Major Bombshell : Manifesto For A Post-Materialistic Science :

  • 1132 Replies
  • 192593 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Quote From "Quantum Enigma ..." :

"
Bell’s theorem has been called “the most profound discovery in science in the last half of the twentieth century.”

It has rubbed physics’ nose in the weirdness of quantum mechanics. Bell’s theorem and the experiments it stimulated answered what was supposedly a “merely philosophical question” in the laboratory. We now know Einstein’s “spooky actions” actually exist. Even events at the edge of the galaxy instantly influence what happens at the edge of your garden. We quickly emphasize that such influences are undetectable in any normally complex situation.

Nevertheless, What are now called “EPR-Bell influences,” or entanglement, now get attention in industrial laboratories for their potential to allow incredibly powerful computers. They already provide the most secure encryption for confidential communication.

Bell’s theorem has renewed interest in the foundations of quantum mechanics, and dramatically displays physics’ encounter with consciousness.
" End quote .
« Last Edit: 21/11/2014 20:26:13 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline dlorde

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

If there is some process that can collapse the wave function , then consciousness is the only   serious candidate for that , as Von Neumann proved .
In short, if you start out with the conclusion you want and work backwards, ignoring the evidence, you can believe whatever pleases you.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Still waiting, Don.

Just one piece of evidence, please, that nonmaterialist science or whatever snake oil you are peddling, predicts something that isn't predicted by whatever it is you are objecting to.

Don't waste your time with blather or long irrelevant quotes from other authors, just give us one actual fact.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
...In short :

If there is some process that can collapse the wave function , then consciousness is the only   serious candidate for that , as Von Neumann proved .
In short, if you start out with the conclusion you want and work backwards, ignoring the evidence, you can believe whatever pleases you.

What evidence ?

There is absolutely and certainly , without a shadow of a doubt , no empirical evidence whatsoever that supports the materialist production theory , in the sense that consciousness is just a material process, and hence it makes part of the physical universe .The latter claim upon which  the MW theory is based .

Once again , materialism is false , mainly because it can intrinsically never account for the very nature of consciousness and all its related anomalies and processes ,let alone explain them, and hence consciousness cannot be but non- material  ,and thus can never be in a superposition state ,which means that consciousness is the only serious candidate for the collapse of the wave function at the end of the measurement chain, as Von Neumann,for example,  proved  .

Only the non-materialist non-physical and non-local conception of consciousness is the one that can account for consciousness and all its related anomalies and processes .

Any interpretation of QM thus must account for the non-physical and non-local nature of consciousness , otherwise it is false .

P.S.: Even Bell's theorem and its related experiments have displayed physics' encounter with consciousness ,thanks to Bell, Aspect , Clauser , Freedman and others ...
« Last Edit: 23/11/2014 17:34:33 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Still waiting, Don. Just one example....
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Still waiting, Don. Just one example....

Bell's theorem that has been relatively supporting  Von Neumann's work (on consciousness and quantum theory) , the Copenhagen interpretation ..........

Not to mention the works of many non-materialist scientists regarding the indirect evidence for the non-physical and non-local nature of consciousness , and hence any interpretation of QM that cannot account for the latter is a -priori false .

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Andrei Linde: “Will it not turn out, with the further development of science, that the study of the universe and the study of consciousness will be inseparably linked, and that ultimate progress in the one will be impossible without progress in the other?”
« Last Edit: 23/11/2014 19:45:13 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Come on, just one example of a prediction that was more accurate than the best materialistic prediction.

Don't waste your time quoting fluff and hypothesis, just one number will do.
« Last Edit: 23/11/2014 19:52:19 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Come on, just one example of a prediction that was more accurate than the best materialistic prediction.

Don't waste your time quoting fluff and hypothesis, just one number will do.

The bottom line is : materialism is false , mainly because it cannot account for consciousness, let alone for its related anomalies and processes , so, any interpretation of QM  that cannot account for consciousness as a non-physical and a non -local process  ....is fundamentally false :

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

You don't understand Bell's theorem or what ? :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
« Last Edit: 23/11/2014 20:25:30 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Just one example, not a theorem, not a repetition of the ranting drivel you have been peddling for so long.....
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile



The bottom line is : materialism is false , mainly because it cannot account for consciousness,
False..........................The brain which is material, the neurotransmission of chemo-electrical signals across the synapse resulting in the experience of thought. It's very materialistic my friend, without the brain and the neural networks, we would all be unconscious. If you can't understand that simple fact, we might begin to wonder about how conscious you are.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1460
    • View Profile


The bottom line is : materialism is false , mainly because it cannot account for consciousness, let alone for its related anomalies and processes , so, any interpretation of QM  that cannot account for consciousness as a non-physical and a non -local process  ....is fundamentally false :




I’ve used up all my data this month but pop in occasionally, and keep wondering where this extensive debate on the different interpretations of quantum mechanics is headed. Like the past lengthy discussion of Stapp’s quantum consciousness, it leaves me with the same question. If Don felt that materialist mechanisms failed to “fully” explain the “related anomalies and processes” of consciousness, you would think he’d find quantum mechanics even more bereft. The yes or no option of a collapsed wave form offers no additional insight into the richness and variety of conscious experience itself.  The long list of mental phenomena that Don regularly cites as proof of materialism’s shortcoming remain still  unaccounted for, actually even more so.
Arguing as Don does that “consciousness is no part of the physical universe , it shapes it  from outside of the laws of physics , from outside of space and time”  is just, as David Cooper pointed out pages ago,  relocating it to another realm, and fails to explain it any better. It accomplishes nothing, unless the goal is to assert that consciousness, being exempt from all physical laws and predictions, is irretrievably beyond human understanding forever.
Relocating consciousness to this realm outside physics hugely complicates its interaction with biological systems and brains, and should be a big problem for fans of Ockham’s razor. What's more, physicists don’t really feel obligated to explain, or even attempt to define, consciousness for their own purposes, which is why neuroscientists don’t pay a whole lot of attention to how physicists reference or incorporate consciousness into their theories.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

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



The bottom line is : materialism is false , mainly because it cannot account for consciousness,
False..........................The brain which is material, the neurotransmission of chemo-electrical signals across the synapse resulting in the experience of thought. It's very materialistic my friend, without the brain and the neural networks, we would all be unconscious. If you can't understand that simple fact, we might begin to wonder about how conscious you are.

Yeah , right :

You don't even understand what i have been  talking about all along and all this time , while being so derisive , ironically enough :

Materialism is just  the false   belief assumption that all is matter , including the mind , and hence everything can be reduced to or explained just by material processes ,while the universe , including ourselves thus , is not   exclusively material .

The major anomaly of them all : consciousness which is non-physical , non-local and thus irreducible to matter is the major proof of the falsehood of materialism .

Not to mention the fact that the materialist production theory , in the sense that consciousness or the mind are just in the brain , products of the brain , or just brain activity has not been supported by any empirical evidence whatsoever ....

If you can't understand the simple above mentioned facts , i wonder why you hang out on a scientific forum .

*

Offline DonQuichotte

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


The bottom line is : materialism is false , mainly because it cannot account for consciousness, let alone for its related anomalies and processes , so, any interpretation of QM  that cannot account for consciousness as a non-physical and a non -local process  ....is fundamentally false :




I’ve used up all my data this month but pop in occasionally, and keep wondering where this extensive debate on the different interpretations of quantum mechanics is headed. Like the past lengthy discussion of Stapp’s quantum consciousness, it leaves me with the same question. If Don felt that materialist mechanisms failed to “fully” explain the “related anomalies and processes” of consciousness, you would think he’d find quantum mechanics even more bereft. The yes or no option of a collapsed wave form offers no additional insight into the richness and variety of conscious experience itself.  The long list of mental phenomena that Don regularly cites as proof of materialism’s shortcoming remain still  unaccounted for, actually even more so.
Arguing as Don does that “consciousness is no part of the physical universe , it shapes it  from outside of the laws of physics , from outside of space and time”  is just, as David Cooper pointed out pages ago,  relocating it to another realm, and fails to explain it any better. It accomplishes nothing, unless the goal is to assert that consciousness, being exempt from all physical laws and predictions, is irretrievably beyond human understanding forever.
Relocating consciousness to this realm outside physics hugely complicates its interaction with biological systems and brains, and should be a big problem for fans of Ockham’s razor. What's more, physicists don’t really feel obligated to explain, or even attempt to define, consciousness for their own purposes, which is why neuroscientists don’t pay a whole lot of attention to how physicists reference or incorporate consciousness into their theories.

