mechanism, information transfer requires state change; state change requires energy. Quantum mechanics and general relativity tell us that information transfer can not exceed the speed of light, i.e. cannot be instantaneous; and quantum entanglement is actually an example of that.

If Carter really made that argument, he's gone seriously off the rails in trying to use quantum mechanics to break the laws of quantum mechanics..."
  End Quote.

I will let Carter respond to that in his own words in a moment .
After that , i will quote Carter's actual arguments on the subject whose content i have distorted yesterday ...
« Last Edit: 24/10/2014 18:23:01 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1441
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
... Carter says , for example , through the work of many prominent scientists ...that QM has been opening the door to the existence of psi phenomena ....that QM can account for psi phenomena ...
It's simply false. There are no psi phenomena to account for, just magical and wishful thinking coupled with the capacity of the human brain for self-deception; As Feynman said, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."

Further than that, the electromagnetic force can't play a role in any putative psi effects, and quantum field theory rules out any novel fields, particles, or forces relevant to human scale interactions. For full details, see my earlier post to cheryl in this thread, #139 - particularly the video link.

Quote
I am afraid i would be just distorting Carter's arguments ,since i have read him quite some time ago , that's why i have been quoting him extensively on the subject .
We want to hear your arguments, not arguments you don't understand or remember from someone else.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Here You go : Carter says on the subject :


LOCALISM :

All interactions in classical physics are explicitly local. Interactions between a body at location A and another body at location B must be mediated by a force field that traverses the distance between A and B at a speed not exceeding that of light. Body A causes a change in the force field, and this change in the field is propagated at or below light speed to body B. For instance, the gravitational field of the sun exerts an influence on Earth: if the sun were to be pulled out of its orbit, the orbit of Earth would be affected about eight minutes later.
Localism implies that any information exchange must be mediated by a signal, and relativity implies that no such signal can travel faster than the speed of light. But experiments in quantum mechanics strongly suggest that we can in fact have instantaneous action at a distance, with no signal required to transmit information.
This is one example of such an experiment. Suppose a pair of electrons is split off from an atom.
Quantum theory tells us that when the spin of the electrons is measured along a chosen axis, they will be found to spin in opposite directions.
This does not mean that they started off spinning in opposite directions: direction of spin is a dynamic property, and according to quantum theory, dynamic properties do not exist with any definite value until they are measured. The electrons are in a state of opposite direction of spin, but both are without any particular direction of spin until the spin of one is measured.
Let the electrons travel light years apart and measure the spin of one.
 If it is found to be clockwise, then according to quantum theory the other electron is instantaneously determined to spin in the opposite direction, despite the lack of any force or signal linking them. The observation of the spin of one of the electrons instantaneously collapses the wave functions of both electrons to actual, opposite spins.
 If the spin of the second is measured before there is any time for a signal from the first to reach it, it will be found to spin in the opposite direction. Einstein called this “spooky action at a distance” and rejected this on the grounds that there could be no harmony without some signal passing between the distant particles, a signal that in this case would have to travel faster than the speed of light, which his theory of relativity did not allow.
For years David Bohm and other physicists tried to determine whether the adjustment was truly instantaneous.
 These experiments are difficult to do with sufficient accuracy, but a series of early experiments, with two exceptions in the early 1970s, supported nonlocality. With progress in technology, more sophisticated experiments have become possible, usually using photons instead of electrons and measuring polarization (the direction of vibration of the electric field, which is totally polarized when it vibrates in only one direction) instead of spin.
 In the 1980s, a French team headed by Alain Aspect of the Institut d’ Optique Theorique et Appliquéadded to Bohm’s experiment an ultrafast switch to eliminate the possibility of any light-speed signal between the paired photons and found the nonlocal prediction of quantum mechanics to hold.
Einstein said that if quantum mechanics was correct, then the world would be crazy. Einstein was right—the world is crazy."

