Major Bombshell : Manifesto For A Post-Materialistic Science :

  • 1132 Replies
  • 192577 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Quote from: DonQuichotte

 “Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter; we ought rather hail it as the governor of the realm of matter.”End quote .

Chris Carter
If that were true, we have the mind of the amoeba to thank for all prehistoric events. And what about the very early universe, who's consciousness was governor then?

As usual, this logic has a multitude of errors and you should be smart enough to realize it Don. Not only are you perpetrating a hoax upon us, if you truly believe this line of crap, you're perpetrating it upon yourself.
« Last Edit: 08/12/2014 18:03:04 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
dlorde :

Here below will you find the specific quote of Popper within  its specific  context :


THE DREADED INTERACTION PROBLEM :

Quote : "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?

Easy. They don't. "Mind" is an abstract and undefined notion with no specific characteristics and no observable effect on matter. Matter is the very opposite, and it only interacts with matter and energy.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline DonQuichotte

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




Quote : " Conclusion:
The results suggest that MRCP amplitude during movement execution is a neural correlate of perception of effort. This study was the first to provide direct neurophysiological evidence that MRCP amplitude during movement execution correlates with perception of effort.
This finding supports the corollary discharge theory, which proposes that perception of effort is the conscious awareness of the central motor command to the muscles.
 Further studies using brain imaging and neuropharmacological techniques, are necessary to identify more precisely the brain networks and neurotransmitters underlying perception of effort."End quote

How can they jump from the former to the following ? :


...The conscious awareness of the central motor command to the muscles

How can the CMC be conscious or aware ?

They equate   the neuronal correlates of perception of
effort (CMC ) with the conscious awareness of the   perception of effort itself  .

They started from the following premise to conclude the above :

Quote : "Perception of effort, the conscious sensation of how heavy and
strenuous a physical task is (Borg, 1998), is an important aspect
of our subjective experience of volition.
It is thought that the signal underlying perception of effort arises in the brain from corollary discharges of the central motor command.
This corollary discharge theory suggests that perception of effort should be significantly correlated with the magnitude of central motor command." End quote .

.............

We encounter the same materialistic  logical fallacy or the same materialistic intrinsic false premise :  the mind is just brain activity , since all is matter , including the mind :

They jump from neuronal correlates of the mind to the mind itself by equating the 2 with each other :

Quote : " The prefrontal cortex has long been suspected to play an important role in cognitive control, in the ability to orchestrate thought and action in accordance with internal goals. Its neural basis, however, has remained a mystery. Here, we propose that cognitive control stems from the active maintenance of patterns of activity in the prefrontal cortex that represent goals and the means to achieve them. They provide bias signals to other brain structures whose net effect is to guide the flow of activity
along neural pathways that establish the proper mappings between inputs, internal states, and outputs needed to perform a given task. We review neurophysiological, neurobiological, neuroimaging, and computational studies that support this theory and discuss its implications as well as further issues to be addressed." End quote .



Excerpt from the Conclusion :
Quote : "The theory we have described provides a framework within which to formulate hypotheses about the specific mechanisms underlying the role of the PFC in cognitive control. We have reviewed a number of these, some of which have begun to take explicit form in computational models. We have also provided a sampling of the many questions that remain about these mechanisms and the functioning of the PFC. Regardless of whether the particular hypotheses we have outlined accurately describe PFC function, they offer an example of how neurally plausible mechanisms can exhibit the properties of self-organization and self-regulation required to account for cognitive control without recourse to a “homunculus.”End quote .

How can they equate  the activity of the prefrontal cortex  or the alleged PFC neuronal correlates of cognititive control with the volitional conscious aware cognitive control?

Well, no wonder there , since they already assume ,thanks to their materialism, that the mind , including cognitive control thus , is just brain activity : they start from their materialistic false premise to build their sand castles on it .

That mindful cognitive control does work through its prefrontal cortex correlates does not mean that the former is just the latter , or that they can be equated with each other .

............

Furthermore , we encounter the same materialistic logical fallacy or materialistic fundamental false premise when dealing with  the interpretations of experiments regarding memory ,for example : equating neuronal correlates of  memory ...with the latter, and hence memory is allegedly stored in the brain correlates of memory :

Quantitative neuronal correlates of memory get equated with memory itself ,while the latter  is a matter of qualitative subjective processes that cannot be reduced to or equated with their quantitative neuronal correlates, needless to add , since memory itself as a matter of subjective processes that encompass taste , subjective experiences, meaning , purpose, aesthetics , ethics , morality , ....cannot be quantified or "computed or stored " by their neuronal correlates.

See the following on the subject :

Quote : "THE EVIDENCE FROM NEUROPHYSIOLOGY:

It is commonly assumed today that memories are somehow stored in the brain, and this belief goes back to ancient times. Aristotle, for instance, compared memories with impressions left by seals in wax.

As time has passed, the analogies have been updated—most recently in terms of tape recordings or computer memory stores—yet the basic idea has remained the same. But how well does the neurophysiological evidence support the belief that memories are stored somehow as traces within the brain?
Neuroscientists have tried for decades to locate the sites of memory traces within the brain, and an enormous number of animals have been expended in the attempt.

 The usual process has been to train the animals to perform some task and then cut out parts of their brains to find out where the memories are stored. But even after large chunks of their brains have been removed—in some experiments up to 60 percent—the unfortunate animals can often remember what they were trained to do. Even experiments on invertebrates such as the octopus have failed to locate specific memory traces, leading one researcher to conclude that “memory seems to be both everywhere and nowhere in particular.”

There is, however, much evidence that changes can occur in the brains of animals as a consequence of the way they grow up. Experiments with rats have shown that animals raised in an environment with plenty of stimulation and activity have bigger brains than those raised in solitary confinement.
The nervous system is dynamic in its structure, and its development is influenced by its activity.

This consideration has been used in an experiment with chicks in an attempt to localize memory traces in the brain laid down during the learning process. A day after hatching, they were trained to perform a simple task, the effects of which were studied by injecting radioactive substances.

 Greater amounts of these substances were incorporated into nerve cells in a particular region of the left hemisphere of the forebrain in those chicks than in chicks that did not undergo the training.6 In other words, nerve cells in a particular region of the brain showed greater growth and development in chicks that had learned to perform the simple task, but when the region of the forebrain associated with the learning process was removed a day after they were trained, the chicks could still remember what they had learned. The cells that had experienced greater growth and development during the learning process were not necessary for the memory retention. Once again, the hypothetical memory traces have proved to be elusive.
There is another empirical consideration that causes great difficulty for the trace theory of memory.

If memories are somehow stored in brain cells or as modifications of the synaptic connections between them, then the structure of the synapses and the nervous system must remain stable over long periods of time. After all, the time span of human memory is often decades.

Yet as Francis Crick writes: “It is believed that almost all the molecules in our bodies, with the exception of DNA, turn over in a matter of days, weeks, or at the most a few months. How then is memory stored in the brain so that its trace is relatively immune to molecular turnover?”.

Crick’s “solution” is to postulate a mechanism whereby “molecules in the synapse interact in such a way that they can be replaced by new material, one at a time, without altering the overall state of the structure.” His hypothesis involves protein molecules that he endows with a number of unusual properties, but there is no evidence yet that such molecules exist.
We can see from these considerations that the conventional theory of memory traces stored in the brain is in fact an assumption, one that follows from the currently orthodox theory of life, the mechanistic theory, according to which all aspects of life and mind are ultimately explicable in terms of the known laws of physics and chemistry. Results from the experiments mentioned above have not usually called this assumption into question. As one maverick biologist has pointed out:

The conventional response to such findings is that there must be multiple or redundant memorystorage systems distributed throughout various regions of the brain: if some are lost, back-up systems can take over. This hypothesis, invented to account for the failure of attempts to find localized memory traces, follows naturally from the assumption that memories must be stored somehow inside the brain; but in the continuing absence of any direct evidence, it remains more a matter of faith than of fact.

Since the assumption that memories must be stored in the brain follows directly from the mechanistic theory of life, the validity of this theory must be examined and the implications of alternative theories of life for the noncerebral storage of memories must be clearly set forth." End quote .

Chris Carter

.........

"If mind exerts its power over nature by selecting which quantum outcome actually occurs, then our perceived freedom of action is not illusory, for physics as currently conceived regards quantum events as essentially uncaused, unrestrained by prior physical events."
PHYSICIST NICK HERBERT


Regarding the controversial collapse of the wave function and Bell's theorem + the latter's related experiments that proved the existence of "spooky action at a distance " or non-locality or entanglement + introduced the notion of free will in the measurement problem + challenged the existence of the objective reality as such , i refer you to :

The Copenhagen interpretation is still the standard or orthodox one in QM .

http://quantumenigma.com/controversy/

MW interpretation of QM is just a desperate and pathetic attempt to rescue the deterministic materialism .

Alastair Rae , for example, as a proponent of MW theory (theory of interpretation of QM, if you like ) said

that he would prefer the latter ,mainly because he doesn't want to give up reality : a matter of preference.











*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Popper was referring to the non-physical consciousness interacting with the physical brain .
Evidence? the context of the quote might help. As I said, Popper wasn't a substance dualist; he didn't believe in the non-physical in the sense you do.

See the previous page .Popper was the one at least who coined that famous statement of his : "promissory materialism " lol : he was against materialism at least .

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
QM has been showing to us all that it  can never be understood without reference to the mind...
That's simply wrong. Have you not watched that MIT 'Introduction to QM' video yet?

That's just a materialistic approach .
It describes what is empirically observed; no more.

Yeah , right : that's why the interpretation or measurement problem of QM does still exist: still not resolved conclusively ,although there is one particular interpretation of QM that's way more plausible and way more simple than the rest : the observer effect interpretation  .


*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg446095#msg446095 date=1418003307]


Blind people do not have to see to apply their mindful volitional effort of attention and action to themselves,to  their brains and to the rest of the physical reality .Their lost sight capacity gets compensated by other abilities .

That isn't what blindsight refers to, which you should know if you are so familiar with his work.

I am not familiar with that part of his work .So what ?

Quote
Humans have two visual pathways from the eyeballs to the higher centers of the brain.  The  evolutionarily older pathway, more prominent in some mammals and reptiles,  goes to the brain stem, and then gets relayed eventually to the higher centers of the brain. The evolutionarily newer pathway goes from the eyeball through the thalamus to the visual cortex of the brain.
In blindsight, the first pathway still works, and some kind of visual information is shared with other parts of the brain, but without the conscious experience of seeing and without the qualia of vision, because the second pathway, or part of the the visual cortex it leads to, doesn’t work.  Patients with blindsight can track objects, avoid obstacles, detect position and movement, sometimes even identify color or orientation (vertical or horizontal) and yet they insist categorically they cannot see - to them it feels like a wild guess, even though they are consistently accurate.

Ok. And ?

Quote
There are several reasons why Ramachandran found all of this interesting. One is, that these patients allowed him to compare vision with
Quote
consciousness to vision without consciousness & qualia, and see how they differed, or what consciousness added. The evidence from his experiments suggests that without consciousness and qualia, a person cannot use visual information to make choices in which the response to a stimulus is open-ended - that is, when there is a vast variety of responses possible in reaction to stimulus. One biological function of qualia, according to Ramachandran, is it that qualia allows an image to be held in working memory long enough for the executive function to work with it, assign meaning or significance based on a myriad of associated information from other parts of the brain.

I told you so, didn't i ? He reduces consciousness or qualia and vision to just biological processes ,doesn't he ? .

As a materialist , he cannot but assume that brain activity and the rest of biology is all what there is in living organisms like ours  ,so consciousness and the rest gotta be just material processes .
How can he jump from the quantitative to the qualitative like that by equating between the 2 ? : simply because he sees no distinction between the 2 = they are all just material processes.


Quote
The problem with brilliant neuroscientists like Ramachandran from which i have learned a lot , the problem of those kinds of scientists is that they try to make the empirical evidence fit into their a-priori held materialistic false beliefs or premises , instead of the other way around , instead of following the evidence wherever it might take them( as Von Neumann and many other prominent scientists did/do) , by misinterpreting the empirical evidence materialistically .As a materialist thus , Ramachandran cannot but a -priori assume that the mind is a product of the brain or just brain activity , and hence volitional effort of attention also is .