( Prior note : Since consciousness ,the mind and all their related anomalies and processes have been proven indirectly to be non-local and non-physical ,  thanks to an overwhelming body of evidence , that means that the universe , including ourselves, cannot be just physical or material as materialism has been assuming it  to be ,and hence all those non-physical and non-local processes  do not make part of the physical universe , since they are not physical and non-local , simply put ,as they don't have to obey the laws of physics ...and thus any unified theory or "theory of everything " cannot be just physical .)

All i was doing is following the evidence ,that's all :

Even Einstein himself and many others were /are and will be puzzled by  physics' encounter with consciousness .I did not invent the latter lol, i wish : The Copenhagen interpretation did .

Einstein ,for example,  accepted Bohr's suggestion to ignore the alleged physics' encounter with consciousness , and  move on ,by using QTheory without understanding what it actually means .

But , Einstein could not but remain puzzled by the Copenhagen interpretation  , and he even  tried to demonstrate that QM must be incomplete, together with Podolsky and Rosen , collectively EPR  .

The following is a mind-blowing and fascinating book on the subject to which i have been listening lately : there is a summary of the book in question on wiki :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_%28book%29

Bell's theorem and its related experiments proved Einstein wrong and Bohr right in that great debate of theirs ,relatively speaking :

Furthermore , despite the quantum enigma and its dramatic encounter with consciousness that have been revolutionizing and superseding the  deterministic mechanical classical Newtonian world view upon which materialism was built , ironically enough , materialist scientists and philosophers went on ignoring the deepest meaning of  all that  ,as if quantum theory and its related interpretation or measurement problem never existed,so to speak  :

Materialist neuroscientists , for example, continued studying the brain through the classical view , as materialist philosophers remained stuck in the latter , while materialist behaviorism in psychology went on denying the very existence of consciousness ,the mind or their related processes and subjective inner lives , not to mention the other sciences , including human sciences and including anthropology , history writing , sociology , politics , economy ...that remained confined within the materialist classical world view ,despite all the above .

That said :

It's not the task of physicists to "explain " consciousness that goes way beyond physics itself ,due mainly to its non-physical nature indeed.

They can't 'explain " consciousness even if they wished to , but , nevertheless there are many so-called quantum theories of consciousness , like that of Stapp you have mentioned , like that of Penrose-Hameroff  and others ...

Penrose , for example, suggests that consciousness can be explained via quantum theory ,in the sense that it allegedly "resides" in the microtubules of the brain as some sort of energy ..blablabla ...

In short : Penrose -Hameroff  controversial so-called quantum theory of consciousness tries to 'explain " consciousness through a physical mechanism, while acknowledging the fact that consciousness cannot be computable  :

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penrose-hameroff/orchor.html

On the other hand , Henry Stapp's quantum theory of consciousness says, grosso-modo , that the non-physical consciousness can influence the brain at the level of ions through  what he calls the Zeno -effect and Hebb's law ...

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6602972-mindful-universe

The materialist theories of consciousness either deny the existence of consciousness as such , or just reduce it to a material process  ...

Some of them just basically say that consciousness is just a property of matter , like mass , charge , velocity ....  are , and that consciousness arises from the fundamental physical electromagnetic fields ...

In short :

There are plenty of theories of consciousness and none of which are based on any "direct " empirical evidence whatsoever (How can the ever be ? ) : they are all just more or less wild speculations that belong more to the field of philosophy than to that of science , even though " There is no such thing as  philosophy -free science ..." as lunatic Dennett said and rightly so .

But ,as Godel proved : there are rational premises in a  logical  system the truth of which cannot be proved as such ,so, even though we can't say what consciousness is (my emphasis ) , we can infer its role ,nature and existence from other related objective or empirical evidence :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_G%C3%B6del

All that renewed interest in consciousness , all those consciousness studies and theories ... were triggered mainly by the interpretation problem of or by the measurement problem in quantum theory through the Copenhagen interpretation that has been bringing consciousness back to science or to physics ,in the sense that quantum theory can never be understood without reference to the mind or consciousness of the observer.

Quantum theory is unique in this : no interpretation of any other scientific theory has ever required such a psychological or subjective element .

 And since materialistic realism is based on the assumption that there is an independent external objective reality out there that's independent of the fact of whether it is observed or not : objects in nature are supposed to have their own intrinsic properties that are independent of whether or not they are observed ,so,  when the mind of the observer or the subject got "entangled ", so to speak , with the observed objects in nature under scientific study , through quantum theory , "hell broke loose " , so to speak :

The very existence of an independent objective reality + locality or separability ( No distant objects can influence or interact with each other instantly without physical causes that cannot exceed the speed of light .) were threatened by quantum theory , that's why Einstein spoke of that "spooky action at a distance " which he couldn't bring himself to accept , and that's why he said so derisively to a colleague " Is the moon still there when you are not looking " ...which sparked a hot debate with Bohr and others .

Bell's theorem and its related experiments that were conducted by Bell, Aspect , Clauser , Freedman and others seem to have proved Einstein wrong on the subject and Bohr right , in the sense that there is indeed no locality or separability at the quantum level at least : particles can get entangled with each other : that spooky action at a distance does exist : entangled distant particles can influence each other instantly from a distance , not to mention that reality might be an illusion .

As technology gets more advanced  , many  sophisticated experiments are expected to be conducted on the subject , so, let's just wait and see .

Furthermore, Physicists still don't know whether or not there is indeed a conscious collapse of the wave function , but , that's the most simple and plausible interpretation of quantum theory so far : Von Neumann even proved that mathematically through what's known as the Von Neumann chain of measurements at the end of which a conscious observation has to be made , after all , that inspired Schrodinger in developing his famous thought experiment : dead or alive cat , dead -alive cat ... .

And since materialists cannot accept that alleged conscious collapse of the wave function that's totally incompatible with materialism , well , they just try to go around that enigma through the many worlds ' theory,for example,  where there is no need at all of any collapse of the wave function ...since materialism assumes that consciousness is just a material process that makes part of the physical universe:

 MW theory is based thus on a false materialistic premise or sand -castle for which there is absolutely and certainly no empirical evidence whatsoever to support its claims , not to mention that MW theory is unfalsifiable = unscientific + the fact that it violates Occam's razor ... .

There are also other other interpretations of QM as well ...

For example , Nobel prize winner Ilya Grigogene tried to use the concept of irreversibility -reversibility in the second law of thermodynamics to 'explain " away the physicists ' "illusion " of collapse of the wave function,since the quantum world ,as the rest of the world , is constantly changing , through the concept of becoming instead of being ,so, whenever physicists would try to measure the system ,they disturb it or "freeze"  it  in a certain time-location , pretty much like when biologists literally freeze cells to study them (The cells are then no longer alive in real time ...so, all the data which biologists might gather that way cannot but be incomplete or just distortions of the functioning of the cell in real life ...) :

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreversible_process

In other words :

The old and false Cartesian dichotomy between the mind and matter , and that they are allegedly separate from each other : the body and brain as just complex and determined machines which are allegedly separated from the mind is false : Descartes ' attempt to elude the terrible wrath of the inquisition by leaving the mind to the church , and the physical reality , including the body and brain , to science .

Descartes was thus the first scientist and philosopher who introduced the deterministic materialism to the natural sciences and to philosophy  .

Materialism that was ,later on, built upon classical physics did extend deterministic materialism to the mind itself , by claiming that the mind is just a material process , a product of the brain , without any causal effects on the physical reality as a whole including the brain and body .

Materialism that requires reductionism anyway has been trying since then to reduce everything to just material processes through the working of fundamental particles,fields and forces ( The very existence of CERN , for example, is a major futile example of the elusive reductionism,despite its relative achievements  : every time they think they found the most fundamental particles,fields..., other more fundamental ones get discovered and so on.They don't know that a holistic approach is the key to explaining the universe where consciousness plays a central role , not matter . )  : it all went "good " untill Max Planck showed up and started the quantum revolution that superseded classical physics .