PHYSICIST DANIEL GREENBERGER

Several points about nonlocality are worth noting. First of all, non-locality does not seem to violate special relativity’s prohibition of faster-than-light signals, as no signals are sent.
The four known forces of nature are thought to operate with the exchange of particles, all of which obey the cosmic speed limit.
 In the cases discussed above, a change in the state at location A (due to measurement) instantaneously causes a change at location B, regardless of distance or barriers. Since no signal is sent through space, the quantum connection is immediate and is unaffected by barriers and distance.
Another important point is that nonlocality appears to have been established by arithmetic and experiment, and is thus a fact about the universe, independent of quantum mechanical theory.
This means that any theory that eventually supersedes quantum mechanics will have to incorporate nonlocality.
 Finally, it is worth noting that the quantum connection differs from ordinary forces in that it is very discriminating.
Ordinary forces reach out and affect every particle of a certain kind in the immediate vicinity. For instance, gravity affects all particles, electromagnetism all charged particles.
In contrast, the quantum connection only affects those systems that have interacted with each other since they were last measured (such systems are called “phase-entangled”).


*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg443020#msg443020 date=1414171634]
... Carter says , for example , through the work of many prominent scientists ...that QM has been opening the door to the existence of psi phenomena ....that QM can account for psi phenomena ...
It's simply false. There are no psi phenomena to account for, just magical and wishful thinking coupled with the capacity of the human brain for self-deception; As Feynman said, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."

Carter has also refuted both the physiological and psychological explanations of psi phenomena, Place/ nocebo effects , NDE ...

Clearly , many prominent scientists have also been saying that QM has been accounting for psi-phenomena , not ruling them out thus .

Quote
Further than that, the electromagnetic force can't play a role in any putative psi effects, and quantum field theory rules out any novel fields, particles, or forces relevant to human scale interactions. For full details, see my earlier post to cheryl in this thread, #139 - particularly the video link.

Well, i replied to that : Caroll in that video was just thinking in relation to QM like classical physicists used to do in relation to the classical Newtonian physics ,as i said above  , untill Max Planck came and toppled Classical physics ,as you know .

Quote
Quote
I am afraid i would be just distorting Carter's arguments ,since i have read him quite some time ago , that's why i have been quoting him extensively on the subject .
We want to hear your arguments, not arguments you don't understand or remember from someone else.
[/quote]

Well, read what Carter had to say on the subject .

I will give you some time to read all the above and a bit more .

I will not be active in this forum during the next days ,so .
« Last Edit: 24/10/2014 18:39:13 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
"Implications For Physics and Consciousness " : Schmidt's Experiments and more :