Quote
You can criticize Ramachandran for not considering a supernatural or immaterial explanation (while also failing to provide the immaterial mechanism yourself) but his interpretations lead to more testable hypothesizes, more experimental designs, and more information about how things work, etc. Yours lead no where.That was my point about the shaman reference. Your automatic attribution of every mental process and aspect of consciousness to the immaterial prevents any further exploration or insight into the process, and has no explanatory power.

You did not get what i was saying : i am not rejecting the man's work , just his underlying materialistic theory of consciousness+ the fact that materialists like himself do reduce the whole universe , including ourselves , to just material processes  .
Ramachandran like any other materialist scientists reduces consciousness to just brain activity : this materialist claim has been supported by a big zero empirical evidence ,and yet materialists do continue building all their sand castles on their false materialistic intrinsic claim that all is matter , including the mind thus  .

Furthermore , the non-materialistic conception of nature that embraces both the material and the immaterial in nature alike , needless to add , and its related theories  of consciousness have been supported by a little army of scientists and philosophers ...as the subject matter of this thread , if you haven't noticed yet ,

As for the rest of your speculations, see the previous page then .
Even thought we talked all about the above previously on the lengthy consciousness thread and through this thread as well via countless relevant informed excerpts of books and other and more on the subject , you , guys , do still behave and think as if i have never provided you with any relevant info or evidence on the subject .

Do i have to start all over again , over and over again ? Don't think so .


« Last Edit: 08/12/2014 19:48:05 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg446121#msg446121 date=1418036913]
You can criticize Ramachandran for not considering a supernatural or immaterial explanation (while also failing to provide the immaterial mechanism yourself) but his interpretations lead to more testable hypothesizes, more experimental designs, and more information about how things work, etc. Yours lead no where.That was my point about the shaman reference. Your automatic attribution of every mental process and aspect of consciousness to the immaterial prevents any further exploration or insight into the process, and has no explanatory power.
The problem for Don is that not only does his hypothesis have no explanatory or predictive power, but it has no supporting evidence; which, of course, is why researchers like Ramachandran don't need to consider it -


Sure about that ? Your intentional selective amnesia is tragic -hilarious "

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

Quote
they simply follow the evidence they have, finding no need to invoke redundant magical entities.


lol H I L A R I O U S :

What evidence is there for the materialistic intrinsic fundamental claim that all is matter , including the mind then ? = a big zero .

If the dogmatic materialists would really follow the evidence ,they would be ceasing to be materialists lol, in the first place to begin with , instead of equating their materialistic false belief or world view, ideology ,conception of nature ,  19th century philosophy that was built upon the fundamentally false classical physics ,  instead of thus equating materialism with ...science by turning the latter into a materialistic one ,as that has been the case for relatively so long now and counting .....


Quote
And, as has already been said, the quantum theory Don has currently latched onto, much like a drunk clinging to a lamp post - more for support than illumination - actually does the opposite, not only providing no support for his idea, but actively contradicting it by illuminating the fields and forces available for everyday interaction with the brain (basically the electromagnetic field alone). Regardless of how he tries to force his preferred interpretation to fit his hypothesis, his hypothesis doesn't have a mechanism because quantum field theory behind the interpretation tells us there is, and can be, no such mechanism... His current response of ignoring or dismissing all 'materialist approaches' is the equivalent of a child stuffing his fingers in his ears and shouting "La la la la la, I can't hear you!".

For your info : Great scientific minds physicists and other scientists+ other philosophers ...yesterday and today supported/support the observer effect interpretation of QM.
The Copenhagen interpretation is still the standard or orthodox one so far , while other competing interpretations of QM like that insane MW one are too ....(fill in the blanks then : multiple choices ) to be taken seriously .
 
Quote
I can't wait to see what else he'll find to scrape from the bottom of his immaterial barrel!

Nothing that your dogmatic  materialistic key hole version of reality can account for , let alone explain lol

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
My own version of  "Aliens visiting earth ,and studying humans" story  lol :

"They are made of ...meat ." reported the chief of the aliens team sent to earth to his superior back home .

His superior : " What ? Machines made of meat ? What about the signals they have been sending ?  They can't be sent from ...meat ."

Chief : -" No , they have built machines or devices for that . "

Superior : -" Machines built machines ? Do they have brains at least ? "

C- Yes indeed , but their brains are made of meat too .
S- made of meat ? How come ?

C-I am telling you their brains are made of meat .

S- So, machines were built by meat ?

C- Yes , that's what i am telling you .

S- Sentient meat , i hope .

C- Yes, sentient meat .

S- How can mechanistic  meat be sentient ?

C- We abducted some specimens of them and studied them .Yes, they are sentient beings , but ,they are made of meat , even their brains are  .

S- Wait a minute : did you find nothingelse than meat in their brains or bodies ?

C- We studied their brains and bodies , and guess what ? : they seemed at first to be just their  brains .

S- Seemed ? What do you mean ?

C- You know : we wanted to get firsthand report from their subjective  consciousness ,so, we asked them to tell us how they experience that through their own words.

S- And ?

C-It is a curious and long tale .

S- Tell me that tale anyway .
C-Well, they say that there has been a particular dominating view on the subject that assumes that all is matter , including the mind .

S- Absurd

C- Yes, but the majority of their scientists believe in it .

S- I thought they were rational creatures .

C- You know reason and belief don't go so often hand in hand .

S- I know , but you were telling me that their science has been saying that everything is matter .Is their science a belief ? Come on .Makes no sense .

C- Well, it's a bit more complicated than that , but their science has become a belief indeed ,ironically enough , a dogmatic one too .
We went back in time to study their ancient civilizations , beliefs , history ...and guess what ?

S- What ? You're making me more curious than ever .This is s strange tale .

C- It's just starting to get weirder than ever . Their ancient civilizations, cultures , beliefs ...used to believe in ...souls .

S-Souls ? What is that ?

C- Immaterial part of their being .

S- Immaterial ? What does that mean anyway ?

C- I'll tell you , just wait . They believed in many things like in the existence of the immaterial soul , spirit or whatever , but some of them were also materialists even during ancient times .In short , a new major force or method was discovered and applied : science .They used it and found out about the fact that most ,if not all , of what their church used to tell them about the universe  and themselves was false .

S- They discovered evolution ?

C- Oh , yes ,and a lot more , like classical physics .They discovered that the universe was governed by laws, immutable laws .

S- What ? How could they combine that with evolution ?

C- It just starts to get interesting : the dominating world view of the moment saw its chance delivered to it on a silver plate by a certain Newton . The latter's classical physics are  deterministic and make no room for souls .One guy prior to Newton was by the way so afraid of their church's inquisition that he left the soul or mind or whatever to the church ,and the physical reality , whatever the latter might mean, to their science .He was called Descartes.

S- What ? They have separate parts the mind of which is powerless without any causal powers ? What kindda mindless creatures are those ?

C- Yes or so they thought at least , untill some weird German came along : Max Planck ,who paved the way for what they call the quantum revolution .

S- You mean that primitive belief  of ours ?

C-Indeed .

S-They still have a long way to go then .They are in fact just in the primitive stage ,despite their alleged evolution .

C- Well, they see that in a quite different light .They think they have almost all figured it out . In short : there has been what can be called some dissident scientists of theirs, philosophers too who have been distancing themselves from that mainstream childish materialism of theirs .

S- Oh, interesting .Good to see that they can progress .But they do it rather slowly via many backsteps as well .

C- The new dissidents against the mainstream scientific priesthood have been stumbling upon many weird powers of their minds , so, they concluded that minds can't be material anyway . The prevailing wisdom calls them names, mocks them, ridicules them , and more ,and say that they are trying to bring science back to the medieval times.

S- What a foolish species .

C- Indeed , but they never stop investigating and resisting the status-quo , some of them at least .

S- Enough ,I have more important things to attend to .This species is too ignorant , too arrogant , too irrational , too violent , too self-centered to pay any attention to it yet .They can't be trusted with our wisdom and knowledge .They can't handle that either , they would just misuse it . Never return to that planet again .It contains the very seeds of its ultimate destruction through ignorance , arrogance , egocentrism, greed , self-importance ...

lol



 





« Last Edit: 08/12/2014 21:06:27 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1441
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Here below will you find the specific quote of Popper within  its specific  context :
LOL! Seriously?

There's no quote from Popper there, and in particular no mention of what you posted earlier as a Popper quote.

It appears to be a verbatim excerpt from 'Science and the Near-Death Experience' by Chris Carter, including a physical description of an aspect of Popper's metaphysics - which basically repeats my explanation: that Popper wasn't a substance dualist but an interactionalist ("we are faced, not with a plurality of substances... <but a> pluralism of different interacting explanatory principles"), specifically physical fields and forces, and the bodies on which they act ("we have interaction between the four known and very different forces, and between forces and physical bodies"). More specifically, "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."

He presumably wasn't aware they're all aspects of underlying quantum fields, but at a higher level it's not an unreasonable model. However, it's all 'modern physics'; forces, fields, and matter. All material.

Didn't you even read it before posting it? It's nothing to do with your magical immaterial consciousness dualism - an if Carter thinks so, he's an even bigger idiot than I thought - or have you now backtracked down to the level of the shaman who says quantum field theory itself is the work of spirits? Is that your thesis now, that QFT is non-physical, immaterial? That would be a delicious irony  [;D]
« Last Edit: 08/12/2014 22:28:36 by dlorde »

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1460
    • View Profile
MATERIALIST THEORIES OF MIND:

Let's go back to basics , guys :
Materialists have been building all their sand castles on their intrinsic fundamental false premise....

As in  "Let's go back to my original rant that materialism is false, and ignore your responses to anything I've said."
Quote


Quote : " It follows from this that mind has no causal role in nature but is at most merely a useless by-product produced by the brain...."


A straw man argument by Carter, as usual.

 I can't actually name any neuroscientist who believes that consciousness is just a useless epiphenomenon. Maybe there is one, but none that I've read, even  Dennett.

Ramachandran definitely does not consider consciousness and qualia an epiphonomena. And I think he is right in that we will likely gain the most insight into consciousness and qualia by looking at what functional benefit they provide, in comparison to automatic, subconscious processing (which makes up most of neural processing.)

In his discussion of blindsight patients and the function of qualia in vision he says:

"There is some physiological evidence for such a connection between qualia and memory.Goodale has reported a certain type of ‘blindsight’ patient who can correctly rotate an envelope to post it in a horizontal or a vertical slot, even though he does not consciously perceive the slot’s orientation and cannot tell you whether the slot is vertical or horizontal (Milner & Goodale, 1995). But if the room lights are switched off just before he puts the letter in, ‘he’ forgets the orientation of the slot almost immediately and is unable to get the letter in. This suggests that the unconscious ‘dorsal
stream’ visual system which discerns orientation and affects arm movements accordingly is not only devoid of qualia but also does not have memory; it is the ‘ventral stream’ visual system that is conscious and has memory. We would maintain that the reason the qualia-laden ventral system has memory is because it is involved in making choices based on perceptual representations. In contrast, the system without qualia engages in continuous real-time processing running in a tightly closed loop
and consequently doesn’t need memory—it is not involved in the making of choices.

This suggests a testable prediction: in patients with blindsight, and in Goodale’s visual zombie, if you give the patient a choice, the system should go haywire. Not only should it not have short-term memory as Goodale showed, but also it should be incapable of making choices. For example if the person is asked to mail a letter and shown two orthogonal slots simultaneously, he should fail, being unable to choose between the two (or alternatively, the system might always go for the first one it
detects). This is consistent with the Crick-Koch view that the neurons which project to the frontal lobes are the qualia neurons because, obviously, the frontal lobes are important for the execution of choices. We would argue, however, that what we think of as the choice itself is really the work of a limbic executive system consisting of the amygdala, anterior cingulate cortex, and other areas, and that the frontal lobes are needed only for fully working out the long-range implications and possible alternatives
which the decision entails, and for dealing with complications arising as the decision is executed (more on this in the final section)."


In addition to blindsight, Ramachandran discusses the qualia of pain in the response to injury. When you touch something hot or sharp, you withdraw your hand before the you are conscious of the sensation of pain. There is only one possible immediate out put to that stimulus - withdraw, now, - and pain is not required for the reflex arc to achieve that output.  Ramachandran argues that the qualia of pain is linked to other, additional, slower pathways where there is either the opportunity for, or the necessity of, making a choice - whether to attempt the same movement again or not, change position, run away, put ice on the injury, etc.