The mind or consciousness of the observer seemed intertwined and inseparable from the interpretation of quantum theory : no real understanding of QM could ever be accomplished without introducing consciousness or the mind into the realm of physics : that's a quite mind-blowing and revolutionary fact .

Not to mention the fact that there is now an overwhelming body of evidence that has been proving consciousness , indirectly thus , to be a non-physical and non-local process , which basically means that the universe is not   exclusively material , and hence materialism is false and must be replaced by a non-materialist conception of nature that embraces both the material and the immaterial in nature :

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

Those are the hard facts with which science has to deal  by integrating consciousness in science,which means that any scientific understanding of the universe must incorporate consciousness or the mind in any scientific theories or models of nature and the universe: nothing less would do   .

The same goes for any so-called unifying theory that hence cannot be just physical : goes beyond physics .

In short :

Andrei Linde: “Will it not turn out, with the further development of science, that the study of the universe and the study of consciousness will be inseparably linked, and that ultimate progress in the one will be impossible without progress in the other?”

How the non-local and non-physical consciousness or the mind shape the physical reality and get influenced by it ? That's a question worth way more than just a Nobel prize .

Two major enigmas have been  encountering each other : QM and consciousness : the one cannot be solved without solving the other ,since they seem to be inseparably and inescapably linked to each other or intertwined with each other .

That's the current state of affairs , i guess , where materialism cannot be more beneficial and less harmful to science and to humanity than by exiting their doors or by getting kicked out of existence .



« Last Edit: 24/11/2014 20:14:14 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Yeah , right :

How can the qualitative subjective experience or consciousness be generated by the quantitative neural correlates ?

Only reductionist materialists can accomplish such an inexplicable paradoxical and absurd magical leap , jump or performance :

Maybe our Ethos   here can explain just the above  to us : even his uncles Penrose-Hameroff would "refute" the following inexplicable magical "computation " lol  :

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/neuronal-superhub-might-generate-consciousness/

Well, finally , Penrose-Hameroff so-called quantum theory of consciousness has been corroborated : Eureka lol :

Science and fairy tales have been becoming less and less  indistinguishable from each other than ever :

http://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-quantum-vibrations-microtubules-corroborates.html
« Last Edit: 24/11/2014 21:11:23 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Thank you for a nice phys.org article, clearly implying that consciousness derives from material structures, as everyone apart from you thinks.

Come on, Don, just give us one example of a "nonmaterial science" prediction that turns out to be more accurate than a material one. That's all it takes - just one! Then you can save yourself the tedium of copying out screeds of stuff than nobody takes seriously.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1460
    • View Profile
Yeah , right :

How can the qualitative subjective experience or consciousness be generated by the quantitative neural correlates ?

Only reductionist materialists can accomplish such an inexplicable paradoxical and absurd magical leap , jump or performance :

Maybe our Ethos   here can explain just the above  to us : even his uncles Penrose-Hameroff would "refute" the following inexplicable magical "computation " lol  :

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/neuronal-superhub-might-generate-consciousness/

Well, finally , Penrose-Hameroff so-called quantum theory of consciousness has been corroborated : Eureka lol :

Science and fairy tales have been becoming less and less  indistinguishable from each other than ever :

http://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-quantum-vibrations-microtubules-corroborates.html

I’ve looked at Hammeroff’s work, and it sounds interesting and promising. But it also sounds quite materialistic, in that consciousness might be caused or expedited by quantum mechanical processes in the brain. I didn’t see anything about consciousness existing outside time and space, or being an as yet undetected field. I didn’t read anything about consciousness creating or changing or determining events outside the brain. I didn’t read anything about the brain being a mechanical receiver for yet undetected consciousness waves. I didn’t read anything about how quantum mechanical effects in micro-tubules, by themselves, create the content, or transmit the content of  thought, ideas, memories, logic, creativity, emotions, or the other aspects of mental activity from some non-local source of consciousness. Once again, you are barking up the wrong tree, as far as finding support for your mystical or religious theory.

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Once again, you are barking up the wrong tree, as far as finding support for your mystical or religious theory.
I believe if we correctly analyze Don's motives here, we'll find it has more to do with his religious persuasion and very little to do with science. If he is the least bit successful in persuading anyone to buy into his sermons, his next step will be an attempt to convert them to his preferred religion. Let me guess, is he Catholic, Protestant, or maybe........Muslim?
« Last Edit: 25/11/2014 05:07:50 by Ethos_ »
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
"In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God. And the Word was God."

Probably the best-publicised creation myth, but no more validated by experiment than turtles or string theory.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1441
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Once again, you are barking up the wrong tree, as far as finding support for your mystical or religious theory.
I believe if we correctly analyze Don's motives here, we'll find it has more to do with his religious persuasion and very little to do with science. If he is the least bit successful in persuading anyone to buy into his sermons, his next step will be an attempt to convert them to his preferred religion. Let me guess, is he Catholic, Protestant, or maybe........Muslim?
Quantum Islam, given his postings on threads here.

Like Cheryl, I don't know why he keeps posting materialist explanations for consciousness, quantum mechanical or otherwise, in support of a non-materialist, dualist external consciousness (and how does that work?).

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Once again, you are barking up the wrong tree, as far as finding support for your mystical or religious theory.
I believe if we correctly analyze Don's motives here, we'll find it has more to do with his religious persuasion and very little to do with science. If he is the least bit successful in persuading anyone to buy into his sermons, his next step will be an attempt to convert them to his preferred religion. Let me guess, is he Catholic, Protestant, or maybe........Muslim?
Quantum Islam, given his postings on threads here.

Like Cheryl, I don't know why he keeps posting materialist explanations for consciousness, quantum mechanical or otherwise, in support of a non-materialist, dualist external consciousness (and how does that work?).

(Quantum Islam lol : that's a funny one,whatever that might mean = means nothing  . Islamic "God particle " . Kidding )

Why i have been posting some materialistic  "explanations " of consciousness ? : isn't that obvious to you by now ? Odd .

 I posted that just to show you,if you haven't noticed yet (You still haven't done that , i see )  how inexplicably magical they are without any empirical evidence to support their claims whatsoever : quantitative neuronal oscillations or vibrations sexy strip-tease dances ,in the microtubules of the brain or elsewhere in the brain , can never account for the qualitative subjective experiences, like Chalmers said in other  words : a kindda materialist panpsychism flirting with dualism ,ironically enough  : they basically and actually sound like that dualistic one of Descartes , in the sense that consciousness allegedly 'resides " in the pineal gland as some sort of magical fluid of some inexplicably magical kind .

It would be entertaining to read what the following idealist said on the subject in a similar context : I am neither an idealist monist nor a dualist , once again,needless to add  : I am more of a supporter of the manifesto for a post-materialistic science ,as the subject matter of this thread , if you haven't noticed yet .Post-materialistic science  that embraces both the material and the immaterial in nature through the observer effect interpretation of QM :

http://www.bernardokastrup.com/2014/05/raving-materialists-and-their-nonsense.html

Not to mention this following attempt by a Nobel laureate to "solve ' the measurement problem in QM through irreversibility-reversibility in the 2d law of thermodynamics : an attractive one that makes at least some sense , but was nonetheless refuted by Alastair Rae  in his " Quantum physics , illusion or reality " book :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilya_Prigogine


+ This  is yet another materialistic tragic -hilarious so-called theory of consciousness by neuroscientist Michael S.A.Graziano : You might like it lol :

http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/how-consciousness-works/

« Last Edit: 25/11/2014 17:56:37 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Once again, you are barking up the wrong tree, as far as finding support for your mystical or religious theory.
I believe if we correctly analyze Don's motives here, we'll find it has more to do with his religious persuasion and very little to do with science. If he is the least bit successful in persuading anyone to buy into his sermons, his next step will be an attempt to convert them to his preferred religion. Let me guess, is he Catholic, Protestant, or maybe........Muslim?

You should have noticed by now that i have been motivated only by the following and by its prior form ,as the subject matter of this thread , instead of projecting your own religious background on me :

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

In short :

In order to make things even more clearer to you , since you don't seem to be able to figure that out for yourself ,despite my countless repetitions on the subject :

Science must be set free from the false materialist conception of nature , philosophy , old , outdated and superseded ideology or world view that was built upon the approximately correct and fundamentally false deterministic mechanical classical Newtonian world view .

alancalverd :

As lunatic Dennett said , and rightly so : " There is no such thing as  philosophy -free science ..." : science has thus been based on  the 19th century  outdated , false and superseded materialistic philosophy .