The REG devices pioneered by Schmidt are driven by purely random events at the quantum level.
 So the subjects in these experiments are not really shifting matter around, but rather shifting probabilities of events in desired directions.
 As we have seen, the role that consciousness plays in quantum mechanics is one of the burning issues in modern physics. And as we will see, one of Schmidt’s experiments may be able to settle this controversy.
If the observer can affect the outcome of the collapse, it should be possible to design an experiment to test at which point the wave function collapses.
The following paragraphs explain the variation of Schmidt’s standard experiment that is directly relevant to the choice between the von Neumann and Copenhagen interpretations.
First of all, Schmidt recorded signals (0’s and 1’s) from a binary REG simultaneously on two cassette tapes, without anyone listening to the signals or otherwise knowing the output of the REG.
One tape was kept in a secure location, the other was given to a subject with instructions to produce more 0’s or 1’s, usually distinguished as clicks in the left or right speaker of stereophonic headphones.
Results from these time-displaced PK experiments indicated that PK still operated and that the two records still agreed after the PK effort.
Some theorists have speculated that the PK effort reached back in time to when the random eventswere generated, but of course there is another possibility, one more consistent with the von Neumann/Wigner interpretation of quantum physics. As Schmidt, Robert Morris, and Lou Rudolph point out:
Perhaps events are not physically real until there has been an observation. From this viewpoint, the PK effort would not have to reach into the past because nature had not yet decided on the outcome before the PK subject, the first observer, saw the result.
 Then, the PK effort should no longer succeed if we have some other observer look at the prerecorded data previous to the PK subject’s attempt.
[An] experiment to study this situation … has, indeed, reported a blocking of the PK effect by a previous observation.”
It appears that von Neumann, Wigner, and the others were right: prior to observation, even measuring instruments interacting with a quantum system must exist in an indefinite state.
Could Schmidt’s results be the result of fraud? Well, Schmidt has even used this time-independencefeature of PK to design a fraud-proof experiment involving skeptics. Essentially, it works like this:
one of the unobserved tapes is sent to an outside observer and the other is sent to a subject.
The outside observer decides whether she wants to see more 0’s or 1’s, and this decision is communicated to the subject, who then listens to the tape and attempts to exert an influence in the desired direction.
The observer then examines her copy of the tape and counts the number of 0’s and 1’s to see if the experiment was a success.
Obviously, there can be no possibility of fraud on the part of subject or experimenter, unless of course the skeptics are also in on the trick! Schmidt, Morris, and Rudolph performed this experiment: Morris is an active parapsychology researcher and Rudolph is a communications engineer, and both were skeptical with regard to PK effects on prerecorded events.
But the experiment was a success, with odds against chance of one hundred to one.
Quantum mechanics brings mind back into nature and eliminates the causal closure of the physical.
Conscious observation seems required to collapse the wave function; the choice of what type of observation to make determines what form a part of reality will take (wave or particle), and according to the experiments of Schmidt and others, conscious intent may bias in a desired direction the otherwise random collapse of the wave function.
The von Neumann/Wigner interpretation of quantum physics, supported now by the experiments of Schmidt and others, may bring to mind the idealism of Bishop Berkeley, who thought that ordinary objects such as trees and furniture did not exist unless observed. But this interpretation does not deny that an external reality exists independent of anyone observing it. Properties of quantum phenomena are divided into static and dynamic properties, with the former, such as mass and charge, having definite and constant values for any observation.
It is the dynamic properties, those that do not have constant values—such as position, momentum, and direction of spin—that are thought to exist as potentialities that become actualities only when observed.
But as Squires points out, this raises a very strange question:
The assumption we are considering appears even more weird when we realize that throughout much of the universe, and indeed throughout all of it in early times, there were presumably no conscious observers… .
 Even worse are the problems we meet if we accept the modern ideas on the early universe in which quantum decays (of the ‘vacuum,’ but this need not trouble us here) were necessary in order to obtain the conditions in which conscious observers could exist.
 Who, or what, did the observations necessary to create the observers?13
Squires enters the realm of theology with great trepidation and considers what seems to be the only possibility under this interpretation—that conscious observations can be made by minds outside of the physical universe.
This of course is one of the traditional roles of God, or of the gods.
Whether expressed in theological terms or not, the suggestion that conscious minds are in some way connected and that they might even be connected to a form of universal, collective consciousness appears to be a possible solution to the problem of quantum theory. It is not easy to see what it might mean, as we understand so little about consciousness.
That there are “connections” of some sort between conscious minds and physical matter is surely implied by the fact that conscious decisions have effects on matter. Thus there are links between conscious minds that go through the medium of physical systems. Whether there are others, that exploit the nonphysical and presumably non-localised nature of consciousness, it is not possible to say.
Some people might wish to mention here the “evidence” for telepathy and similar extra-sensory effects.
Squires concludes his discussion on the role of consciousness in physics with this remark:
It is remarkable that such ideas should arise from a study of the behavior of the most elementary of systems.
That such systems point to a world beyond themselves is a fact that will be loved by all who believe that there are truths of which we know little, that there are mysteries seen only by mystics, and that there are phenomena inexplicable within our normal view of what is possible.
There is no harm in this—physics indeed points to the unknown. The emphasis, however, must be on the unknown, on the mystery, on the truths dimly glimpsed, on things inexpressible except in the language of poetry, or religion, or metaphor.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Is The Universe Causally Closed ? :


Rosenblum and Kuttner sum up the puzzle: (On the famous double slit experiment ) :