He has other interesting ideas about the function of qualia, as do other neuroscientists  (but since Don is convinced it has nothing to do with the brain or neuroscience, it is probably of no use or interest to him.) But the function of qualia and consciousness may provide an answer to philosophers like Chalmers, whose entire dualist argument rests on the concept of philosophical zombies. This sort of research suggests that a zombie without consciousness could not function as we do, and could not be like us in every way except consciousness.





« Last Edit: 09/12/2014 01:06:54 by cheryl j »

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1441
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
How can they jump from the former to the following ? :

...The conscious awareness of the central motor command to the muscles

How can the CMC be conscious or aware ?
ROFL! Slight reading comprehension error there; they're not talking about a 'Central Motor Command' like some kind of military transport control centre, they're talking about an instruction to the muscles (a motor command) that originates centrally. Central motor command == command to the muscles from the centre.

In other words, they're talking about being consciously aware of commands to the muscles as a result of 'corollary discharge', i.e. the other pathways are activated, including feedback to higher levels that brings that command activity to conscious awareness.

I'm beginning to see why you get the wrong end of the stick so often...

Quote
How can they equate  the activity of the prefrontal cortex  or the alleged PFC neuronal correlates of cognititive control with the volitional conscious aware cognitive control?
That's what the whole paper is about! If it's a bit technical for you, I strongly recommend that you read 'Self Comes to Mind' by Antonio Damasio, which will give you the technical (but tech-lite) background, and then Stanislas Dehaene's 'Consciousness and the Brain', which gives an readable integrated overview.

Quote
That mindful cognitive control does work through its prefrontal cortex correlates does not mean that the former is just the latter , or that they can be equated with each other .
As has been said before, using other analogies, you may think a watch is operated by spirits before you open the back, peer inside, and start poking at the contents, but when you've traced the main path of cogs from the spring to the hands, and noted what happens when the spring has unwound or a cog breaks, you no longer need to invoke spirits to explain it. You may not understand the whole mechanism or the exact principles behind the escapement, but you can see the general principles and organisation; and only fool or a man with something important to lose would continue to insist that spirits power the spring or allow the cogs to turn, or control the escapement. You've been sounding like a man with something important to lose for some time now.

Quote
Furthermore , we encounter the same materialistic logical fallacy or materialistic fundamental false premise when dealing with  the interpretations of experiments regarding memory ,for example : equating neuronal correlates of  memory ...with the latter, and hence memory is allegedly stored in the brain correlates of memory :

Quantitative neuronal correlates of memory get equated with memory itself ,while the latter  is a matter of qualitative subjective processes that cannot be reduced to or equated with their quantitative neuronal correlates, needless to add , since memory itself as a matter of subjective processes that encompass taste , subjective experiences, meaning , purpose, aesthetics , ethics , morality , ....cannot be quantified or "computed or stored " by their neuronal correlates.
When you can delete a memory by blocking the neurons where you think it is stored, and restore it by feeding in a recording of the activity of those neurons, when stimulating or suppressing specific areas produces specific changes in all those properties, it's entirely reasonable to assume, in the absence of any indication to the contrary, that those areas perform those functions.

Quote
See the following on the subject :

Quote : "THE EVIDENCE FROM NEUROPHYSIOLOGY:
...
If memories are somehow stored in brain cells or as modifications of the synaptic connections between them, then the structure of the synapses and the nervous system must remain stable over long periods of time. After all, the time span of human memory is often decades.

Yet as Francis Crick writes: “It is believed that almost all the molecules in our bodies, with the exception of DNA, turn over in a matter of days, weeks, or at the most a few months. How then is memory stored in the brain so that its trace is relatively immune to molecular turnover?”.

Chris Carter
I was right - Carter is a bigger idiot than I thought. Our whole bodies remain relatively stable over long periods of time, not just our nervous systems. At the same time, they are also incredibly dynamic - particularly our nervous system - millions or billions of neural connections are being made or broken every second, just as billions of cells throughout the body die and are replaced every day, yet somehow the pattern of our structure and our memory remains fairly intact (although episodic memory is seriously labile and unreliable). Either Carter wrote his piece twenty years ago, or he's failed to keep up with the subject he's writing about - he's way behind the current state of knowledge about the neurophysiology of memory.


*

Offline cheryl j

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


 "For Beauregard, this raises questions: “If physics fails to support biology, which discipline should rethink its position—physics or biology?


It doesn't always work that way. A good example is Penrose. Even with the assistance of anesthesiologist Hammeroff in developing his theory of quantum consciousness, they were sent back to the drawing board  multiple times when neuroscientists showed that aspects of their theory were not compatible with the empirical evidence about the structure of neurons or microtubules.
Stapp didn't have that problem, as he just ignored the interaction problem and the origin of his conscious agency, and neuroscience entirely, and not surprisingly, is irrelevant.




*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1441
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
The Copenhagen interpretation is still the standard or orthodox one in QM .

http://quantumenigma.com/controversy/

I think you'll find the authors of that book are not supportive of the 'conscious collapse' version of the Copenhagen interpretation:
Quote from: Kuttner & Rosenblum
In the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, observation takes place, for all practical purposes, as soon as the microscopic quantum object encounters the macroscopic screen. Other interpretations of quantum mechanics, attempting to go beyond practical purposes, consider observation to be more involved with the actual conscious experience of the experimental result.

They see the mainstream Copenhagen interpretation as a 'practical' one, rather than especially meaningful; in notes to the book they say:
Quote from: Kuttner & Rosenblum
Back when I studied quantum mechanics in graduate school it was generally implied that Copenhagen resolved all philosophical problems, that Copenhagen is the “right” interpretation... I can’t quite remember why we so blithly accepted the “collapse of the wavefunction”–everywhere, instantaneously.

and in a Physics Today article, they say:
Quote from: Kuttner & Rosenblum
The Copenhagen interpretation is, of course, all we need to describe the world for all practical purposes. And for a physics class, practical purposes are all that generally matter. But a physics student confronting someone inclined to take the implications of quantum mechanics to unjustified places will find Copenhagen’s for-all-practical-purposes treatment an ineffective argument.
Note: By 'unjustified places', they mean conscious collapse.

In a review of the book, Professor Richard Conn Henry (himself an advocate of the subjective universe) says, about their treatment of QM interpretations:
Quote
Copenhagen. The “majority” interpretation, for decades. Not really an interpretation at all, but rather a (clearly non-physical) segregation of the world into the microscopic (in which there is reality, but it is observer-created reality), and the macroscopic (which was taken to be real). A human observer is not needed; a geiger counter will do just fine. Our authors [Kuttner & Rosenblum] correctly point out that the advance of technology now forces retreat from this increasingly untenable “interpretation.”

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8170
    • View Profile
... How then is memory stored in the brain so that its trace is relatively immune to molecular turnover? ...

Quote from: timeshighereducation.co.uk
... a few of the body's cell types endure from birth to death without renewal, and this special minority includes some or all of the cells of the cerebral cortex ...
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/198208.article

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1460
    • View Profile
dlorde , Cheryl :




Quote : " Conclusion:
The results suggest that MRCP amplitude during movement execution is a neural correlate of perception of effort. This study was the first to provide direct neurophysiological evidence that MRCP amplitude during movement execution correlates with perception of effort.
This finding supports the corollary discharge theory, which proposes that perception of effort is the conscious awareness of the central motor command to the muscles.
 Further studies using brain imaging and neuropharmacological techniques, are necessary to identify more precisely the brain networks and neurotransmitters underlying perception of effort."End quote

How can they jump from the former to the following ? :


...The conscious awareness of the central motor command to the muscles

How can the CMC be conscious or aware ?

They equate   the neuronal correlates of perception of
effort (CMC ) with the conscious awareness of the   perception of effort itself  .

They started from the following premise to conclude the above :

Quote : "Perception of effort, the conscious sensation of how heavy and
strenuous a physical task is (Borg, 1998), is an important aspect
of our subjective experience of volition.
It is thought that the signal underlying perception of effort arises in the brain from corollary discharges of the central motor command.
This corollary discharge theory suggests that perception of effort should be significantly correlated with the magnitude of central motor command." End quote .


I don't think they are equating the perception of effort with volition. You are the one assuming the action and the feeling about it are one and the same. The perception of effort  is the feeling or qualia associated with a physical or mental task that is difficult. Not unlike any other feeling - curiosity, confidence or satisfaction of figuring out an answer, surprise, doubt or worry that you may have over looked something, confusion, relief, etc.


« Last Edit: 09/12/2014 16:24:35 by cheryl j »

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2788
    • View Profile
Quote from: DonQuichotte
MW interpretation of QM is just a desperate and pathetic attempt to rescue the deterministic materialism .
What is "MW interpretation"? If you were saying that it's "theory of interpretation of QM" then that makes no sense to me.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Quote from: DonQuichotte
MW interpretation of QM is just a desperate and pathetic attempt to rescue the deterministic materialism .
What is "MW interpretation"? If you were saying that it's "theory of interpretation of QM" then that makes no sense to me.

That's the many worlds interpretation of QM then .What' s this fuss of yours all about then ?

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg446169#msg446169 date=1418077445]
Here below will you find the specific quote of Popper within  its specific  context :
LOL! Seriously?

There's no quote from Popper there, and in particular no mention of what you posted earlier as a Popper quote.

It appears to be a verbatim excerpt from 'Science and the Near-Death Experience' by Chris Carter, including a physical description of an aspect of Popper's metaphysics - which basically repeats my explanation: that Popper wasn't a substance dualist but an interactionalist ("we are faced, not with a plurality of substances... <but a> pluralism of different interacting explanatory principles"), specifically physical fields and forces, and the bodies on which they act ("we have interaction between the four known and very different forces, and between forces and physical bodies"). More specifically, "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."

He presumably wasn't aware they're all aspects of underlying quantum fields, but at a higher level it's not an unreasonable model. However, it's all 'modern physics'; forces, fields, and matter. All material.

Didn't you even read it before posting it? It's nothing to do with your magical immaterial consciousness dualism - an if Carter thinks so, he's an even bigger idiot than I thought - or have you now backtracked down to the level of the shaman who says quantum field theory itself is the work of spirits? Is that your thesis now, that QFT is non-physical, immaterial? That would be a delicious irony  [;D]


Don't be silly : Carter just used that specific Popper's quote in relation to the fact that not only likes can act upon likes , in a nutshell ,so, any  processes don't have to be like each other in kind to interact with each other , simply put ,if you push that logic of Popper to its limits at least .

That's why i told you to see that specific quote within its specific context , and that's why i posted the prior quotes before it as well  .

*

Offline DonQuichotte

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




Quote : " Conclusion:
The results suggest that MRCP amplitude during movement execution is a neural correlate of perception of effort. This study was the first to provide direct neurophysiological evidence that MRCP amplitude during movement execution correlates with perception of effort.
This finding supports the corollary discharge theory, which proposes that perception of effort is the conscious awareness of the central motor command to the muscles.
 Further studies using brain imaging and neuropharmacological techniques, are necessary to identify more precisely the brain networks and neurotransmitters underlying perception of effort."End quote

How can they jump from the former to the following ? :


...The conscious awareness of the central motor command to the muscles

How can the CMC be conscious or aware ?

They equate   the neuronal correlates of perception of
effort (CMC ) with the conscious awareness of the   perception of effort itself  .

They started from the following premise to conclude the above :

Quote : "Perception of effort, the conscious sensation of how heavy and
strenuous a physical task is (Borg, 1998), is an important aspect
of our subjective experience of volition.
It is thought that the signal underlying perception of effort arises in the brain from corollary discharges of the central motor command.
This corollary discharge theory suggests that perception of effort should be significantly correlated with the magnitude of central motor command." End quote .


I don't think they are equating the perception of effort with volition. You are the one assuming the action and the feeling about it are one and the same. The perception of effort  is the feeling or qualia associated with a physical or mental task that is difficult. Not unlike any other feeling - curiosity, confidence or satisfaction of figuring out an answer, surprise, doubt or worry that you may have over looked something, confusion, relief, etc.