There is even what can be called the philosophy of physics also (see Einstein on the subject in relation to his great debate with Bohr ...) .

I have posted that to you , earlier on .
« Last Edit: 25/11/2014 17:47:29 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
"In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God. And the Word was God."

Probably the best-publicised creation myth, but no more validated by experiment than turtles or string theory.

That's just a christian thing .

Ironically enough , even science itself has been based on a mythical false ,outdated and superseded 19th century belief or secular dogmatic orthodox religion : the materialistic one that has been pretending to be 'scientific "  , to be more precise .

That's even been called the 'scientific world view " .

But, then again : All beliefs or world views , either the religious or the secular ones , the theistic or the atheistic ones , are ,per definition , unfalsifiable = unscientific , which does not   necessarily means that they are all false , like materialism most certainly is .

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=alancalverd link=topic=52526.msg445229#msg445229 date=1416870197]
Thank you for a nice phys.org article, clearly implying that consciousness derives from material structures, as everyone apart from you thinks.

You're welcome , Alan .
There is absolutely no empirical evidence whatsoever that supports any of those materialistic theories of consciousness, once again : it has never been proved conclusively (How can that ever happen ? ) that the quantitative activity of the neuronal correlates can give rise to the qualitative subjective experiences ,as Chalmers and others said : only materialists are "capable" of making such an  inexplicably  magical jump ,leap or performance from the quantitative to the qualitative that way , nobodyelse is lol  .

Even our mechanical friend here David Cooper   does reject such inexplicable magical materialistic jump or leap ,in the sense that consciousness allegedly emerges from the sexy lol oscillations or vibrations of neuronal correlates , from their microtubules ....

Quote
Come on, Don, just give us one example of a "nonmaterial science" prediction that turns out to be more accurate than a material one. That's all it takes - just one! Then you can save yourself the tedium of copying out screeds of stuff than nobody takes seriously.

You still do not understand the major difference between materialism as a world view, philosophy , ideology or conception of nature upon which current science has been based , and between what the material or physical reality means ( I don't have to explain to you what the physical or material reality is , do i ? ) : they are not   identical or synonymous of each other .

Materialism is just the false belief assumption that assumes that everything , the whole universe or nature , is material or physical , including the mind thus (There is absolutely no empirical evidence whatsoever for the latter materialistic claim .) , which basically and actually means that everything can be explained by just material processes or physical causes ...

The major anomaly of them all : consciousness , the mind and their related anomalies and processes can thus intrinsically never be accounted for by materialism that reduces everything to just matter or to just material processes or physical causes , let alone that they can be explained by materialism  , since there has been an overwhelming body of evidence that had been proving the above mentioned consciousness and mind processes to be non-local and non -physical or non-material , and that indirectly , since that cannot be proved directly , and hence  the universe , including ourselves , including you and me , is not  exclusively material or physical = materialism is false and must be thus kicked out of science and replaced by a non-materialistic conception of nature that embraces both the material and the immaterial alike in nature ,as the subject matter of the manifesto of this thread .

In short :

Materialist science has been delivering a relatively distorted version of the nature of reality , despite science's enormous success at the level of matter at least ,science's overwhelming success thus with which materialism has been having nothing to do at all : all that scientific success was /is and will be accomplished only through the scientific method , since science is all about methodology and epistemology , not about any world view or philosophy like that of materialism that has been equated with science or with the scientific world view ...

The post-materialistic science has thus more explanatory and predictability power than the materialist one : see the works of non-materialist scientists  :

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

Only the non-materialist science can, for example, resolve the interpretation of QM and that of consciousness maybe : the 2 major enigmas that have been encountering each other .

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
So are you admitting that nonmaterialist science doesn't actually predict anything? 
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Yeah , right :

How can the qualitative subjective experience or consciousness be generated by the quantitative neural correlates ?

Only reductionist materialists can accomplish such an inexplicable paradoxical and absurd magical leap , jump or performance :

Maybe our Ethos   here can explain just the above  to us : even his uncles Penrose-Hameroff would "refute" the following inexplicable magical "computation " lol  :

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/neuronal-superhub-might-generate-consciousness/

Well, finally , Penrose-Hameroff so-called quantum theory of consciousness has been corroborated : Eureka lol :

Science and fairy tales have been becoming less and less  indistinguishable from each other than ever :

http://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-quantum-vibrations-microtubules-corroborates.html

I’ve looked at Hammeroff’s work, and it sounds interesting and promising. But it also sounds quite materialistic, in that consciousness might be caused or expedited by quantum mechanical processes in the brain. I didn’t see anything about consciousness existing outside time and space, or being an as yet undetected field. I didn’t read anything about consciousness creating or changing or determining events outside the brain. I didn’t read anything about the brain being a mechanical receiver for yet undetected consciousness waves. I didn’t read anything about how quantum mechanical effects in micro-tubules, by themselves, create the content, or transmit the content of  thought, ideas, memories, logic, creativity, emotions, or the other aspects of mental activity from some non-local source of consciousness. Once again, you are barking up the wrong tree, as far as finding support for your mystical or religious theory.

Well, daaah : Haven't you noticed my explicit derisive comments on the subject ?
How could you miss that ?

Even David Chalmers and others ,not to mention our mechanistic friend here David Cooper   by the way, except die-hard materialists of course , would laugh loudly at all those materialistic so-called theories or models of consciousness , the quantum ones or otherwise , including Penrose-Hameroff 's ,that can't tell us how they can make such an inexplicable magical jump or leap from the quantitative to the qualitative : how the quantitative activity of the neuronal correlates of consciousness through their sexy strip-tease oscillations or vibrations "ritual " dances can give rise to the qualitative subjective experiences ???????

Quantitative oscillations vibrations of neurons at the level of their microtubules or otherwise , giving rise to the qualitative subjective experiences : that sounds more like inexplicable magic lol : how can they make such an extraordinary jump or leap from the one to the other : correlations between consciousness and neurons or ensemble of neurons are no causations = no proof of the one causing the rise of the other : do i have to take out that tv set ,radio device , cell phone ...analogy from my dusty attic once again , to illustrate what i am saying here above ? Guess not , since you are an intelligent person that can understand the above without further illustrations or drawings ...

I am quite sure i don't have to make a drawing for  you to make you grasp the above : Drawings or cartoons on the subject might not even work on our Ethos , for example, no offense for the guy  .

In short :

The physical brain is just a medium through which consciousness 'flows " or expresses itself , the brain as a transceiver ,so when certain areas of the brain are damaged or don't work properly due to diseases , genetic defects , ... consciousness gets disconnected at those levels ... and hence does not get through : that does absolutely not mean that the physical brain produces consciousness .

Got it ?
« Last Edit: 25/11/2014 18:53:21 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
So are you admitting that nonmaterialist science doesn't actually predict anything?

I am rather actually saying that you are such a lazy scientist without any imagination whatsoever ,let alone any sense of humour,  Alan ,sorry , that's no insult , just a fact deduced from your silly behaviour : check out the works of  non-materialist scientists on the subject : I spend so much time and energy trying to explain simple things to you ,and what do i get in return ? : just silly remarks from you .Thanks a lot for nothing :

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

"Imagination is more important than knowledge " Einstein .

Imagination that has been behind many scientific discoveries ,if not behind all of them, behind works of art , literature...

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Once again, you are barking up the wrong tree, as far as finding support for your mystical or religious theory.
I believe if we correctly analyze Don's motives here, we'll find it has more to do with his religious persuasion and very little to do with science. If he is the least bit successful in persuading anyone to buy into his sermons, his next step will be an attempt to convert them to his preferred religion. Let me guess, is he Catholic, Protestant, or maybe........Muslim?
Quantum Islam, given his postings on threads here.

Like Cheryl, I don't know why he keeps posting materialist explanations for consciousness, quantum mechanical or otherwise, in support of a non-materialist, dualist external consciousness (and how does that work?).

(Quantum Islam lol : that's a funny one,whatever that might mean = means nothing  . Islamic "God particle " . Kidding )

Why i have been posting some materialistic  "explanations " of consciousness ? : isn't that obvious to you by now ? Odd .