Quantum mechanics is the most battle-tested theory in science. Not a single violation of its predictions has ever been demonstrated, no matter how preposterous the predictions might seem.
However, anyone concerned with what the theory means faces a philosophical enigma: the socalled measurement problem, or the problem of observation … before you look we could have proven—with an interference experiment—that each atom was a wave equally in both boxes.
After you look it was in a single box. It was thus your observation that created the reality of each atom’s existence in a particular box. Before your observation only probability existed.
 But it was not the probability that an actual object existed in a particular place (as in the classical shell game)—it was just the probability of a future observation of such an object, which does not include the assumption that the object existed there prior to its observation.
This hard-to-accept observer-created reality is the measurement problem in quantum mechanics.
Up until the moment of measurement, certain properties of quantum phenomena, such as location, momentum, and direction of spin, simply exist as a collection of probabilities, known as the wave function, or state vector.
The wave function can be thought of as the probability distribution of all possible states, such as, for instance, the probability distribution of all possible locations for an electron.*
But this is not the probability that the electron is actually at certain locations, instead, it is the probability that the electron will be found at certain locations.
 The electron does not have a definite location until it is observed.
Upon measurement, this collection of all possible locations “collapses” to a single value—the location of the particle that is actually observed.
Physicist Nick Herbert expresses it this way:
The quantum physicist treats the atom as a wave of oscillating possibilities as long as it is not observed.
But whenever it is looked at, the atom stops vibrating and objectifies one of its many possibilities.
 Whenever someone chooses to look at it, the atom ceases its fuzzy dance and seems to “freeze” into a tiny object with definite attributes, only to dissolve once more into a quivering pool of possibilities as soon as the observer withdraws his attention from it. The apparent observer-induced change in an atom’s mode of existence is called the collapse of the wave function.
Measurements thus play a more positive role in quantum mechanics than in classical physics, because here they are not merely observations of something already present but actually help produce it.
According to one interpretation of quantum mechanics popular among many theorists, it is the existence of consciousness that introduces intrinsic probability into the quantum world.
This interpretation owes its origin to mathematician John von Neumann, one of the most important intellectual figures of the twentieth century.
 In addition to his contributions to pure mathematics, von Neumann also invented game theory, which models economic and social behavior as rational games, and made fundamental contributions to the development of the early computers. In the 1930s, von Neumann turned his restless mind to the task of expressing the newly developed theories of quantum mechanics in rigorous mathematical form, and the result was his classic book The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. In it he tackled the measurement problem head on and rejected the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory, which was becoming the orthodox position among physicists.
 Although it is somewhat vague, the central tenets of the Copenhagen interpretation seem to be (1) that all we have access to are the results of observations, and so it is simply pointless to ask questions about the quantum reality behind those observations, and (2) that although observation is necessary for establishing the reality of quantum phenomena, no form of consciousness, human or otherwise, is necessary for making an observation. Rather, an observer is anything that makes a record of an event, and so it is at the level of macroscopic measuring instruments (such as Geiger counters) that the actual values of quantum phenomena are randomly set from a range of statistical possibilities.
Von Neumann objected to the Copenhagen interpretation practice of dividing the world in two parts: indefinite quantum entities on the one side, and measuring instruments that obey the laws of classical mechanics on the other.
 He considered a measuring apparatus, a Geiger counter for example, in a room isolated from the rest of the world but in contact with a quantum system, such as an atom simultaneously in two boxes.
 The Geiger counter is set to fire if the atom is found in one box, but to remain unfired if it is found in the other. This Geiger counter is a physical instrument, hence subject to the rules of quantum mechanics.
Therefore, it should be expected to enter into a superposition state along with the atom, a state in which it is simultaneously fired and unfired.
Should the Geiger counter be in contact with a device that records whether the counter has fired, then logically, it too should enter a superposition state that records both situations as existing simultaneously.
 Should an observer walk into the room and examine the recording device, this logic can be continued up the “von Neumann chain” from the recording device, to photons, to the eyes and brain of the observer, which are also physical instruments that we have no reason to suppose are exempt from the rules of quantum mechanics.
The only peculiar link in the von Neumann chain is the process by which electrical signals in the brain of the observer become a conscious experience.
Von Neumann argued that the entire physical world is quantum mechanical, so the process that collapses the wave functions into actual facts cannot be a physical process; instead, the intervention of something from outside of physics is required. Something nonphysical, not subject to the laws of quantum mechanics, must account for the collapse of the wave function: the only nonphysical entity in the observation process that von Neumann could think of was the consciousness of the observer.
 He reluctantly concluded that this outside entity had to be consciousness and that prior to observation, even measuring instruments interacting with a quantum system must exist in an indefinite state.
Von Neumann extended the Copenhagen interpretation by requiring the measurement process to take place in a mind.
He was reluctantly driven to this conclusion by his relentless logic: the only process in the von Neumann chain that is not merely the motion of molecules is the consciousness of the observer.
His arguments were developed more completely by his illustrious followers, most notably Fritz London, Edmond Bauer, and Eugene Wigner. Wigner, who went on to win the Nobel Prize in physics, wrote, “When the province of physical theory was extended to encompass microscopic phenomena, through the creation of quantum mechanics, the concept of consciousness came to the fore again; it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”