I did formulate my answer to that specific PDF relating to the perception of effort rather clumsily, i must admit  : I will reformulate it this way then ,as follows :

They say that the perception of effort is just the conscious awareness of the motor command to the muscles : the latter triggers the former : the conscious aware perception of effort is just the discharge of the motor command to the muscles , a discharge that arises in the brain that is = conscious aware perception of effort is just the result  of its correlated brain activity that triggers a discharge to the motor command to the muscles = they don't say exactly  how  the conscious aware perception of effort  does rise from  that related brain discharge to the motor command to the muscles , or as David Cooper would put it :

where is the mechanism in the system that triggers conscious awareness of the perception of effort or pain : or how the discharge from the brain to the motor command to the muscles is "translated " into the conscious aware perception of effort or pain ...What mechanism takes care of that ,what mechanism would allow us to jump from the one to the other .

In short : that's just a materialistic approach that equates brain activity and its related motor commands to the muscles with the conscious aware perception of effort .

« Last Edit: 09/12/2014 17:57:15 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg446175#msg446175 date=1418083049]


 "For Beauregard, this raises questions: “If physics fails to support biology, which discipline should rethink its position—physics or biology?


It doesn't always work that way.


Biology remains mostly stuck within the fundamentally false classical physics , while physics has moved beyond the latter to QM : clearly quantum physics is not the one that has to rethink its position, does it ?

And since reductionist materialism just assumes that psychology is just applied biology, biology just applied chemistry , chemistry just applied physics , then biology and neuroscience at least must rethink their position, not physics .


Quote
A good example is Penrose. Even with the assistance of anesthesiologist Hammeroff in developing his theory of quantum consciousness, they were sent back to the drawing board  multiple times when neuroscientists showed that aspects of their theory were not compatible with the empirical evidence about the structure of neurons or microtubules.


Really ? Empirical evidence has been showing , indirectly that is , that consciousness is a non-physical non-local process , while materialists like your above mentioned ones keep on believing in their false materialistic version of consciousness upon which they have been building all their sand castles .It is thus irrelevant that they did rethink some of the sub-claims of their so-called quantum theory of consciousness (The latter is allegedly just the magical result of all those sexy dances vibrations oscillations of ensemble of neurons in the microtubules ) ,since their major claim or major premise upon which they have been building their theory has been that consciousness is just brain activity .

In short : no matter how many empirical or other improvements they would try to apply to their theory , it will  always be false , since it has been built upon their major materialistic false premise : consciousness is just brain activity , just a material process .

Quote
Stapp didn't have that problem, as he just ignored the interaction problem and the origin of his conscious agency, and neuroscience entirely, and not surprisingly, is irrelevant.

What are you talking about ? How do you know that ?Didn't we go through all that , on many occasions ?

Stapp based his quantum theory of consciousness on the non-mechanical instantaneous causal efficacy  of consciousness ,without any transfer of energy whatsoever ,on the physical brain through the observer effect interpretation of QM, at the level of calcium ions through the quantum Zeno effect ( Volitional effort of attention can maintain and sustain certain brain states in place , like when certain regularly observed or measured sub-atomic processes do not decay as a result , and thus remain in their initial state .) ,as well as through Hebb's law that states that neurons that fire together wire together : Schwartz ' non-materialist successful cognitive psychology or 4-steps therapy is based upon all the above and more , and it has been proved to work empirically : scanned brains of patients who underwent that therapy , before and after the therapy thus , showed significant changes in their brains accordingly through self-directed neuroplasticity .

« Last Edit: 09/12/2014 18:25:49 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2788
    • View Profile
Quote from: DonQuichotte
What' s this fuss of yours all about then ?
Given what it meant I retract the statement.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Quote from: DonQuichotte
What' s this fuss of yours all about then ?
Given what it meant I retract the statement.

Ok, thanks . Don't worry about it .

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
... How then is memory stored in the brain so that its trace is relatively immune to molecular turnover? ...

Quote from: timeshighereducation.co.uk
... a few of the body's cell types endure from birth to death without renewal, and this special minority includes some or all of the cells of the cerebral cortex ...
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/198208.article

Regardless of whether or not that minority of cells of the cerebral cortex thus get renewed or not , the brain is an ever changing theater thanks to neuropalsticity and self-directed neuroplasticity .

Better still : the assumption that the mind and its memories ...are just brain activity , and hence  memories can be stored in the brain....is just a materialistic extension of the materialistic fundamental intrinsic claim that all is matter , including the mind = no empirical evidence .

Furthermore , can you care to enlighten us about how such qualitative subjective memories that are a matter of qualitative subjective experiences , taste , preferences , aesthetics , morality , ethics , ...can you tell us how they can be quantified or computed by the related or correlated quantitative brain activity ?, let alone stored  : how can the qualitative arise from the quantitative then ? And how can the latter compute quantify or store the former ? : what makes you make that inexplicably magical jump then ?
Right , materialism does that to you , not empirical evidence .

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8170
    • View Profile
... can you care to enlighten us about how such qualitative subjective memories that are a matter of qualitative subjective experiences , taste , preferences , aesthetics , morality , ethics ... can you tell us how they can be quantified or computed by the related or correlated quantitative brain activity ?

 Brain-damaged individuals can undergo a personality change,
becoming aggressive and/or libidinous
...

Quote from: caring.com
... some people with AD [ Alzheimer's Disease] do things that are totally uncharacteristic of personality before the disease. Swearing (yes, even precious sweet elderly ladies!), spitting, becoming socially inept and impulsive with inappropriate words or actions, and sexual advances may appear for some folks.
https://www.caring.com/questions/dementia-and-personality-change

 So their moral judgement has been modified by deactivation [destruction] of part of their brain .

And of course persons suffering from dementia lose their memory. 
« Last Edit: 09/12/2014 19:22:42 by RD »

*

Offline cheryl j

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


Furthermore , can you care to enlighten us about how such qualitative subjective memories that are a matter of qualitative subjective experiences , taste , preferences , aesthetics , morality , ethics , ...can you tell us how they can be quantified or computed by the related or correlated quantitative brain activity ?, let alone stored  : how can the qualitative arise from the quantitative then ? And how can the latter compute quantify or store the former ? : what makes you make that inexplicably magical jump then ?
Right , materialism does that to you , not empirical evidence .

You can't expect anyone to explain all neuroscience in two or three paragraphs. Look at how long that one article is on the prefrontal cortex, which is just a description of their model and cites dozens and dozens of papers that performed the individual experiments on which their model is based.

When you get backed into a corner, you start demanding "Explain this! Explain that! Explain these 20 or 30 other things," already convinced that if you don't know of any explanation, and Chris Carter doesn't know of any explanation, it probably doesn't exist, or isn't possible.

So, which of those things that you mentioned above would you like to investigate and discuss next in some kind of meaningful detail? Ethics? Preferences? Aesthetics? Something else?

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Real Life Show : Caught on Candid Camera :

I wanted to surprise our dear friends here below ,so, i planted some undetectable mini cams all over  the place where they were gathering to celebrate the holidays ahead of time .

They were having some drinks after dinner.... ,while listening to music .It was a cozy and relaxed atmosphere , when Ethos suddenly told them to be quiet , because he heard someone on tv saying,on History channel, in the other room that a certain weird guy was so scared  of the inquisition  that he left (his ) the mind to the church ,and the physical world to science ."Weird" said Ethos : "How was science supposed to be studying the physical world without the mind then ? "

Ethos thought that Descartes was a clever guy indeed ,after all,  not a coward, but he wanted to discuss other more important matters with alancalverd .

So, he went back to the living room where the rest of our friends were having a drink and a laugh,while listening  to soft music in the background  .


Ethos : You know ,Alan .I think that QM can explain why Sint-Claus can be in many places at once .Seriously.

Alan : Cut the crap, man .You're a grown up man and you still believe in that crap.Science is not about whys .Oh, wait a minute .Your theory has predictive powers indeed .It can also be falsified .What a scientific mind you have , dear Ethos , unlike that silly mystic Don who  wants to introduce ghosts and spirits to science .Insane .Let me play some Jazz instead .

Ethos : Exactly what i thought, Alan , unless Sint Claus has a mind .Forget about that superstitious guy for a minute.

Alan : Bullocks .Define mind . Mind is irrelevant .Who needs one? .Physicists don't at least .The mind is just weird dances or oscillations vibrations of neurons .

Ethos : Yes , Alan ,but , look i have been thinking lately about QM .The brain is also made of atoms, electrons .....so, electrons might play a role in all that through those elusive calcium ions via the synapses .
You know , neurotransmitters and all the other stuff that's going on in the brain .It has been discovered that there is a lots of nanotechnology taking place in cells .

Alan : Look, i am only concerned with healing the sick through my hi-tech quantum devices .I am not  interested in that mind stuff, Ok, Ethos ?

Ethos : Ok, Alan,That was just a thought .Chill .Oh ,yeah, i just heard that Descartes left (his ) the mind to the church and the physical world to science .How was science supposed to study the physical world without the mind that was left to the church ?.
We have a problem here , Alan.

Alan : Really ? I don't see no problem in that .That's  what a good scientist should do indeed .Oh, crap .The mind is just a material process .
Let the church have fun with its imaginary immaterial spirit then .

Ethos : That's what honest science is all about indeed .Honest science ,something Don will never grasp.

dlorde : Cartesian dualistic dichotomy between mind and matter and that they are allegedly different separate from each other substances was a false one indeed anyway .Descartes was a clever guy though  .Our modern world is Cartesian ,despite the flaws of Cartesian  thought  .

Cheryl : Don still believes in that  dualism  lol I am making a painting about that . lol

dlorde : Don believes in another kind of dualism in fact, the poor guy  : mind and matter are 2 different substances mutually interacting with
each other via magic lol .He's so schizophrenic that he projects that on us , while stubbornly refusing to  learn from our posted prevailing materialistic wisdom .I think he's afraid to find out about the truth like i did .He's afraid of education, knowledge ,afraid of science ,afraid to discover that he has been living a big lie .I know , i have been there , you know .I can understand where he's coming from  , but he's got to try to muster enough
courage to face the music like i did .When you give him a link to a certain PDF that proves that  the perception of effort is just the conscious awareness of the motor command to the muscles that originates from the related brain's discharge ,he tells you :

How can the motor command be conscious or aware ? lol .He either did not understand what that PDF said .or his English needs some improvement . He was just tired and confused maybe .I think that what he actually wanted to say is that that experiment did not explain  how the conscious awareness of the motor command to the muscles  that originates in the brain 's related discharge ,arises in the first place to begin with .
What specific mechanism, if any , as David Cooper would put it (The latter seemed absorbed in some mechanistic dream of his ) in the system would be responsible for that conscious aware perception of effort ?

Well, that's just the illusory conscious aware perception of effort that feels real though , just a useful illusory  simulation computed by the brain exactly like Graziano said : no need for a ghost in the machine thus .Maybe is Don not evolved enough to grasp that simple fact .He's got to get rid of his old superstitions .He says sometimes that he's neither a dualist nor an idealist , weird ,he's not a materialist either lol , so what can we call him on the subject ? .

Science is all about dispelling dogmas , superstitions like that .
That's why we are here : to help people like Don to set themselves free from their  pre-scientific  superstitions.

Cheryl : Indeed, dlorde : magic .That's why i saved that related post of yours ,really.How can the immaterial mind interact with the physical brain ?: that's superstition.Who needs that Cartesian theater ? Regardless of whether the particular hypotheses we have outlined accurately
describe PFC function, they offer an example of how neurally plausible mechanisms can exhibit the properties of self-organization and self-regulation required to account for cognitive control without recourse to a “homunculus.”

Alan : what are you talking about , guys , wasting your time on rubbish .The mind is irrelevant .Who needs one? .Physicists don't at least .
What predictive power has the mind anyway? ,nothing .I have been asking this question to Don ,on many occasions .Don makes it sound as if science and ourselves have been run by the mind .Who needs the mind ?, even though maths are just products of the mind that happen to underlie the laws of physics : that's no conclusive proof for the power of the mind .Who needs the mind to "shut up and calculate " anyway ? .I don't .

