0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
QuoteI would strongly recommend that you take anything to do with Dean Radin, particularly his own publications, with a very large pinch of salt indeed (be skeptical and apply critical thinking). I've already posted some instances of basic flaws found in his work that seem beyond careless or accidental. Proceed with extreme caution. Yeah, right : anything that would contradict your materialistic beliefs on the subject is by definition flawed or worse : that's a typical pattern of materialists by the way : so amusing , lame and dull .If you , as a scientist , would try to become as rigorous as Radin has been , you would go a long way .
I would strongly recommend that you take anything to do with Dean Radin, particularly his own publications, with a very large pinch of salt indeed (be skeptical and apply critical thinking). I've already posted some instances of basic flaws found in his work that seem beyond careless or accidental. Proceed with extreme caution.
Already forgot about Bell's theorem and its related experiments that challenged classical locality,classical determinism and classical realism as well ?
You really should let go of your materialistic dogmatic irrational ridiculous and unscientific certainty by reading this great book on the subject : we should always be aware of the existence of the unknown that cannot be ruled out ,no matter how predictable we think events are , be aware of the existence and unexpected rise of black swans : even the very history of science , its discoveries , progress ...were the results of the unexpected and unpredicted unpredictable rise of black swans in the above mentioned sense :
Since when have you become such an expert of QM ? What a nerve .
How do you know thus that about consciousness ? You don't even know what consciousness is .Nobody does in fact ....Consciousness is indeed a process...
but a non-physical and a non-local process that can have instantaneous non-local and non-mechanical causal effects on matter , and that without obeying any laws of physics whatsoever , per definition thus
P.S.: I have been having an extremely slow internet connection that irritated me and gave me a big headache : that has implications regarding the quality of the above .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 29/12/2014 19:42:41Let them try first to solve the mystery of the double slit experiment , the measurement or interpretation or observation problem in QM thus ,first .Why "first"? What question about it must be answered or solved first before excluding, (as they seemed to) that consciousness itself collapses the wavefunction?
Let them try first to solve the mystery of the double slit experiment , the measurement or interpretation or observation problem in QM thus ,first .
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg447595#msg447595 date=1419900429]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 29/12/2014 19:42:41QuoteI would strongly recommend that you take anything to do with Dean Radin, particularly his own publications, with a very large pinch of salt indeed (be skeptical and apply critical thinking). I've already posted some instances of basic flaws found in his work that seem beyond careless or accidental. Proceed with extreme caution. Yeah, right : anything that would contradict your materialistic beliefs on the subject is by definition flawed or worse : that's a typical pattern of materialists by the way : so amusing , lame and dull .If you , as a scientist , would try to become as rigorous as Radin has been , you would go a long way .If I was as rigorous as Radin, I too would have to make a living on the fringes of pseudoscience, rather than being comfortably retired.
But seriously, many moons ago, when all this was fields, I had great enthusiasm for Jahn and the Pricenton (PEAR) team, I had great respect for Sheldrake, and had hopes that Radin and his like would come up with fascinating, if not world-changing, results (probably much as the 'hippie' physicists that tested Bell's Inequalities felt when they found them to be violated). But it didn't happen. It fizzled out, and the ones who could take the disappointment moved onto other things, and the ones who couldn't persisted, and made careers as mavericks or selling pseudoscience to the gullible, according to their nature.
It was only when, on finally wondering what had happened to all those years of claims and promises of imminent breakthroughs, I did some background research and discovered the detailed critiques, failed replications, methodological flaws, statistical abuses (I'm looking at you, Radin), etc. So, with delicious irony, what I learned from those failures (and others) was partly responsible for my current skepticism of the paranormal, and got me into looking at recent research in the relevant areas - which only served to reinforce that skepticism.
But hey, by all means ignore my advice - carry on with your uncritical acceptance of Radin & co's product, and see what comes of it. Let me know when any of it produces something useful. Anything at all.
QuoteAlready forgot about Bell's theorem and its related experiments that challenged classical locality,classical determinism and classical realism as well ?Who could forget? I still remember the excitement at the time [8D]
QuoteYou really should let go of your materialistic dogmatic irrational ridiculous and unscientific certainty by reading this great book on the subject : we should always be aware of the existence of the unknown that cannot be ruled out ,no matter how predictable we think events are , be aware of the existence and unexpected rise of black swans : even the very history of science , its discoveries , progress ...were the results of the unexpected and unpredicted unpredictable rise of black swans in the above mentioned sense :I agree entirely - my current position is necessarily provisional. For the last four years I've been hoping the AWARE study would turn up something interesting, but no. I've already told you precisely what would be sufficient to make me seriously reconsider it, so go to it.