The box-pair experiment also bears on the role of consciousness and free will. After all, you can choose to look in one of the boxes or to do an interference experiment, and you will get different “realities,” one being particle-like, the other wavelike. But your choice of which experiment to do is not determined, even statistically, by anything in the physical theory. Nothing in quantum mechanics says you must choose one experiment rather than the other. If you deny that consciousness collapses the wave function, then this means atoms prior to observation existed as either particle or wave.
Somehow you chose to only look in those boxes that contained particle atoms and you chose to only do an interference experiment with wave-form atoms. This would also deny free will, because then your illusion of choice is determined by a conspiracy of the physical universe with the state of your brain and your perceived choice.
 This replaces the deterministic universe with one that is deterministic and conspiratorial.
This is how von Neumann, Wigner, and others brought mind back into nature and made a strong case against the causal closure of the physical. As we will see, the case gets even stronger.
At this point, it should be stressed that this is only one interpretation of the facts of quantum mechanics: in addition to the Copenhagen interpretation, there are several other speculations about
what is really happening when quantum possibilities settle down into one actuality. Most attempt to rescue the determinism and observer independence of classical physics.
For instance, the hidden variable theory holds that the indeterminacy of quantum physics is an illusion due to our ignorance: if we knew more about the system in question—that is, if we knew the value of some “hidden variables”—then the indeterminacy would vanish. However, there are several reasons why the general community of quantum physicists never held the hidden-variable theory in high regard.
One reason, according to quantum physicist Euan Squires, is that the hidden variable theory is “extremely complicated and messy. We know the answers from quantum theory and then we construct a hidden-variable, deterministic theory specifically to give these answers. The resulting theory appears contrived and unnatural.”
Squires points out that the hidden variable theory never gained widespread acceptance because “the elegance, simplicity and economy of quantum theory contrasted sharply with the contrived nature of a hidden-variable theory which gave no new predictions in return for its increased complexity; the whole hidden-variable enterprise was easily dismissed as arising from a desire, in the minds of those too conservative to accept change, to return to the determinism of classical physics.”
 Another reason the general community of quantum physicists consider the hidden variable theory highly implausible is that it explains away indeterminacy by postulating the existence of an ad hoc quantum force that, unlike any of the other four forces in nature, behaves in a manner completely unaffected by distance.
The many worlds hypothesis is perhaps the strangest of all. It is the only one that denies the existence of nonlocality, but it does so by postulating that all possible values of a measured property exist simultaneously in coexisting universes. When a measurement is made, we are told, the universe we are in splits into multiple universes, with one of the possible results in each of them. For instance, if a measurement may yield two possible results, then at the instant of measurement the entire universe splits in two, with each possible result realized in each universe. If a measurement may yield a continuum of possible states—such as the position of an electron—then the instant such a measurement occurs, it is proposed that the universe splits into an infinite number of universes! Since
it is further assumed that these parallel universes cannot interact with each other, this hypothesis is completely untestable. Entities are being multiplied with incredible profusion.
William of Occam must be spinning in his grave.
In the opinion of many physicists, the last two interpretations are simply desperate, last-ditch attempts to rescue the classical assumptions of determinism and observer independence that have been abandoned by quantum mechanics.
 For instance, one interpretation salvages determinism from classical physics by postulating hidden variables and the other by speculating that everything that can happen does in fact happen in an infinite number of constantly splitting parallel universes, regardless of the way things may appear to any particular version of our constantly splitting selves.
At any rate, these four interpretations are all consistent with the observed facts. They are attempts to describe what reality is really like between observations, to account for the seemingly bizarre behavior of matter predicted so accurately by the theory of quantum physics.
They are not usually considered to be scientific theories about the nature of reality, but rather metaphysical theories, as within quantum mechanics there does not currently seem to be any obvious experiment that one could perform in order to choose between them.
Physicist J. C. Polkinghorne sums up the metaphysical confusion many quantum theorists feel when he writes:
It is a curious tale.
 All over the world measurements are continually being made on quantum mechanical systems. The theory triumphantly predicts, within its probabilistic limits, what their outcomes will be.
 It is all a great success. Yet we do not understand what is going on.
Does the fixity on a particular occasion set in as a purely mental act of knowledge? At a transition from small to large physical systems? At the interface of matter and mind that we call consciousness?
In one of the many subsequent worlds into which the universe has divided itself?
Perhaps one interpretation is simpler or more logically consistent, or perhaps one of the interpretations is more aesthetically pleasing than the others. These considerations may provide philosophical reasons for preferring one over the others, but such reasons can hardly be considered decisive.
However, a fascinating set of experiments performed by physicist Helmut Schmidt and others appears to show that conscious intent can affect the behavior of otherwise purely random quantum phenomena.
 Could an experiment be designed to test the von Neumann interpretation?
Consciousness is central to the von Neumann interpretation of quantum mechanics.
 According to this interpretation, some properties of quantum phenomena do not exist in any definite state except through the intervention of a conscious mind, at which point the wave function of possibilities collapses into a single state.
The usual form of this interpretation allows the observer to collapse the wave function to a unique outcome but not to have any effect on what outcome actually occurs:
 the actual outcome is assumed to be randomly chosen by nature from the range of values provided by the wave function.
But the experiments of German physicist Helmut Schmidt and other physicists indicate that the consciousness of the observer may not only collapse the wave function to a single outcome but may also help specify what outcome occurs by shifting the odds in a desired direction.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Clearly :
This famous and simple double slit experiment shows clearly that consciousness does collapse the wave function "