I did tell him that QM is just simple algebra indeed (not done by the mind , mind you , but by deterministic mindless neurons lol ) ,and that there is no such thing as the wave/particle duality either .The latter is just in the mind .I see neither a problem regarding the latter , nor that there is what can be called the interpretation or measurement problem in QM  .There is no problem at all, i am telling him .

dlorde : "  Alan : the mind is just a property of matter (Just overlook this paradoxical materialistic property dualism and panpsychism in disguise ,Don is not here to hear about that anyway, he wouldn't understand  ) .
The mind just arises from electromagnetism, you know .Don says interesting things sometimes,otherwise he's a total waste of time  : That clever  guy Descartes was so scared  of the medieval christian inquisition 
that he left (his) the mind to the church ,and the physical world to
science . Was he out of his mind ?I don't think so.He knew exactly what he was doing .Who needs a mind to study the physical world scientifically or otherwise anyway ? :  deterministic mindless neurons do the job on our behalf ,without us having any say on the matter whatsoever ,so what 's the fuss all about ?
Cartesian dualistic  dichotomy between mind and body and that they are allegedly separate different substances was a false Cartesian legacy .There is no mind as such , no free will as such , just illusions ,evolutionary useful ones that feel real though as Graziano said .
The whole universe is deterministic , so .We're mindless machines , hardware run by software .

Ethos : " How was science supposed to study the physical world
without the mind then ? if Descartes left the mind to the church . How do you study science without your mind ? Note that i do believe both in the church and more in science."

dlorde : "Ethos , Are you out of your mind ? How can you believe in religion since all is matter,including the mind ,while believing in science too that says that religion or God were just created by the brain through evolution ?."

Ethos : " Why not , dlorde ? I suffer from multiple personality disorder .One of my personalities believes in religion,and the other one in materialistic science .They never meet each other though .So, what's your problem ? "

Cheryl : " You're right about that , Ethos .You can believe in both and be both at the same time :they are one anyway .
Ramachandran says that God is in the brain, so.I just don't understand that weird guy Don .Why does he feel the need or rather obsessive-compulsive  urge to introduce ghosts into the machine ? I will never understand him ."

Ethos : " Exactly , Cheryl .That's exactly my point .Don is mentally ill .My christian feeling of charity or compassion goes to him , especially during Christmas times .Poor lad , i told him to go see a shrink ,but i think i was too hard on him.
I shouldn't have said that .He might get worse as a result .I really feel guilty about that .I think i should make a confession to a priest ."

Cheryl : " You have already done that .See me as your priest Ramachandran says that it's healthy to confess anyway , to anyone .
It's all in the brain, you know ."

dlorde : " Oh, Cheryl, please .Stop misleading Ethos .I have no respect for such mysticism.I have been there , believe me .


Cheryl : dlorde , i meant that in a materialistic way , you know .

dlorde : Oh, materialistic mysticism, you mean .Ok, sorry ,I can live with that .Sean Caroll seems to have approved of that .

Alan : This is a science forum, guys .Show me some predictions  .

Ethos : I predict that Don is motivated by religious secret agendas .He's a danger to science .He threatens to send back science to the dark ages.

RD and PmbPhy who were late and just entered the living room overheard the latest sentence , then RD said : I will provide Don with some relevant links , like the ones that show that some damage to the brain can even alter consciousness significantly by changing the self-identity personality and more of the unfortunate persons who suffered such calamities .

dlorde replied to that by saying : I have already mentioned that to him , but he replied that that was just the result of faulty brain "circuitry " due either to biological or psychological damage or both ,  and that the mind has to work through its neuronal correlates anyway , the healthy ones at least ,so, any changes or damages of  the related neuronal correlates has to affect consciousness accordingly....something like that .

PmbPhy then said : well, life goes on .I see no science in what that guy has been saying anyway .I just went to that main link of this thread : just cranks there who talk about some non-materialistic stuff , no science .

David Cooper who remained silent all that time ,while he seemed to be absorbed in some contemplative  computer  computations of his , suddenly intervened by saying :
Guys , your materialistic inexplicable magic is no less magical than that of Don : where is the alleged mechanism in the system that makes it aware or conscious , that makes it self-aware or self-conscious ? .Unless you can show me where exactly in the system and what specific mechanism is involved in it that makes the system aware conscious or self aware self-conscious , there is no way i am gonna continue listening to this magic of yours .Then, he stormed out of the living room , but , before he exited the door , he added :
I will be following the progress, if any , of your debate , but i will not take any part in it anymore ,unless someone can show me the above .

The resulting intense silence that took possession of the place dictated its terms for quite some time , before our remaining friends in the living room went back to resuming their activity and talk , as if what David Cooper said or did has never taken place  .

............

"What is mind ? No matter
What is matter ? Never mind " T.H.Key

« Last Edit: 09/12/2014 20:46:07 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline cheryl j

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


What are you talking about ? How do you know that ?Didn't we go through all that , on many occasions ?

Stapp based his quantum theory of consciousness on the non-mechanical instantaneous causal efficacy  of consciousness ,without any transfer of energy whatsoever ,on the physical brain through the observer effect interpretation of QM, at the level of calcium ions through the quantum Zeno effect ( Volitional effort of attention can maintain and sustain certain brain states in place , like when certain regularly observed or measured sub-atomic processes do not decay as a result , and thus remain in their initial state .) ,as well as through Hebb's law that states that neurons that fire together wire together : Schwartz ' non-materialist successful cognitive psychology or 4-steps therapy is based upon all the above and more , and it has been proved to work empirically : scanned brains of patients who underwent that therapy , before and after the therapy thus , showed significant changes in their brains accordingly through self-directed neuroplasticity .



Physicist Matthew Donald of Cambridge said in his critique of Stapp's theory:
  ”In Stapp (1993 §1.10), Stapp states that his theory “makes consciousness causally effective, yet it is fully compatible with all known laws of physics, including the law of conservation of energy.” Stapp does not justify this statement. In general, energy is not conserved in individual quantum jumps. Average total energy may be conserved if the projections involved commute with the global Hamiltonian. Leaving aside the commutation question, however, this would require that “causal effectiveness” produces the same averages as conventional quantum probabilities. In Stapp (1995),Stapp admits that, “No attempt is made here to show that the quantum statistical laws will hold for the aspects of the brain’s internal dynamics controlled by conscious thoughts”.


 Stapp’s whole theory seems to rest on the idea of consciousness using the Zeno effect to stack the quantum mechanical deck so to speak, to not simply collapse the wave, but to do it in a way that produces one result over another. How does this not violate conservation of energy?

What's more, Stapp does not even attempt to explain on what information the conscious agency bases it's choices, or how this information is maintained.

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8170
    • View Profile
... the brain is an ever changing theater thanks to neuropalsticity and self-directed neuroplasticity .
... the assumption that the mind and its memories ...are just brain activity , and hence  memories can be stored in the brain....is just a materialistic extension of the materialistic fundamental intrinsic claim that all is matter , including the mind = no empirical evidence .

Why is brain-growth and neuroplasticity necessary if the brain is a dumb terminal communicating with a remote cloud database ?.
 
I could see, hear, walk & remember some information when I was 5 years old , why did I need to grow a bigger brain as I became an adult ?.  Answer: because memories are stored in the brain, not remotely. If the data storage [memory] was in a remote location a child-sized brain would be more than sufficient to get through life.
« Last Edit: 09/12/2014 21:09:15 by RD »

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1460
    • View Profile
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4122207/
The Biological Function of Consciousness

 I found his final conclusion somewhat unsatisfying, but the discussion leading up to it was thought provoking, and there may be links to interesting studies.
And I think comparing conscious processes with unconscious ones, asking about the function of qualia, or what is special about processes or curcuits that generate qualia (since most don't) is a good approach.

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1441
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Don't be silly : Carter just used that specific Popper's quote in relation to the fact that not only likes can act upon like..
Silly? I asked for the specific context of that Popper quote, and you offered an extract from Carter's book that doesn't have a Popper quote in it - though you still seem to think it does - don't you understand what a 'quote' is?

Nevertheless, the Carter quote you posted about Popper agrees with the interactive property dualist interpretation I gave for the original Popper quote, not the substance dualism you were arguing, so thanks for the support  8D

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1441
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Real Life Show : Caught on Candid Camera :
...
dlorde : Cartesian dualistic dichotomy between mind and matter and that they are allegedly different separate from each other substances was a false one indeed anyway .Descartes was a clever guy though  .Our modern world is Cartesian ,despite the flaws of Cartesian  thought  .


I realise this is probably a childish prank, but I'd appreciate you not attributing fictitious quotes to me. I imagine the other members feel the same. False attribution of quotes is not funny or clever.


I would report it, but the moderators here appear to be blind, deaf, and dumb. You can babble to yourself from now on; I'm out.

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Real Life Show : Caught on Candid Camera :

I wanted to surprise our dear friends here below ,so, i planted some undetectable mini cams all over  the place where they were gathering to celebrate the holidays ahead of time .



Sir Don.......I must confess that I did enjoy your little melodrama. Much better than traditional soap opera I must say.

What truly astounds me is that someone as intelligent as you respectfully are could have such a mental block to what is so very obvious to the rest of us. Nothing in this world, will ever be fully understood or documented without the measure of observation by means of material resource, which by the way includes the brain.

When you constantly refer to "the immaterial" please ask yourself how the immaterial reconciles with even quantum physics. Even the quantum realm requires attention to material objects such as the smallest atomic units of mass and charge. If we leave out material, what is left? Nothingness

Even the wave forms are disturbances in the fabric of space/time. And space/time can't ever be considered as immaterial.

How can you honestly reconcile this immaterial logic of yours with the material universe?


« Last Edit: 09/12/2014 22:45:44 by Ethos_ »
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1441
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Sir Don.......I must confess that I did enjoy your little melodrama. Much better than traditional soap opera I must say.

Dang it! you just had to go and spoil my melodramatic flounce out! have you no consideration?

But you do ask sensible questions - which won't be answered with anything approaching rational argument because there is no rational response.

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1460
    • View Profile
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096098221200320X

This is a shorter article, more narrow in scope, the basic premise of which is "qualia can be analysed and characterised. Such an attempt is the first step towards scientific investigation of qualia." One functional aspect considered includes the degree of vividness of qualia for distinguishing between objects in the here and now, compared to objects in imagination.
Philosophers of consciousness treat qualia as if it were a subjective no man's land, but this article is a reminder that qualia is tightly linked to perception, which has been studied extensively. The article's examples of qualia fusion, metamers, and binding of perceptual cues are indicators of qualia's neurological basis. 
I liked the comment at the end, "Thomas Nagel's seemingly intractable question ‘what it's like to be a bat’ might be addressed by examining the microcircuits involved in echolocation. At least, we can quantitatively evaluate the similarity between the circuitry for the echolocation and that for vision or audition, allowing us to infer if qualia for echolocation would be closer to visual or auditory qualia."

*

Offline cheryl j

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

Qualia and Spandrels:
an Engineering Perspective

http://www.infres.enst.fr/~jld/papers/Dessalles_01082301.pdf

Another functional look at qualia.
While people talk about qualia as being ineffable and holistic, this article argues that qualia does have a certain structure and orderliness (continuity, directionality, regularity, dynamic range) The concept of qualitative space is interesting. The article might not address the "feelyness" of qualia, but I still think it's role in enhancing discrimination and minimizing noise is significant. Also, a good argument against, or at least restricting, the inverted quale scenario, which I was always skeptical of.
I also found it ironic that an engineering approach seems ot offer a good response to both dualists like Chalmers, and and someone like Dennett.

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1460
    • View Profile
... can you care to enlighten us about how such qualitative subjective memories that are a matter of qualitative subjective experiences , taste , preferences , aesthetics , morality , ethics ... can you tell us how they can be quantified or computed by the related or correlated quantitative brain activity ?

 Brain-damaged individuals can undergo a personality change,
becoming aggressive and/or libidinous
...

Quote from: caring.com
... some people with AD [ Alzheimer's Disease] do things that are totally uncharacteristic of personality before the disease. Swearing (yes, even precious sweet elderly ladies!), spitting, becoming socially inept and impulsive with inappropriate words or actions, and sexual advances may appear for some folks.
https://www.caring.com/questions/dementia-and-personality-change

 So their moral judgement has been modified by deactivation [destruction] of part of their brain .

And of course persons suffering from dementia lose their memory. 