 I posted that just to show you,if you haven't noticed yet (You still haven't done that , i see )  how inexplicably magical they are without any empirical evidence to support their claims whatsoever : quantitative neuronal oscillations or vibrations sexy strip-tease dances ,in the microtubules of the brain or elsewhere in the brain , can never account for the qualitative subjective experiences, like Chalmers said in other  words : a kindda materialist panpsychism flirting with dualism ,ironically enough  : they basically and actually sound like that dualistic one of Descartes , in the sense that consciousness allegedly 'resides " in the pineal gland as some sort of magical fluid of some inexplicably magical kind .

It would be entertaining to read what the following idealist said on the subject in a similar context : I am neither an idealist monist nor a dualist , once again,needless to add  : I am more of a supporter of the manifesto for a post-materialistic science ,as the subject matter of this thread , if you haven't noticed yet .Post-materialistic science  that embraces both the material and the immaterial in nature through the observer effect interpretation of QM :

http://www.bernardokastrup.com/2014/05/raving-materialists-and-their-nonsense.html

Not to mention this following attempt by a Nobel laureate to "solve ' the measurement problem in QM through irreversibility-reversibility in the 2d law of thermodynamics : an attractive one that makes at least some sense , but was nonetheless refuted by Alastair Rae  in his " Quantum physics , illusion or reality " book :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilya_Prigogine


+ This  is yet another materialistic tragic -hilarious so-called theory of consciousness by neuroscientist Michael S.A.Graziano : You might like it lol :

http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/how-consciousness-works/


*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Once again, you are barking up the wrong tree, as far as finding support for your mystical or religious theory.
I believe if we correctly analyze Don's motives here, we'll find it has more to do with his religious persuasion and very little to do with science. If he is the least bit successful in persuading anyone to buy into his sermons, his next step will be an attempt to convert them to his preferred religion. Let me guess, is he Catholic, Protestant, or maybe........Muslim?

You should have noticed by now that i have been motivated only by the following and by its prior form ,as the subject matter of this thread , instead of projecting your own religious background on me :

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

In short :

In order to make things even more clearer to you , since you don't seem to be able to figure that out for yourself ,despite my countless repetitions on the subject :

Science must be set free from the false materialist conception of nature , philosophy , old , outdated and superseded ideology or world view that was built upon the approximately correct and fundamentally false deterministic mechanical classical Newtonian world view .

alancalverd :

As lunatic Dennett said , and rightly so : " There is no such thing as  philosophy -free science ..." : science has thus been based on  the 19th century  outdated , false and superseded materialistic philosophy .

There is even what can be called the philosophy of physics also (see Einstein on the subject in relation to his great debate with Bohr ...) .

I have posted that to you , earlier on .

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1460
    • View Profile


In short :

The physical brain is just a medium through which consciousness 'flows " or expresses itself , the brain as a transceiver ,so when certain areas of the brain are damaged or don't work properly due to diseases , genetic defects , ... consciousness gets disconnected at those levels ... and hence does not get through : that does absolutely not mean that the physical brain produces consciousness .

Got it ?

I "get" that you're basing your theory on a bad analogy about the brain being a receiver, for which there is not a shred of evidence in support, and a great deal of evidence that indicates it's not true, not even "metaphorically." I can repost the evidence if you need to review it.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

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


In short :

The physical brain is just a medium through which consciousness 'flows " or expresses itself , the brain as a transceiver ,so when certain areas of the brain are damaged or don't work properly due to diseases , genetic defects , ... consciousness gets disconnected at those levels ... and hence does not get through : that does absolutely not mean that the physical brain produces consciousness .

Got it ?

I "get" that you're basing your theory on a bad analogy about the brain being a receiver, for which there is not a shred of evidence in support, and a great deal of evidence that indicates it's not true, not even "metaphorically." I can repost the evidence if you need to review it.

I said : the physical brain is just a medium through which consciousness expresses itself , both ways : the brain as a transceiver = transmitter-receiver = transmits information from the external environment through the senses to the mind or consciousness , and receives the corresponding feedback from the mind or consciousness : that's the only logical or rational explanation of the mind-brain relationship .

The physical brain is just the vehicle through which the consciousness driver ,so to speak, expresses itself by driving its vehicle :  the brain : both the vehicle and the driver are inseparable though : they can't function without each other , although the driver remains intact despite the damaged vehicle : the driver just can't express itself through the damaged vehicle ,simply because it gets disconnected from it : in the case of brain damage thus ,brain diseases , malfunction ....the brain vehicle behaves accordingly ,so, the driver is prevented  from driving its brain vehicle : that's no ghost in the machine , since the brain and body are no machines , but living organisms that have to be driven by consciousness or the mind ....

The activity of the neuronal correlates of consciousness is just the physical "translation " of that of the 'corresponding " consciousness : just the image of the process , not the cause of the process .

Mind states , thoughts ...get "translated " into physical neuronal electrochemical activity or brainwaves , and vice versa : information from the external environment through the senses get sent by the brain to the mind or consciousness :

Don't misinterpret the following from the false  materialistic perspective , a link from The Scientist :

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/41416/title/Mind-Controlled-Gene-Expression/


P.S.:

In fact , since consciousness or the mind cannot but be non-physical and non-local , then the only simple explanation or interpretation of QM is that of the observer effect on the measured or observed particles : that changes the whole nature of reality , in the sense that the physical reality, including the brain and body , do get shaped by consciousness and the mind while getting influenced by the information from the physical environment : most of what we call the physical reality is just the product of the mind's perception : most of our reality is thus ...mental .

If you wanna talk about the mind-brain relationship thus , you cannot but involve quantum physics in that ...........since the whole universe seems to be quantum "mechanical " where consciousness plays a central role ,as Von Neumann proved .

Don't remain stuck in the classical Newtonian approximately correct and fundamentally false deterministic mechanical world view thus .

No absurd , paradoxical or insane MW or other materialistic theories that attempt to solve the interpretation problem  of QM can be compatible with the working of the brain and mind in real life within this universe, not to mention that of the rest of life and the rest in this universe  (To multiply this universe by an infinite numbers of imaginary universes just makes the problem infinitely complex , paradoxical and absurd ) ,since the materialistic belief assumption that consciousness or the mind are just material processes can hold no water and is thus false ...

In short :

The so-called physical reality might be just an elaborate  illusion , a "tree  " that hides the real "forest ", thanks to the mind .

The physical reality or the physical universe  ,including the brain and body ,might be just some sort of a hologram, i don't know :

http://www.iflscience.com/physics/universe-hologram

« Last Edit: 25/11/2014 21:48:03 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile


In short :


Funny, you keep using that expression but you never keep your word.

In short: Constant repetition will never overcome good science and logical reasoning.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
So are you admitting that nonmaterialist science doesn't actually predict anything?

I am rather actually saying that you are such a lazy scientist without any imagination whatsoever ,let alone any sense of humour,  Alan ,sorry , that's no insult , just a fact deduced from your silly behaviour : check out the works of  non-materialist scientists on the subject : I spend so much time and energy trying to explain simple things to you ,and what do i get in return ? : just silly remarks from you .Thanks a lot for nothing :

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

"Imagination is more important than knowledge " Einstein .

Imagination that has been behind many scientific discoveries ,if not behind all of them, behind works of art , literature...

And still not one single example. I'm tired of this repetitious bullshit, so I'll conclude that within the limits of detectability of this investigation, there is  no evidence to support your hypothesis.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1441
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
+ This  is yet another materialistic tragic -hilarious so-called theory of consciousness by neuroscientist Michael S.A.Graziano : You might like it lol :

http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/how-consciousness-works/
Thanks for that - I hadn't seen that article, and yes, I do like it. It's pretty much the way I currently view the generation and role of consciousness and the sense of self  [8D]

Good to see your posts aren't always a complete waste of time  [;)]
« Last Edit: 25/11/2014 23:46:53 by dlorde »

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1460
    • View Profile



I said : the physical brain is just a medium through which consciousness expresses itself , both ways : the brain as a transceiver = transmitter-receiver = transmits information from the external environment through the senses to the mind or consciousness , and receives the corresponding feedback from the mind or consciousness : that's the only logical or rational explanation of the mind-brain relationship .