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1461
    • View Profile
Don, several times David Cooper has attempted to convince you that the only aspect of consciousness that isn't entirely explained is feeling and qualia. And you appear to accept that argument in the moment but then several conversations later drift back into including under your heading of consciousness every sort of mental activity that ever occurs - memory, recognition, language, attention, problem solving and learning, beliefs, perception, creativity, and so on. Not just our experience of events involving these processes, or feelings associated with them, but anything that be can be classified as "mental." All of the above processes, along with everything else, like personality traits and volition, emotion, feeling, qualia,  are in your view all carried out "somewhere else" by some other means, than the particles and forces described by Carroll. Like Stapp, you seem to take the position that none of that requires any explanation at all - it just "is." Then you look for some means like entanglement to shoe horn in a connection between your non local consciousness and the biological robot on earth, still without explaining anything about how those mental processes of non-local consciousness work. I fail to see the explanatory benefit of doing that, which is why I think that it is, deep down, a religiously motivated argument.

As far as whether entanglement does provide you with some kind cosmic information highway, Carroll doesn't seem to think so, given his discussion of entanglement in these excerpts. If I understand him correctly, entanglement establishes correlations between different possible measurement outcomes - you are not actually manipulating objects at a vast distance faster than the speed of light. Perhaps Dlorde can probably summarize his explanation of entanglement better than I have.

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/05/29/visualizing-entanglement-in-real-time/

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/eternitytohere/quantum/

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Don, several times David Cooper has attempted to convince you that the only aspect of consciousness that isn't entirely explained is feeling and qualia. And you appear to accept that argument in the moment but then several conversations later drift back into including under your heading of consciousness every sort of mental activity that ever occurs - memory, recognition, language, attention, problem solving and learning, beliefs, perception, creativity, and so on. Not just our experience of events involving these processes, or feelings associated with them, but anything that be can be classified as "mental." All of the above processes, along with everything else, like personality traits and volition, emotion, feeling, qualia,  are in your view all carried out "somewhere else" by some other means, than the particles and forces described by Carroll. Like Stapp, you seem to take the position that none of that requires any explanation at all - it just "is." Then you look for some means like entanglement to shoe horn in a connection between your non local consciousness and the biological robot on earth, still without explaining anything about how those mental processes of non-local consciousness work. I fail to see the explanatory benefit of doing that, which is why I think that it is, deep down, a religiously motivated argument.