We've talked about disease and disorder changing not only function and ability but Don sees it as being like a broken radio that no longer receives or transmits the true, nonlocal consciousness. Aside from lack of evidence for a receiver model, it's hard to explain changes to personality or morality, which Don also sees as attributes of the immaterial will. It's even harder to explain changes to qualitative conscious experience itself, as reported by the individual with a neurological disorder. (You aren't really confused, hallucinating, or having trouble remembering things, you only think you are. The real you is somewhere, doing just fine.)

But one thing we haven't talked about much is development which you also referred to. And it's interesting because it highlights not only changes in structure, plasticity, but the influence of learning and experience. Why should the expression of the immaterial mind change so predictably with physiological development?
« Last Edit: 10/12/2014 15:13:47 by cheryl j »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=Ethos_ link=topic=52526.msg446260#msg446260 date=1418164079]
Real Life Show : Caught on Candid Camera :

I wanted to surprise our dear friends here below ,so, i planted some undetectable mini cams all over  the place where they were gathering to celebrate the holidays ahead of time .

Sir Don.......I must confess that I did enjoy your little melodrama. Much better than traditional soap opera I must say.

Sir Ethos : I thought so .No need to confess once again .You have already done that lol .Good  to know that you have a sense of humour. Thanks .


Quote
What truly astounds me is that someone as intelligent as you respectfully are could have such a mental block to what is so very obvious to the rest of us. Nothing in this world, will ever be fully understood or documented without the measure of observation by means of material resource, which by the way includes the brain.

Thanks, man . Anyway , science is not about the right of the majority though : it would have to take only one single scientist to turn science upside down .
The whole materialistic mainstream scientific community is simply wrong , big time, you have no idea , wrong about equating science with materialism at least , and hence the mind cannot be in the brain or brain activity , cannot be a material process...memories cannot be stored in the brain ...

Furthermore , empirical  evidence can be inferred ,indirectly, from other empirical evidence , like the fact that consciousness is a non-physical and non-local process ,a fact that can be inferred , indirectly , form other related empirical evidence on the subject .

Quote
When you constantly refer to "the immaterial" please ask yourself how the immaterial reconciles with even quantum physics. Even the quantum realm requires attention to material objects such as the smallest atomic units of mass and charge. If we leave out material, what is left? Nothingness

Ironically enough, QM can never be understood without reference to the mind ,simply because they are inseparably and inescapably intertwined with each other ,or as a prominent physicist said ,or in words to that same effect at least :

Will it not turn out that ,with the development of science , any progress in the study of the universe will be impossible without that in the study of consciousness ...since both are inseparably linked to each other .

Quote
Even the wave forms are disturbances in the fabric of space/time. And space/time can't ever be considered as immaterial.

See above . The very notions of space and time , space -time , gravity , mass,time , causality , reality , locality  ...would be turned on their heads ,if you only would take a look at them from the observer effect interpretation of QM where consciousness plays a central role in shaping the physical reality ,while getting influenced by the latter .
The mind of the observer cannot be separated from the observed so-called objective reality .There is no such thing as the independent observer or the independent observed objective reality ,since both are inseparable from each other ,as the mind cannot but exert a causal effect on its physical environment  ,while being influenced by the latter : our "reality " is just the product of that mutual interaction between our minds and our environments through our senses and brains and beyond .There is also what can be called extra-sensory perception, but that's another story .

Quote
How can you honestly reconcile this immaterial logic of yours with the material universe?

The universe is not   exclusively material or physical , as materialism wanna make you believe it is ,and hence materialism is false .The universe is also mental and the latter is irreducible to matter .
Better still : the mental is the key component or key 'building block " of the universe , a primary one at that , that is , no wonder that 0,000000...1 % of the universe , including ourselves thus , is "matter "....The latter is almost nothing in the universe: almost insignificant and irrelevant  .The whole population of earth can be contained within  an apple ,for example , if one would take all that empty space out of it .
« Last Edit: 10/12/2014 17:49:03 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=RD link=topic=52526.msg446249#msg446249 date=1418156225]
... the brain is an ever changing theater thanks to neuropalsticity and self-directed neuroplasticity .
... the assumption that the mind and its memories ...are just brain activity , and hence  memories can be stored in the brain....is just a materialistic extension of the materialistic fundamental intrinsic claim that all is matter , including the mind = no empirical evidence .

Why is brain-growth and neuroplasticity necessary if the brain is a dumb terminal communicating with a remote cloud database ?.

Neuroplasticity is a vital must that has to cope with the ever changing experiences , with the ever changing storm of information or whatever both from the outside world and from within ...with learning new things , new skills ....to cope with the ever changing environment .

A kid's brain can't cope with growing up, simply put , unless neuroplasticity is there to change it through learning , experience and more .

You're applying the computer model to consciousness , that's why you can't think outside of that box .

The brain is no computer or machine , it does not code for anything , does not store anything , does not compute anything : that's just the projection of materialists .
Quote
 
I could see, hear, walk & remember some information when I was 5 years old , why did I need to grow a bigger brain as I became an adult ?.  Answer: because memories are stored in the brain, not remotely. If the data storage [memory] was in a remote location a child-sized brain would be more than sufficient to get through life.

It's exactly the other way around : makes no biological sense that memories can be stored in the brain .There has to be a non-physical and non-local "place " for memories thus .


Excerpt From " The Biology of Belief , Unleashing the Power of Consciousness ... " By Biologist Bruce Lipton, Chapter 6 : "Growth and Protection " : 

Quote : "Evolution has provided us with lots of survival mechanisms. They can be roughly divided into two functional categories: growth and protection. These growth and protection mechanisms are the fundamental behaviors required for an organism to survive. I’m sure you know how important it is to protect yourself. You may not realize though that growth is vitally important for your survival as well —even if you’re an adult who has reached your full height. Every day billions of cells in your body wear out and need to be replaced. For example, the entire cellular lining of your gut is replaced every seventy-two hours. In order to maintain this continuous turnover of cells, your body needs to expend a significant amount of energy daily.

By now you won’t be surprised to learn that I first became aware of how important growth and protection behaviors are in the laboratory where my observations of single cells have so often led me to insights about the multicellular human body. When I was cloning human endothelial cells, they retreated from toxins that I introduced into the culture dish, just as humans retreat from mountain lions and muggers in dark alleys. They also gravitated to nutrients, just as humans gravitate to breakfast, lunch, dinner, and love. These opposing movements define the two basic cellular responses to environmental stimuli. Gravitating to a life-sustaining signal, such as nutrients, characterizes a growth response; moving away from threatening signals, such as toxins, characterizes a protection response. It must also be noted that some environmental stimuli are neutral; they provoke neither a growth nor a protection response.

My research at Stanford showed that these growth/protection behaviors are also essential for the survival of multicellular organisms such as humans. But there is a catch to these opposing survival mechanisms that have evolved over billions of years. It turns out that the mechanisms that support growth and protection cannot operate optimally at the same time. In other words, cells cannot simultaneously move forward and backward. The human blood vessel cells I studied at Stanford exhibited one microscopic anatomy for providing nutrition and a completely different microscopic anatomy for providing a protection response. What they couldn’t do was exhibit both configurations at the same time. (Lipton, et al, 1991).

In a response similar to that displayed by cells, humans unavoidably restrict their growth behaviors when they shift into a protective mode. If you’re running from a mountain lion, it’s not a good idea to expend energy on growth. In order to survive—that is, escape the lion—you summon all your energy for your fight or flight response. Redistributing energy reserves to fuel the protection response inevitably results in a curtailment of growth.

In addition to diverting energy to support the tissues and organs needed for the protection response, there is an additional reason why growth is inhibited. Growth processes require an open exchange between an organism and its environment. For example, food is taken in and waste products are excreted. However, protection requires a closing down of the system to wall the organism off from the perceived threat.

Inhibiting growth processes is also debilitating in that growth is a process that not only expends energy but is also required to produce energy. Consequently, a sustained protection response inhibits the creation of life-sustaining energy. The longer you stay in protection, the more you compromise your growth. In fact, you can shut down growth processes so completely that it becomes a truism that you can be “scared to death.”

Thankfully, most of us don’t get to the “scared to death” point. Unlike single cells, the growth/protection response in multicellular organisms is not an either/or proposition—not all of our 50 trillion cells have to be in growth or protection mode at the same time. The proportion of cells in a protection response depends on the severity of the perceived threats. You can survive while under stress from these threats but chronic inhibition of growth mechanisms severely compromises your vitality. It is also important to note that to fully experience your vitality it takes more than just getting rid of life’s stressors. In a growth-protection continuum, eliminating the stressors only puts you at the neutral point in the range. To fully thrive, we must not only eliminate the stressors but also actively seek joyful, loving, fulfilling lives that stimulate growth processes."End Quote .
« Last Edit: 10/12/2014 18:14:22 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Excerpt From "The Biology of Belief ..." By Biologist Bruce Lipton , Chapter 5 : "Biology and Belief " , " Mind over Body " :


Quote :"Let’s review what we know about cells. We learned in earlier chapters that the functions of cells are directly derived from the movements of their protein “gears.” The movement generated by assemblies of proteins provides the physiologic functions that enable life. While proteins are the physical building blocks, complementary environmental signals are required to animate their movement. The interface between environmental signals and behavior-producing cytoplasmic proteins is the cell’s membrane. The membrane receives stimuli and then engages the appropriate, life-sustaining cellular responses.

 The cell membrane operates as the cell’s “brain.” Integral membrane receptor-effector proteins (IMPs) are the fundamental physical subunits of the cellular brain’s “intelligence” mechanism. By functional definition, these protein complexes are “perception switches” that link reception of environmental stimuli to response-generating protein pathways.
Cells generally respond to an assortment of very basic “perceptions” of what’s going on in their world.

 Such perceptions include whether things like potassium, calcium, oxygen, glucose, histamine, estrogen, toxins, light, or any number of other stimuli are present in their immediate environment. The simultaneous interactions of tens of thousands of reflexive perception switches in the membrane, each directly reading an individual environmental signal, collectively create the complex behavior of a living cell.

For the first three billion years of life on this planet, the biosphere consisted of free-living single cells such as bacteria, algae, and protozoans. While we have traditionally considered such life forms as solitary individuals, we are now aware that signal molecules used by individual cells to regulate their own physiologic functions, when released into the environment, also influence the behavior of other organisms.

Signals released into the environment allow for a coordination of behavior among a dispersed population of unicellular organisms. Secreting signal molecules into the environment enhanced the survival of single cells by providing them with the opportunity to live as a primitive “community.”
The single-celled slime mold amoebas provide an example of how signaling molecules lead to community. These amoebas live a solitary existence in the soil foraging for food.

 When available food in the environment is consumed, the cells synthesize an excess amount of a metabolic by-product called cyclic AMP (cAMP), much of which is released into the environment. The concentration of the released cAMP builds in the environment as other amoebas face starvation. When secreted cAMP signal molecules bind to cAMP-receptors on the cell membranes of other slime mold amoebas, it signals them to activate a swarming behavior wherein the amoebas congregate and form a large multicellular “slug.” The slug community is the reproductive stage of slime mold. During the “famine” period, the community of aging cells shares their DNA and creates the next generation of offspring.

The new amoebas hibernate as inactive spores. When more food is available, the food molecules act as a signal to break the hibernation, releasing a new population of single cells to start the cycle over again.
The point is that single-celled organisms actually live in a community when they share their “awareness” and coordinate their behaviors by releasing “signal” molecules into the environment.
Cyclic AMP was one of evolution’s earliest forms of secreted regulatory signals that controls cell behavior.

 The fundamental human signal molecules (e.g., hormones, neuropeptides, cytokines, growth factors) that regulate our own cellular communities were once thought to have arisen with the appearance of complex multicellular life forms. However, recent research has revealed that primitive single-celled organisms were already using these “human” signal molecules in the earliest stages of evolution. Through evolution, cells maximized the number of IMP “awareness” proteins their membranes could hold. To acquire more awareness, and therefore increase their probability of surviving, cells started to assemble, first into simple colonies and later into highly organized cellular communities.

As described earlier, the physiologic functions of multicellular organisms are parceled out to specialized communities of cells forming the body’s tissues and organs. In communal organizations, the cell membrane’s intelligence processing is carried out by the specialized cells of the organism’s nervous and immune systems.
It was only 700 million years ago, recent in regard to the time frame of life on this planet, when single cells found it advantageous to join together in tightly knit multicellular communities, organizations we recognize as animals and plants.