The physical brain is just the vehicle through which the consciousness driver ,so to speak, expresses itself by driving its vehicle :  the brain : both the vehicle and the driver are inseparable though : they can't function without each other , although the driver remains intact despite the damaged vehicle : the driver just can't express itself through the damaged vehicle ,simply because it gets disconnected from it : in the case of brain damage thus ,brain diseases , malfunction ....the brain vehicle behaves accordingly ,so, the driver is prevented  from driving its brain vehicle : that's no ghost in the machine , since the brain and body are no machines , but living organisms that have to be driven by consciousness or the mind ....

The activity of the neuronal correlates of consciousness is just the physical "translation " of that of the 'corresponding " consciousness : just the image of the process , not the cause of the process ......



That’s groovy, Don. But sort of meaningless, when you think about it. Not only is it untestable, but you can apply it to anything and everything with the same meaningless result.
  It’s like saying that water isn’t really H2O molecules, water just “uses” the molecules to “express” its watery-ness. And infectious diseases are not caused by bacteria and viruses, but are actually caused by demons that always possess certain species of bacteria and viruses. The mircoorganisms are just the "medium", not the cause. And wind is not air molecules moving from an area of high pressure to low pressure (do not confuse the image with the process!) That is just the “vehicle” through which the wind spirit acts. Occasionally, wind gets “stuck” and cannot “flow properly” and that is what causes it to seem “not so windy outside.”

You could invent any number of scenarios about how a physical manifestation is just a “correlation” and not the thing itself. Since there are no examples of disembodied consciousness just floating around by itself, Ockham’s razor would suggest that you are needlessly complicating things by saying X isn’t really X. It’s really Y, even though it always takes the form of X, and never appears just as Y. 

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile

Quote
As lunatic Dennett said , and rightly so : " There is no such thing as  philosophy -free science ..." : science has thus been based on  the 19th century  outdated , false and superseded materialistic philosophy .

There is even what can be called the philosophy of physics also (see Einstein on the subject in relation to his great debate with Bohr ...) .

Outdated nonsense. Science is a simple iterative process: observe, hypothesise, test, observe.... "Philosophy of science" is harmless intellectual masturbation at best,  a dangerous parasitic infection at worst.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1441
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
You could invent any number of scenarios about how a physical manifestation is just a “correlation” and not the thing itself. Since there are no examples of disembodied consciousness just floating around by itself, Ockham’s razor would suggest that you are needlessly complicating things by saying X isn’t really X. It’s really Y, even though it always takes the form of X, and never appears just as Y. 
It can't appear as Y and can't be falsified because, by definition, it's 'immaterial'. Not only does it introduce the interaction problem, but it requires an entire immaterial universe (or 'realm' as the mystics like to call it). It's special pleading of the most egregious kind, and Ockham would be spinning in his grave.

Given that damage to the brain can change, disrupt, or destroy all the known attributes of consciousness, including personality, character, emotion, attention, recognition, understanding, sense of self, focus, and awareness, there is no substantive function for this supposed 'immaterial consciousness' to fulfil - he's inventing an entire immaterial realm to support some sort of simple, undifferentiated, undetectable 'elan vital' that has no discernable function. It's absurd and irrational (and I suspect he realises that).
« Last Edit: 26/11/2014 15:52:05 by dlorde »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg445303#msg445303 date=1416959001]
+ This  is yet another materialistic tragic -hilarious so-called theory of consciousness by neuroscientist Michael S.A.Graziano : You might like it lol :

http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/how-consciousness-works/
Thanks for that - I hadn't seen that article, and yes, I do like it. It's pretty much the way I currently view the generation and role of consciousness and the sense of self  [8D]

You're welcome, dlorde .
I expected you to like that indeed :very predictable .
We all tend to be inclined to fall for what we're predisposed to like,regardless of whether or not it is "true " : a matter of taste or aesthetics,psyche....

Well, unfortunately enough for you and for Graziano , there is absolutely no empirical evidence whatsoever that supports the materialist production theory regarding consciousness and the brain,and the idea that consciousness is just some sort of information or integrated information ,well, we have already  "dealt " with that in another form all the way down to the physical fundamental electromagnetic fields lol ....

Regarding its attention part and the rest , see the links below that deal with that .

It's pretty odd how materialists never question their a -priori held belief assumption that consciousness is just a product of the brain, just a material process (They can't do otherwise in fact , since materialism allows intrinsically nothing but that : materialists are trapped within their materialist prison .).

Worse : materialists take that assumption of theirs as some sort of an axiom that can never be questioned upon which they have been building all their sand castles, including the MW theory .

For the rest , most of Graziano's talk (I have his book in question ) was just speculations full of logical fallacies  : his theory belongs more to philosophy and psychology than to science , but then again , there is no such thing as philosophy-free science,as there is no such thing as the independent observer and independent observed either , the more when one would try to study the subject through one's biased subject that's shaped by one's a-priori held materialistic beliefs or otherwise .

I did also post a kindda relevant critique of what Graziano said through a certain idealist : you missed that too .Here you go again :

Raving materialists and their nonsense :

http://www.bernardokastrup.com/2014/05/raving-materialists-and-their-nonsense.html?m=1

Not to mention that you also did miss the attempt of Nobel laureate Ilya Grigogene to "solve " the interpretation problem of QM through the 2d law of thermodynamics : see above .

Alastair Rae did refute that in his "Quantum physics , illusion or reality " book (I have that one too ) .

Quote
Good to see your posts aren't always a complete waste of time  [;)]

That's a matter of opinion , taste , perspective ...
I am quite sure you would "worship" my posts ,if i happened to be a ...materialist lol .

I can be whatever you want me to be though , dlorde .

I will make you even happier by posting this review of Graziano's theory that worships the latter :

Believe in whatever would make you happy , dlorde,or in whatever  you think would  work  : This instrumental utilitarianist or pragmatic state of mind and the truth are not synonymous of each other : the intrinsic self-deceit capacity or property of the human mind never ceases to amaze me indeed, not to mention our intrinsic human tendency to rationalize our a-priori held psychological ,aesthetical or belief assumptions  :

https://elusiveself.wordpress.com/2014/10/12/a-theory-of-consciousness-worth-attending-to/

It would be also useful to remind you of the following famous psychological test or selective attention test by the authors of "The invisible gorilla ..." (I have that book too .), a book that talks about how our perception is so misleading , so deceptive , so limited , and sometimes so illusory  :

Materialists have been missing the gorilla in the room, so to speak :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo

Graziano's theory is so full of intellectual optical illusions  and self-deceit too  .
« Last Edit: 26/11/2014 17:54:24 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
You could invent any number of scenarios about how a physical manifestation is just a “correlation” and not the thing itself. Since there are no examples of disembodied consciousness just floating around by itself, Ockham’s razor would suggest that you are needlessly complicating things by saying X isn’t really X. It’s really Y, even though it always takes the form of X, and never appears just as Y. 
It can't appear as Y and can't be falsified because, by definition, it's 'immaterial'. Not only does it introduce the interaction problem, but it requires an entire immaterial universe (or 'realm' as the mystics like to call it). It's special pleading of the most egregious kind, and Ockham would be spinning in his grave.

Given that damage to the brain can change, disrupt, or destroy all the known attributes of consciousness, including personality, character, emotion, attention, recognition, understanding, sense of self, focus, and awareness, there is no substantive function for this supposed 'immaterial consciousness' to fulfil - he's inventing an entire immaterial realm to support some sort of simple, undifferentiated, undetectable 'elan vital' that has no discernable function. It's absurd and irrational (and I suspect he realises that).

(Occam's razor is more compatible with the fact that the qualitative  can never rise from the quantitative: it's absurd , illogical and irrational to assume that the former can be the product of the latter  ,not to mention that mutually -interacting- with- each- other processes don't have to be both physical , as Popper used to say .)

So, you reduce the very existence of the non-physical nature of consciousness to just that old and refuted elan vital ? Odd, despite all the indirect overwhelming empirical evidence proving consciousness to be a non-physical and non-local process ?.


Way to go , scientist .