As far as whether entanglement does provide you with some kind cosmic information highway, Carroll doesn't seem to think so, given his discussion of entanglement in these excerpts. If I understand him correctly, entanglement establishes correlations between different possible measurement outcomes - you are not actually manipulating objects at a vast distance faster than the speed of light. Perhaps Dlorde can probably summarize his explanation of entanglement better than I have.

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/05/29/visualizing-entanglement-in-real-time/

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/eternitytohere/quantum/

Caroll thinks about the standard model of quantum field theory  a bit  like what classical physicists thought about classical Newtonian physics , in the sense that all significant natural laws or forces  were already discovered , and that only minor insignificant forces or details remain to be filled in ,untill Max Planck appeared in the picture .

I suspect the same might happen to Caroll's standard model of quantum field theory .

For the rest , see above .
See also that famous double slit experiment where it is shown clearly that consciousness does collapse the wave function .
Carter says , through the work of many prominent scientists , that consciousness does collapse the wave function instantly thus and without any transfer of energy ,without violating any laws of QM , not to mention the fact that QM has shown that the universe is not causally closed ...unlike what classical Newtonian physics says on the subject .
The above displayed link in relation to that famous double slit experiment shows that : see the excerpts of Carter on the subject here above .

No time for the rest , sorry . Thanks .
« Last Edit: 24/10/2014 19:31:11 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1441
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Carter's books prove the opposite of what Caroll 's video says .
They don't 'prove' anything, they make speculative assertions. But this is the problem with the argument from authority - it eventually comes down to my authority's better then your authority. On which point, when it comes to quantum physics, I tend to rate the views of Sean Carroll, leading theoretical physicist and CERN collaborator, more highly than those of Chris Carter, author.

This is why we try to encourage you to have and argue your own opinions.

I'm happy to argue any of the relevant points Sean makes in his video (his presentation is better and more entertaining). If you can identify anything at all in that video that you disagree with, and explain why you disagree with it, I'll be more than happy to discuss it with you. If there's something you don't understand, just ask - who knows, I might be missing some fundamental flaw in Carroll's argument.

Quote
Are all those scientists from whose work Carter  supported his claims are all worng ? Seriously , come on .
They very probably are. There are a great number of scientists, and not all of them are right about everything. On the other hand, Carter may be mistaken about the applicability of their work to his theories.

Quote
Caroll says almost the same regarding QM : that no significant detectable force remains to be discovered , just minor ones that are not relevant .

Well, see how  a minor "anomaly " toppled classical physics through the work of Max Planck.
That's right, the interaction space of energies and frequencies relevant to biological systems has been thoroughly explored, both empirically and theoretically - by a theory that extends its accuracy far beyond that limited interaction space.

And yes, it's possible, even likely, that the theory is wrong, in the same way that classical mechanics is wrong, by being an approximation that's valid within a limited scope of applicability - in the limit, other physical models may more appropriate; but just as Newtonian physics is a sufficiently good approximation to rely on in everyday life, and even to send spacecraft round the solar system, so quantum field theory is a good enough approximation to fully account for human-scale interactions. It's predictions for that whole range of scales and energies, and far beyond, have been verified by experiment. When classical physics was discovered to be 'wrong', inertia didn't go away, mass still needed to be accelerated, and angular momentum was still conserved. Likewise, if QFT is found to be inaccurate in the limit, there still won't be any new particles, fields, or forces relevant to human scales. As was said - the experimental ground has been thoroughly raked over; if there was anything else that could interact with relevant effect at these scales, it would have been found, many times over.

If you want to throw out quantum field theory, go right ahead - but don't then try to use quantum theory to support psi or any other magical woo. And once you've disposed of it, introduce me to the theory that explains all the same stuff and also includes the paranormal or supernatural - because if you can find such a theory, you'll deserve a Nobel Prize.

But for now, if you can provide just one instance of a well controlled and blinded study that has produced unequivocal results that have been published and replicated, and which support your claims here, and we'll have something worth discussing.

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1441
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Here You go : Carter says on the subject :
...
Several points about nonlocality are worth noting. First of all, non-locality does not seem to violate special relativity’s prohibition of faster-than-light signals, as no signals are sent.
Cool - supports what I said previously, and contradicts Radin's pseudoscience.