The same coordinating signal molecules used by free-living cells were used in these newly evolved closed communities. By tightly regulating the release and distribution of these function-controlling signal molecules, the community of cells would be able to coordinate their functions and act as a single life form. In the more primitive multicellular organisms, those without specialized nervous systems, the flow of these signal molecules within the community provided an elementary “mind,” represented by the coordinating information shared by every cell. In such organisms, each cell directly read environmental cues and personally adjusted its own behavior.
However, when cells came together in community, a new politic had to be established.

In community, each cell cannot act as an independent agent that does whatever it wants. The term “community” implies that all of its members commit to a common plan of action. In multicellular animals, individual cells may “see” the local environment outside of their own “skin,” but they may
have no awareness of what is going on in more distant environments, especially those outside of the whole organism itself.

 Can a liver cell buried in your viscera, responding to its local environmental signals, make an informed response regarding the consequence of a mugger that jumps into your environment? The complex behavior controls needed to ensure a multicellular organization’s survival are incorporated within its centralized information processing system.
As more complex animals evolved, specialized cells took over the job of monitoring and organizing the flow of the behavior regulating signal molecules. These cells provided a distributed nerve network and central information processor, a brain.

The brain’s function is to coordinate the dialogue of signal molecules within the community. Consequently, in a community of cells, each cell must acquiesce control to the informed decisions of its awareness authority, the brain. The brain controls the behavior of the body’s cells. This is a very important point to consider as we blame the cells of our organs and tissues for the health issues we experience in our lives."End quote .

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
"How the Mind Controls the Body"

From the same above mentioned source and chapter :


Quote : "My insights into how beliefs control biology are grounded in my studies of cloned endothelial cells,
the cells that line the blood vessels. The endothelial cells I grew in culture monitor their world closely and change their behavior based on information they pick up from the environment. When I provided nutrients, the cells would gravitate toward those nutrients with the cellular equivalent of open arms.

When I created a toxic environment, the cultured cells would retreat from the stimulus in an effort to wall themselves off from the noxious agents. My research focused on the membrane perception switches that controlled the shift from one behavior to the other.

The primary switch I was studying has a protein receptor that responds to histamine, a molecule that the body uses in a way that is equivalent to a local emergency alarm. I found that there are two varieties of switches, H1 and H2, that respond to the same histamine signal. When activated, switches with H1 histamine receptors evoke a protection response, the type of behavior revealed by cells in toxin-containing culture dishes. Switches containing H2 histamine receptors evoke a growth response to histamine, similar to the behavior of cells cultured in the presence of nutrients.

I subsequently learned that the body’s system-wide emergency response signal, adrenaline, also has switches sporting two different adrenaline-sensing receptors, called alpha and beta. The adrenaline receptors provoked the exact same cell behaviors as those elicited by histamine. When the adrenal alpha-receptor is part of an IMP switch, it provokes a protection response when adrenaline is perceived. When the beta-receptor is part of the switch, the same adrenaline signal activates a growth response. (Lipton, et al, 1992).

All that was interesting, but the most exciting finding was when I simultaneously introduced both histamine and adrenaline into my tissue cultures. I found that adrenaline signals, released by the central nervous system, override the influence of histamine signals that are produced locally.

 This is where the politics of the community described earlier come in to play. Suppose you’re working in a bank. The branch manager gives you an order. The CEO walks in and gives you the opposite order.
Which order would you follow? If you want to keep your job you’ll snap to the CEO’s order. There is a similar priority built into our biology, which requires cells to follow instructions from the head honcho nervous system, even if those signals are in conflict with local stimuli.

I was excited by my experiments because I believed that they revealed on the single-cell level a truth for multicellular organisms—that the mind (acting via the central nervous system’s adrenaline) overrides the body (acting via the local histamine signal). I wanted to spell out the implications of my experiments in my research paper, but my colleagues almost died from apoplexy at the notion of injecting the body-mind connection into a paper about cell biology. So I put in a cryptic comment about understanding the significance of the study, but I couldn’t say what the significance was.

 My colleagues did not want me to include these implications of my research because the mind is not an acceptable biological concept. Bioscientists are conventional Newtonians—if it isn’t matter, it doesn’t count. The “mind” is a non-localized energy and therefore is not relevant to materialistic biology. Unfortunately, that perception is a “belief” that has been proven to be patently incorrect in a quantum mechanical universe!" End quote .

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=RD link=topic=52526.msg446249#msg446249 date=1418156225]
... the brain is an ever changing theater thanks to neuropalsticity and self-directed neuroplasticity .
... the assumption that the mind and its memories ...are just brain activity , and hence  memories can be stored in the brain....is just a materialistic extension of the materialistic fundamental intrinsic claim that all is matter , including the mind = no empirical evidence .

Why is brain-growth and neuroplasticity necessary if the brain is a dumb terminal communicating with a remote cloud database ?.

Neuroplasticity is a vital must that has to cope with the ever changing experiences , with the ever changing storm of information or whatever both from the outside world and from within ...with learning new things , new skills ....to cope with the ever changing environment .

A kid's brain can't cope with growing up, simply put , unless neuroplasticity is there to change it through learning , experience and more .

You're applying the computer model to consciousness , that's why you can't think outside of that box .

The brain is no computer or machine , it does not code for anything , does not store anything , does not compute anything : that's just the projection of materialists .
Quote
 
I could see, hear, walk & remember some information when I was 5 years old , why did I need to grow a bigger brain as I became an adult ?.  Answer: because memories are stored in the brain, not remotely. If the data storage [memory] was in a remote location a child-sized brain would be more than sufficient to get through life.

It's exactly the other way around : makes no biological sense that memories can be stored in the brain .There has to be a non-physical and non-local "place " for memories thus .


Excerpt From " The Biology of Belief , Unleashing the Power of Consciousness ... " By Biologist Bruce Lipton, Chapter 6 : "Growth and Protection " : 

Quote : "Evolution has provided us with lots of survival mechanisms. They can be roughly divided into two functional categories: growth and protection. These growth and protection mechanisms are the fundamental behaviors required for an organism to survive. I’m sure you know how important it is to protect yourself. You may not realize though that growth is vitally important for your survival as well —even if you’re an adult who has reached your full height. Every day billions of cells in your body wear out and need to be replaced. For example, the entire cellular lining of your gut is replaced every seventy-two hours. In order to maintain this continuous turnover of cells, your body needs to expend a significant amount of energy daily.

By now you won’t be surprised to learn that I first became aware of how important growth and protection behaviors are in the laboratory where my observations of single cells have so often led me to insights about the multicellular human body. When I was cloning human endothelial cells, they retreated from toxins that I introduced into the culture dish, just as humans retreat from mountain lions and muggers in dark alleys. They also gravitated to nutrients, just as humans gravitate to breakfast, lunch, dinner, and love. These opposing movements define the two basic cellular responses to environmental stimuli. Gravitating to a life-sustaining signal, such as nutrients, characterizes a growth response; moving away from threatening signals, such as toxins, characterizes a protection response. It must also be noted that some environmental stimuli are neutral; they provoke neither a growth nor a protection response.

My research at Stanford showed that these growth/protection behaviors are also essential for the survival of multicellular organisms such as humans. But there is a catch to these opposing survival mechanisms that have evolved over billions of years. It turns out that the mechanisms that support growth and protection cannot operate optimally at the same time. In other words, cells cannot simultaneously move forward and backward. The human blood vessel cells I studied at Stanford exhibited one microscopic anatomy for providing nutrition and a completely different microscopic anatomy for providing a protection response. What they couldn’t do was exhibit both configurations at the same time. (Lipton, et al, 1991).

In a response similar to that displayed by cells, humans unavoidably restrict their growth behaviors when they shift into a protective mode. If you’re running from a mountain lion, it’s not a good idea to expend energy on growth. In order to survive—that is, escape the lion—you summon all your energy for your fight or flight response. Redistributing energy reserves to fuel the protection response inevitably results in a curtailment of growth.

In addition to diverting energy to support the tissues and organs needed for the protection response, there is an additional reason why growth is inhibited. Growth processes require an open exchange between an organism and its environment. For example, food is taken in and waste products are excreted. However, protection requires a closing down of the system to wall the organism off from the perceived threat.

Inhibiting growth processes is also debilitating in that growth is a process that not only expends energy but is also required to produce energy. Consequently, a sustained protection response inhibits the creation of life-sustaining energy. The longer you stay in protection, the more you compromise your growth. In fact, you can shut down growth processes so completely that it becomes a truism that you can be “scared to death.”

Thankfully, most of us don’t get to the “scared to death” point. Unlike single cells, the growth/protection response in multicellular organisms is not an either/or proposition—not all of our 50 trillion cells have to be in growth or protection mode at the same time. The proportion of cells in a protection response depends on the severity of the perceived threats. You can survive while under stress from these threats but chronic inhibition of growth mechanisms severely compromises your vitality. It is also important to note that to fully experience your vitality it takes more than just getting rid of life’s stressors. In a growth-protection continuum, eliminating the stressors only puts you at the neutral point in the range. To fully thrive, we must not only eliminate the stressors but also actively seek joyful, loving, fulfilling lives that stimulate growth processes."End Quote .

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=Ethos_ link=topic=52526.msg446260#msg446260 date=1418164079]
Real Life Show : Caught on Candid Camera :

I wanted to surprise our dear friends here below ,so, i planted some undetectable mini cams all over  the place where they were gathering to celebrate the holidays ahead of time .

Sir Don.......I must confess that I did enjoy your little melodrama. Much better than traditional soap opera I must say.

Sir Ethos : I thought so .No need to confess once again .You have already done that lol .Good  to know that you have a sense of humour. Thanks .


Quote
What truly astounds me is that someone as intelligent as you respectfully are could have such a mental block to what is so very obvious to the rest of us. Nothing in this world, will ever be fully understood or documented without the measure of observation by means of material resource, which by the way includes the brain.

Thanks, man . Anyway , science is not about the right of the majority though : it would have to take only one single scientist to turn science upside down .
The whole materialistic mainstream scientific community is simply wrong , big time, you have no idea , wrong about equating science with materialism at least , and hence the mind cannot be in the brain or brain activity , cannot be a material process...memories cannot be stored in the brain ...

Furthermore , empirical  evidence can be inferred ,indirectly, from other empirical evidence , like the fact that consciousness is a non-physical and non-local process ,a fact that can be inferred , indirectly , form other related empirical evidence on the subject .

Quote
When you constantly refer to "the immaterial" please ask yourself how the immaterial reconciles with even quantum physics. Even the quantum realm requires attention to material objects such as the smallest atomic units of mass and charge. If we leave out material, what is left? Nothingness

Ironically enough, QM can never be understood without reference to the mind ,simply because they are inseparably and inescapably intertwined with each other ,or as a prominent physicist said ,or in words to that same effect at least :

Will it not turn out that ,with the development of science , any progress in the study of the universe will be impossible without that in the study of consciousness ...since both are inseparably linked to each other .

Quote
Even the wave forms are disturbances in the fabric of space/time. And space/time can't ever be considered as immaterial.

See above . The very notions of space and time , space -time , gravity , mass,time , causality , reality , locality  ...would be turned on their heads ,if you only would take a look at them from the observer effect interpretation of QM where consciousness plays a central role in shaping the physical reality ,while getting influenced by the latter .
The mind of the observer cannot be separated from the observed so-called objective reality .There is no such thing as the independent observer or the independent observed objective reality ,since both are inseparable from each other ,as the mind cannot but exert a causal effect on its physical environment  ,while being influenced by the latter : our "reality " is just the product of that mutual interaction between our minds and our environments through our senses and brains and beyond .There is also what can be called extra-sensory perception, but that's another story .

Quote
How can you honestly reconcile this immaterial logic of yours with the material universe?

The universe is not   exclusively material or physical , as materialism wanna make you believe it is ,and hence materialism is false .The universe is also mental and the latter is irreducible to matter .
Better still : the mental is the key component or key 'building block " of the universe , a primary one at that , that is , no wonder that 0,000000...1 % of the universe , including ourselves thus , is "matter "....The latter is almost nothing in the universe: almost insignificant and irrelevant  .The whole population of earth can be contained within  an apple ,for example , if one would take all that empty space out of it .