I am not introducing any inexplicable dualistic Cartesian magical fluid in the pineal gland ,metaphorically speaking : materialists do in fact , ironically enough by asserting that those quantitative sexy oscillations or vibrations of neurons or ensemble of neurons do give rise to somethingelse totally different from themselves , somethingelse totally different from themselves qua kind ,not just qua genre as the latter happens in the usual physical emergent phenomena in nature   ( The wetness of water,for example,  is still something material , even though it's totally different, qua genre , not qua kind , from its original components .The same goes for the ocean's waves ...) : the qualitative subjective experiences or consciousness : isn't that a kindda weird and odd materialist flirt with Cartesian dualism and panpsychism ? : sounds like that .

Godel proved the fact that there are propositions  in a logical system the truth of which cannot be proved as such from the axioms , but can be nevertheless inferred from other logical truths in the system  : similarly : the non-physical and non-local nature of consciousness can be inferred indirectly from the  related empirical evidence on the subject of matter and brain through all those consciousness anomalies for which materialism can intrinsically never account .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_G%C3%B6del

Are anomalies that cannot be accounted for by the prevailing scientific "wisdom" of the moment or (meta) paradigms not sufficient enough by themselves to question and challenge that prevailing and dominating mainstream materialistic "wisdom " in science ?

I thought anomalies are the raw material through which science is supposed to progress ...

You can't just ignore or deny the available data and empirical indirect evidence regarding the non-material nature of consciousness just because it does not suit you , does not fit into your a -priori held materialistic beliefs ,or just because it seems inexplicable awkward weird or complex to you .

Well, QM has been seeing the light of the day thanks to just a minor anomaly that proved classical physics to be fundamentally false , QM which is the epitome of enigma , paradox, complexity weirdness , uncertainty , probability , perplexity and much more .

Nobody understands QM even : physicists have been using it without being able to understand what it actually means ,but that does not prevent quantum theory from being a highly successful theory , the best ever so far .

Should we reject QM because of all that ? : similarly : that's what you're exactly basically and actually saying regarding that other enigma : consciousness.

ironically enough : the 2 major enigmas have been encountering each other : QM and consciousness ,despite all other interpretation theories of QM that try to elude that fact ,which basically and actually means that it will turn out that with the development of science , any progress in the study of the universe will tun out to be impossible without that in the study of consciousness since they are both so inseparably and inescapably linked to and intertwined with each other .

« Last Edit: 26/11/2014 19:00:34 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

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



I said : the physical brain is just a medium through which consciousness expresses itself , both ways : the brain as a transceiver = transmitter-receiver = transmits information from the external environment through the senses to the mind or consciousness , and receives the corresponding feedback from the mind or consciousness : that's the only logical or rational explanation of the mind-brain relationship .

The physical brain is just the vehicle through which the consciousness driver ,so to speak, expresses itself by driving its vehicle :  the brain : both the vehicle and the driver are inseparable though : they can't function without each other , although the driver remains intact despite the damaged vehicle : the driver just can't express itself through the damaged vehicle ,simply because it gets disconnected from it : in the case of brain damage thus ,brain diseases , malfunction ....the brain vehicle behaves accordingly ,so, the driver is prevented  from driving its brain vehicle : that's no ghost in the machine , since the brain and body are no machines , but living organisms that have to be driven by consciousness or the mind ....

The activity of the neuronal correlates of consciousness is just the physical "translation " of that of the 'corresponding " consciousness : just the image of the process , not the cause of the process ......



That’s groovy, Don. But sort of meaningless, when you think about it. Not only is it untestable, but you can apply it to anything and everything with the same meaningless result.
  It’s like saying that water isn’t really H2O molecules, water just “uses” the molecules to “express” its watery-ness. And infectious diseases are not caused by bacteria and viruses, but are actually caused by demons that always possess certain species of bacteria and viruses. The mircoorganisms are just the "medium", not the cause. And wind is not air molecules moving from an area of high pressure to low pressure (do not confuse the image with the process!) That is just the “vehicle” through which the wind spirit acts. Occasionally, wind gets “stuck” and cannot “flow properly” and that is what causes it to seem “not so windy outside.”

You could invent any number of scenarios about how a physical manifestation is just a “correlation” and not the thing itself. Since there are no examples of disembodied consciousness just floating around by itself, Ockham’s razor would suggest that you are needlessly complicating things by saying X isn’t really X. It’s really Y, even though it always takes the form of X, and never appears just as Y.

(Occam's razor can be twisted in any irrational way to make it fit into whatever we a -priori believe in ...that does not mean that razor supports what you're saying , to the contrary : it cuts through your fallacious reasoning, by spilling the latter's "blood " , aye lol  .)

Well , see my latest post here above to dlorde on the subject and more .

Correlation and causality have been hotly debated and still , but nevertheless correlation does not necessarily imply causation : there is a very thin line between the 2 , but that does not mean they are synonymous of each other , even though the correlation concept can be sometimes misused  and extended beyond its limits , the same goes for causality ......

Furthermore , for example, cold  weather can "cause " you to dress and behave accordingly ,that does not mean that there is a direct or actual causality between the 2 propositions : you can of course decide to be or just be foolish enough as to defy the bad weather and go naked on the streets and suffer the results of your behaviour ....

Hume even denied the very existence of causality as such : no 1 thing causes the other   , but that's another story .

See what Popper says on the subject :

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CC8QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lse.ac.uk%2FCPNSS%2Fpdf%2FDP_withCover_Causality%2FCTR02-02-C.pdf&ei=TSl2VK_HOOr7ygOj9YCoBQ&usg=AFQjCNEQju5u1sSYnRikdJTSeQNGnNvlyQ&sig2=rRWkCllwgLCK_VhiXaR41g

In short, in order to keep things more simple  : correlation does not necessarily imply causation "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

« Last Edit: 26/11/2014 19:34:12 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1441
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Given that damage to the brain can change, disrupt, or destroy all the known attributes of consciousness, including personality, character, emotion, attention, recognition, understanding, sense of self, focus, and awareness, there is no substantive function for this supposed 'immaterial consciousness' to fulfil...
So, you reduce the very existence of the non-physical nature of consciousness to just that old and refuted elan vital ? Odd, despite all the indirect overwhelming empirical evidence proving consciousness to be a non-physical and non-local process ?.
Well, no; I see no evidence whatsoever for non-physical consciousness. I was exploring the implications of such a hypothesis.

By all means enlighten me - how does your non-physical consciousness hypothesis account for the observations I outlined above? (I asked you this previously, but you declined to respond).

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Quantum physics is showing  its weird head  everywhere :


"Free Will and Quantum Physics " By Corey MacCarren :

http://titanovo.com/free-will-quantum-physics/

The Quantum Physics of Free Will By Goerge Musser :

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/quantum-physics-free-will/

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg445346#msg445346 date=1417037049]
Given that damage to the brain can change, disrupt, or destroy all the known attributes of consciousness, including personality, character, emotion, attention, recognition, understanding, sense of self, focus, and awareness, there is no substantive function for this supposed 'immaterial consciousness' to fulfil...
So, you reduce the very existence of the non-physical nature of consciousness to just that old and refuted elan vital ? Odd, despite all the indirect overwhelming empirical evidence proving consciousness to be a non-physical and non-local process ?.
Well, no; I see no evidence whatsoever for non-physical consciousness. I was exploring the implications of such a hypothesis.

Gotta go , quickly then , later more :

Well, that does not mean there is no evidence for that .
Better still : there is plenty of evidence or an overwhelming body of empirical evidence proving . indirectly that is , consciousness to be non-physical and non-local : that fact can be inferred from the related experiments , data , empirical evidence on the subject :  take a look at their consciousness studies here below , for the time being at least then :

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

Quote
By all means enlighten me - how does your non-physical consciousness hypothesis account for the observations I outlined above? (I asked you this previously, but you declined to respond).

I have already responded to that , dlorde :

In short : consciousness gets disconnected from its damaged neuronal correlates and hence does not get through , i guess,since consciousness has to work through the brain  .

Later more .Take care .Thanks .




*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1441
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Quote from: dlorde
... damage to the brain can change, disrupt, or destroy all the known attributes of consciousness, including personality, character, emotion, attention, recognition, understanding, sense of self, focus, and awareness...
how does your non-physical consciousness hypothesis account for the observations I outlined above?
I have already responded to that , dlorde :
Link to the post please.

Quote
In short : consciousness gets disconnected from its damaged neuronal correlates and hence does not get through , i guess...
Odd that after pasting reams of non-materialist rants, you so often run out of time when asked specific questions.