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Quote
the mental is the key component or key 'building block " of the universe , a primary one at that

so what does it predicate (never mind predict) that isn't consistent with the material? 
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg446296#msg446296 date=1418224294]
... can you care to enlighten us about how such qualitative subjective memories that are a matter of qualitative subjective experiences , taste , preferences , aesthetics , morality , ethics ... can you tell us how they can be quantified or computed by the related or correlated quantitative brain activity ?

 Brain-damaged individuals can undergo a personality change,
becoming aggressive and/or libidinous
...

Quote from: caring.com
... some people with AD [ Alzheimer's Disease] do things that are totally uncharacteristic of personality before the disease. Swearing (yes, even precious sweet elderly ladies!), spitting, becoming socially inept and impulsive with inappropriate words or actions, and sexual advances may appear for some folks.
https://www.caring.com/questions/dementia-and-personality-change

 So their moral judgement has been modified by deactivation [destruction] of part of their brain .

And of course persons suffering from dementia lose their memory. 


We've talked about disease and disorder changing not only function and ability but Don sees it as being like a broken radio that no longer receives or transmits the true, nonlocal consciousness. Aside from lack of evidence for a receiver model, it's hard to explain changes to personality or morality, which Don also sees as attributes of the immaterial will. It's even harder to explain changes to qualitative conscious experience itself, as reported by the individual with a neurological disorder. (You aren't really confused, hallucinating, or having trouble remembering things, you only think you are. The real you is somewhere, doing just fine.)

It's hard to explain the qualitative personality and its related morality , memory and other changes that happen to people afflicted with dementia ,Alzheimer ...but that's no conclusive evidence for the materialistic intrinsic belief assumption that consciousness is just brain activity .

Well, consciousness has to work through its brain , so, any damage or changes to the related neuronal correlates can trigger changes in consciousness accordingly, and vice versa . .

Quote
But one thing we haven't talked about much is development which you also referred to. And it's interesting because it highlights not only changes in structure, plasticity, but the influence of learning and experience. Why should the expression of the immaterial mind change so predictably with physiological development?

See above the excerpts from a certain book of biologist Bruce Lipton concerning growth and protection on the subject and more .

When an individual grows up , he/she undergoes many experiences , learns many things and skills, is exposed to many information from the outside as well as from the inside worlds , exposed to many psychological and other challenges ,traumas ....so, his/her brain and the rest of his /her biology must cope with all that through biological changes , through neuroplasticity or through self-directed neuroplasticity ...
« Last Edit: 10/12/2014 19:02:24 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
the mental is the key component or key 'building block " of the universe , a primary one at that

so what does it predicate (never mind predict) that isn't consistent with the material?

Predict lol : This has become your signature , Alan, together with ...Jazz .

It predicates that the mind is more primordial and powerful than "matter "  can ever be (0,000000...1 % of the universe , including ourselves, is made of "matter " = the latter is the one that's almost  insignificant and almost irrelevant , not the mind , even though matter and mind are inseparable , in this life at least. ): the mind plays a central role in shaping its environment,including the brain and body ,  ,and the mind gets influenced by its "external " environment as well , including by the brain and body  , unlike that materialistic intrinsic absurd unscientific paradoxical belief assumption that the mind is just an irrelevant side effect or by-product of evolution without any causal effects on the physical reality , including on the brain , and that the mind is just a simulation , an evolutionary  illusory useful one computed by the brain , a simulation that feels real though = bullshit .

Without your mind , the features of which that do not obey the laws of physics at least , you wouldn't have been able to be conscious or aware , let alone become a physicist who likes to play or listen to Jazz lol

Jazz is too sad by the way , Alan, the blues at least  . How come you like it ? Jazz that's an African -American product .
« Last Edit: 10/12/2014 19:39:43 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
There are many theories of consciousness , some are  more or less plausible or scientific than the rest   : Take your pick :
I think that materialistic theories of consciousness must be discarded and eliminated totally ,since they all assume a -priori that consciousness is just the product of brain activity , a materialistic intrinsic  assumption that's false and that has been supported by a big zero empirical evidence: Looking for consciousness or the mind in the brain is a dead -end street  .
We're still almost in total darkness regarding how the mind works through the brain though .
Better still : we still do not know much about the brain itself , let alone about the mind :

Journal of Consciousness Studies :

http://www.imprint.co.uk/jcs.html
« Last Edit: 10/12/2014 20:17:38 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline Ethos_

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


Will it not turn out that ,with the development of science , any progress in the study of the universe will be impossible without that in the study of consciousness ...since both are inseparably linked to each other .


Are you suggesting that consciousness and the universe can't exist one without the other? If that is your position, I suggest that you consider the following question:

Where was consciousness at the Big Bang event. And we really don't need to go clear back to this time in history. Where was consciousness before the earth came into being? And even later in the historical record, where was consciousness before life first appeared upon this planet?

I suggest that consciousness is dependent upon the universal environment which gave us the material brain which developed over many millions of years. But the material environment was here long before that conscious intelligence developed. So consciousness and the universe were not inseparably linked from the beginning. Consciousness developed later in this story.

If you have evidence to prove otherwise, please present it to us.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=Ethos_ link=topic=52526.msg446329#msg446329 date=1418243145]

Will it not turn out that ,with the development of science , any progress in the study of the universe will be impossible without that in the study of consciousness ...since both are inseparably linked to each other .


Are you suggesting that consciousness and the universe can't exist one without the other?


Descartes left his and our minds to the church , remember , and the physical universe to science : how are we supposed to study the former through the latter without our minds lol

I am using this joke to illustrate the fact that materialism also says that the mind has no causal effects on the physical reality , let alone on the brain .Yet , without the causal efficacy of the mind on the physical brain and body , no science would exist , let alone the rest .

All i am saying is that since scientists, who  are also a part of this universe ,cannot but study the universe through their consciousnesses via the scientific method ,the latter that's a product of the mind in its mutual interactions with its environment , then consciousness cannot but be involved in all that ,cannot be separated from the observed so-called objective reality or observed universe,since consciousness does make part of this universe (The latter that cannot be just material or physical thus , but has to be also mental ) : they are intertwined with each other ,so, any real progress in the study of the universe might turn out ,some day , to be impossible without that in the study of consciousness : we see that happening already in QM, for example , QM that can  never be understood without reference to the mind , once again .

See Bell's theorem and its related experiments done by Aspect , Clauser and others that proved non-locality , introduced the limited notion of free will at the level of the kinds of measurements that physicists choose to apply , challenged the very foundations of reality ...

We must try to answer the major questions thus regarding how we are able to be aware or conscious of the universe and of ourselves, how come that we can try to understand the universe and ourselves , when or how consciousness emerged , what is its origin .,,,

Clearly , biological evolution cannot account for consciousness , since the latter cannot be reduced to material , neurophysiological or biological processes .

There are a lot more  unanswered questions on the subject we should try to explore as well , but the main problem is : we are stuck within our consciousnesses , in the sense that we are trying to study the subject through the subject , the subject trying to study itself .

Quote
If that is your position, I suggest that you consider the following question:
Where was consciousness at the Big Bang event. And we really don't need to go clear back to this time in history. Where was consciousness before the earth came into being? And even later in the historical record, where was consciousness before life first appeared upon this planet?

I don't know , but i think that the physical universe prior to life's and to man's appearance in it did exist as just probabilities , possibilities , eventualities ...waiting to be actualized , or as a scientist said :

It doesn't matter that the universe did exist billions of years before man entered its stage ,the universe exists because we are aware of it .

But then again , i am not sure about the above , who is ?

Quote
I suggest that consciousness is dependent upon the universal environment which gave us the material brain which developed over many millions of years. But the material environment was here long before that conscious intelligence developed. So consciousness and the universe were not inseparably linked from the beginning. Consciousness developed later in this story.

That's the chicken-egg question lol : which one existed first .

See above : biological evolution cannot account for consciousness, since the latter cannot be material or physical .

Materialism puts the horse behind the chariot lol : assumes that matter is primordial ( 0,00000...1 % of the universe, including ourselves thus ,  is made of "matter " though lol ) and the mind is just a by-product or side -effect of the so-called evolution of  the physical brain , and without any causal effects on the latter (Absurd paradoxical false intrinsic materialistic assumptions)  but the opposite  might be more plausible, i don't know ,since the mind is the one that's primordial ,and since materialism is false .

Quote
If you have evidence to prove otherwise, please present it to us.

lol I have more evidence for the fact that Sint Claus can be in many places at once lol, than for the above :

No one has any evidence  : QM might help clarify all that , to some extent at least , by proving the central role of consciousness in it , but how can we either prove or falsify the real nature of reality at the sub-atomic level at least when we are not observing or measuring it ? You tell me , Ethos .I don't know .

QM might also get superseded in its turn someday , who knows ?
« Last Edit: 10/12/2014 21:19:30 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

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

Source : "Quantum Enigma , Physics encounters consciousness : "

http://quantumenigma.com/

"According to Bell:
In his arguments with Bohr, Einstein was wrong in all the details.
Bohr understood the actual manipulation of quantum mechanics much better than Einstein. But still, in his philosophy of physics and his idea of what it is all about and what we are doing and should do, Einstein seems to be absolutely admirable. . . . [T]here is no doubt that he is, for me, the model of how one should think about physics."

.......


"Bell’s theorem and the experiments it fostered are responsible. They
did more than confi rm the weird predictions of quantum theory. The
experiments showed that no future theory could ever explain our actual
world as a “reasonable” one. Any correct future theory must describe a world in which objects do not have properties that are separately their own, independent of their “observation.” In principle, that applies to all objects. Even to us?"

............

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."

..........

.."When the experiments were done, Bell’s inequality was violated. Assumptions of reality and separability yielded a wrong prediction in our actual world.

Bell’s straw man was knocked down, as Bell expected it would be. Our world therefore does not have both reality and separability. It’s in this sense, an “unreasonable” world.
We immediately admit not understanding what the world lacking “reality” might mean. Even what “reality” itself might mean. In fact, whether or not reality is indeed required as a premise in Bell’s theorem is in dispute.
However, we need not deal with that right now.

 For our derivation of a Bell inequality, we assume a straightforward real world. Later, when we discuss the consequences of the violation of Bell’s inequality in our actual world, we’ll define a “reality” implicitly accepted by most physicists. It will leave us with a strangely connected world."

P.S : My emphasis : In short :

What we take  for granted as the physical universe or physical reality, through our mindful perception of it at least , might be just a mental construct of ours = the universe might be ...mental .

In other words : What we take for granted as reality or as the physical universe thus might be just a mental illusion .

I can't even imagine what that means .I can't even picture that or imagine that .Who can ?

That sounds insane to all of us indeed , but that's what QM has been saying anyway : Bell's theorem and its related experiments just supported and proved that fact more clearly than ever before .

Don't leave your mind to ...materialism then, Ethos lol , like Descartes did by leaving (  his) the mind to the church , metaphorically speaking then  lol .Use it to grasp the above and more .Your mind is not powerless .It is powerful , more powerful than you can ever imagine, you have no idea ,my friend Ethos .

That turns all what materialistic science has been saying about the origin of the universe , the origin of life , the evolution of life ...upside down, to say the least .

Welcome to the "real " world .Cheers.
« Last Edit: 10/12/2014 21:59:56 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline Ethos_

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


In other words : What we take for granted as reality or as the physical universe thus might be just a mental illusion .


That might be true if I were the only observer Don. But I'm not! I have support from millions of other people that experience the same observations. And this is why we test and observe and qualify those observations as genuine realities. The only other conclusion one could draw is that we are alone in our illusions and may be ourselves, nothing more than an illusion.

So humanity is left with a decision. Do I believe what I observe or do I invent my own reality. I think you'll remember what I said the latter course leads one to, it's called insanity. So you have a choice Don as each and everyone of us also has. Accept the evidence of observation or declare your very existence as an illusion.

Science chooses to take all reasonable information either observed by experiment or understood thru mathematics. It's all the evidence we have to judge this world by. And if, as you speculate, it's only an illusion, all the conclusions we will ever be able to draw from those illusions are also nothing more than only illusions! So why draw any conclusions at all?

I prefer the reality that is in agreement with others of my own kind and the world around me.
« Last Edit: 10/12/2014 22:25:12 by Ethos_ »
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."