Once more - how does your non-material consciousness hypothesis account for brain damage causing changes to personality, character, emotion, attention, recognition, understanding, sense of self, focus, and awareness, unless those features are actually all functions of the brain? What is left for this proposed non-material consciousness to do?

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile


Once more - how does your non-material consciousness hypothesis account for brain damage causing changes to personality, character, emotion, attention, recognition, understanding, sense of self, focus, and awareness, unless those features are actually all functions of the brain? What is left for this proposed non-material consciousness to do?
Excellent point dlorde,.....If consciousness is somehow extra-dependent from the material character of the brain as Don would have us believe, why would material damage to the physical brain cause relative changes to said consciousness?

Either consciousness is connected directly to the material function of the electro-chemical processes within the physical brain or it is not. You can't have it both ways Don.

The reason I use the term: "extra-dependent" is because none of us believes that consciousness is completely "independent" from the physical brain. However, considering how Don's logic works, he might even believe that.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8171
    • View Profile
... Gotta go ...
That's now over a year Don's been saying "gotta go" ...
https://www.google.com/search?q="Gotta+go"++DonQuichotte+site:www.thenakedscientists.com

Yet he's still here , repeating himself ad nauseam.


*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1460
    • View Profile
(Occam's razor can be twisted in any irrational way to make it fit into whatever we a -priori believe in ...

......Correlation and causality have been hotly debated and still , but nevertheless correlation does not necessarily imply causation : there is a very thin line between the 2 , but that does not mean they are synonymous of each other , even though the correlation concept can be sometimes misused  and extended beyond its limits , the same goes for causality ......

......there is plenty of evidence or an overwhelming body of empirical evidence proving . indirectly that is , consciousness to be non-physical and non-local : that fact can be inferred from the related experiment...

.....In short : consciousness gets disconnected from its damaged neuronal correlates and hence does not get through , i guess,since consciousness has to work through the brain  .



Somehow when it comes to your own theory, big gaps are perfectly acceptable, guesses are good enough, direct evidence unnecessary, and Ockham’s razor is just  a nuisance.  Hume is dragged out and paraded around for a while, because if there’s no causality, then you really don’t need any evidence at all for your theory.

 There’s no explanation given of how the immaterial interacts with the material brain. There’s no explanation of how information is stored, sent, or received back by the non local conscious agency, other than vague references to entanglement, but of course, no explanation of what exactly is being entangled. When the brain is incapacitated by damage or disease, there's no explanation of  why the content of thought and the quality of subjective experience itself should be affected, despite your insisting above that "qualitative subjective experience or consciousness" isn't "generated by the quantitative neural correlates."
And also no answers to questions which almost seem too ridiculous to bring up, such as how the fractured non local consciousness processes sensory information when  his robot body/brain is having technical difficulties.




« Last Edit: 27/11/2014 06:08:19 by cheryl j »

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1460
    • View Profile
A few more comments:
Don, Your explanation of what happens when the brain is damaged suggests that you think the problem is mainly with the outside observer's inability to determine that a person's consciousness is still operating perfectly fine, but that the brain damaged patient is just unable to communicate his wishes or direct his body to carry them out. But it’s not the opinion of the outside observer that really matters - the patient himself often reports significant changes in his subjective experience, or loss of an ability he knows he once had.

If you claim that consciousness is perfectly fine; it just "isn’t getting through", you are essentially telling the patient that his own subjective experience of his own subjective experience is invalid. He’s not really confused, he just thinks he his. He’s not really frightened or depressed  or hallucinating, or unable to remember things or recall words, he just thinks he is, but the real him is doing just fine, elsewhere. This is quite a paradox, considering our own subjective experience is considered the primary means of proof that we actually have consciousness, and it exists in the first place. Now suddenly it has absolutely no authority at all regarding its own qualitative existence. 

Finally, if brain damage results in “consciousness being blocked”, or unable to flow through the brain, logically it’s a two way street, and the nonlocal consciousness is also deprived of whatever information comes via the damaged brain and related sensory systems. Nonlocal consciousness is deprived of the ability to make choices or form opinions about the world that depend on being updated continuously by information that comes through the senses.  It must therefore sit twiddling its immaterial thumbs all day, unless you attribute certain omniscient abilities to it.

« Last Edit: 28/11/2014 06:39:35 by cheryl j »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg445354#msg445354 date=1417041962]
Quote from: dlorde
... damage to the brain can change, disrupt, or destroy all the known attributes of consciousness, including personality, character, emotion, attention, recognition, understanding, sense of self, focus, and awareness...
how does your non-physical consciousness hypothesis account for the observations I outlined above?
I have already responded to that , dlorde :
Link to the post please.

I have repeated the reply in question to you anyway , the one you quoted here below , grosso modo .

Quote
Quote
In short : consciousness gets disconnected from its damaged neuronal correlates and hence does not get through , i guess...
Odd that after pasting reams of non-materialist rants, you so often run out of time when asked specific questions.

Once more - how does your non-material consciousness hypothesis account for brain damage causing changes to personality, character, emotion, attention, recognition, understanding, sense of self, focus, and awareness, unless those features are actually all functions of the brain? What is left for this proposed non-material consciousness to do?

( If you see how many replies i posted before addressing your post in question, you would notice  that i have spent quite some time on all that , prior to addressing that  particular post of yours  , so, my time is limited as that of everyoneelse is .)

Once again, all i can do is repeat or rather refer you to what i said on the subject here above .

That's all i can say on the subject .I don't pretend to have all answers regarding the relationship between consciousness and its brain , nobody does .

Similarly , go tell physicists to explain to you why they don't understand QM while using it so successfully .

The non-physical nature of consciousness is more  consistent with the available evidence , than that Graziano's non-sense , in the sense that consciousness as information is computed by the brain as some sort of simulation: an illusion that feels real , replacing the consciousness enigma by yet another enigma : information, not only that , on top of that , information as a so-called property of matter : that's property dualism by the way applied by the materialist Graziano to explain his materialist theory = a paradox   .

Worse : that's a kind of panpsychism in disguise also : the physical brain or its physical neuronal activity producing or constructing an illusory simulation that feels real : consciousness ,via some sort of inexplicable magic .

Graziano  conflates the false and illusory ego with the true self in fact (few people are capable of finding their true selves by the way .Most of people are just some sort of automatons driven by their illusory false egos or automatic  pilot ). His attempt is similar to that of the church that tries to adjust its dogmas under pressure of the secular "scientific " modern world's thought .


The new Pope of materialism, Graziano ,in order to try to rescue his false materialism  thus ,  bases also his theory on what he calls attention schema that's similar to the so-called brain computed body schema (John Searle, David Chalmers and others would be laughing out loud about that jump .) , while trying to explain away all those consciousness  related anomalies as just pragmatic survival strategies...just useful illusions that feel real .

Ironically enough , Stapp and many others did base their own theories of consciousness on attention too  .Even the whole non-materialistic cognitive psychology or therapy is based on the power of attention : it's all in the focus ,conscious trained informed attention that's behind even the self-directed neuroplasticity and more ...

Ach, this is leading nowhere , i see : we always return back to square zero over and over again , unfortunately enough .

Once again , the fact that we don't know how the non-physical consciousness interacts mutually with its brain (see also the works of Karl Popper and Eccles on the subject : The self and its brain :  http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2106325?uid=3738512&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21105316218643, that of Stapp ...) .

The fact that we don't know how the non-physical consciousness interacts mutually with its brain is no reason to dismiss the non-physical nature of consciousness : similarly,  nobody understands QM : is that a reason enough to reject it ? of course not , so : don't be so irrational as to use that fallacious reasoning of yours .

We should all start from what we know , not otherwise : we know that consciousness is not a product of the brain (how can it be ? ) , not a material process, and hence materialism is false and must be replaced by a non-materialist conception of nature that embraces both the material and the immaterial in nature , and then go on from there to check out what non-materialist scientists say on the subject , not the other way around .



« Last Edit: 28/11/2014 18:39:03 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
... Gotta go ...
That's now over a year Don's been saying "gotta go" ...
https://www.google.com/search?q="Gotta+go"++DonQuichotte+site:www.thenakedscientists.com

Yet he's still here , repeating himself ad nauseam.

Hi, RD : how are you ? Thanks for your valuable information or contribution lol