QuoteSince when have you become such an expert of QM ? What a nerve .You don't need to be an expert to know what a quantum system is Don.
QuoteHow do you know thus that about consciousness ? You don't even know what consciousness is .Nobody does in fact ....Consciousness is indeed a process... ROFL! you're a funny guy, Don [)]
Quotebut a non-physical and a non-local process that can have instantaneous non-local and non-mechanical causal effects on matter , and that without obeying any laws of physics whatsoever , per definition thus You realise that is a pretty solid definition of magic, right? []You don't really mean consciousness is magic, do you?
QuoteP.S.: I have been having an extremely slow internet connection that irritated me and gave me a big headache : that has implications regarding the quality of the above .Really? the speed of your internet connection affects the quality of your posts? You poor thing, that must be awful - and it seems to happen so often... []
"MATERIALIST THEORIES OF MIND" By Chris Carter : The theory of natural selection constitutes a strong argument against Huxley’s theory of the one-sided action of body on mind and for the mutual interaction of mind and body. Not only does the body act on the mind—for example, in perception, or in sickness—but our thoughts, our expectations, and our feelings may lead to useful actions in the physical world. If Huxley had been right, mind would be useless. But then it could not have evolved … by natural selection.
So from a strictly Darwinian approach, the mental powers of animals and men should be expected to lead to useful actions and should therefore be a causal influence in nature. According to this account, perceptions, emotions, judgments, and thoughts all have a real effect. And the more highly developed the mental powers, the more causal impact they should be expected to have.
However, Darwin’s viewpoint was thought to conflict with the physics of his time, which could specify no mechanism by which the mental could influence the physical. Arguments based on physics, being a more “basic” science than biology, were thought to trump arguments based on evolutionary theory. However, as we have seen, modern physics allows nonmechanical causation and has eliminated the causal closure of the physical.
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg447625#msg447625 date=1419969778]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 30/12/2014 19:24:57 "MATERIALIST THEORIES OF MIND" By Chris Carter : The theory of natural selection constitutes a strong argument against Huxley’s theory of the one-sided action of body on mind and for the mutual interaction of mind and body. Not only does the body act on the mind—for example, in perception, or in sickness—but our thoughts, our expectations, and our feelings may lead to useful actions in the physical world. If Huxley had been right, mind would be useless. But then it could not have evolved … by natural selection.You realize this contradicts everything you said earlier in response to my Ten Points, about consciousness and the mind not having an evolutionary and biological origin?
QuoteSo from a strictly Darwinian approach, the mental powers of animals and men should be expected to lead to useful actions and should therefore be a causal influence in nature. According to this account, perceptions, emotions, judgments, and thoughts all have a real effect. And the more highly developed the mental powers, the more causal impact they should be expected to have.Yep.
QuoteHowever, Darwin’s viewpoint was thought to conflict with the physics of his time, which could specify no mechanism by which the mental could influence the physical. Arguments based on physics, being a more “basic” science than biology, were thought to trump arguments based on evolutionary theory. However, as we have seen, modern physics allows nonmechanical causation and has eliminated the causal closure of the physicalThat summary is just wrong. Darwin did discuss behavior as a trait that could be selected for, in animals and in man, and there was no argument from physics that conflicted with it. All that was missing from his theory at the time was the mechanism of DNA, but good data is still good data, even without all the pieces of the puzzle.
However, Darwin’s viewpoint was thought to conflict with the physics of his time, which could specify no mechanism by which the mental could influence the physical. Arguments based on physics, being a more “basic” science than biology, were thought to trump arguments based on evolutionary theory. However, as we have seen, modern physics allows nonmechanical causation and has eliminated the causal closure of the physical
\You do realize that the above is inconsistent with all materialist theories of mind , do you ? that consider the mind as just a useless side effect or a by -product of evolution ,an epiphenomena , ironically and paradoxically enough .
Better still, some materialists would even say that subjective experiences ...are just useful illusory evolutionary simulations computed by the physical brain , simulations that feel real though lol, like Graziano argued .
I don't agree with that part of Carter's book of course regarding the biological evolution and the mind ....at least .I have just posted that to retell you about those false materialist theories of mind .Carter is a substance dualist , so he doesn't believe in that materialistic non-sense regarding the alleged evolutionary biological origin of consciousness, needless to add .
I don't see either how the biological evolution can ever account for consciousness and the mind .It absolutely can't ,since consciousness is neither reducible to biology nor can it be an emergent property of the so-called evolutionary complexity of the physical brain ,no way .How can materialist Darwin account for the causal efficacy of the mind then ?
Well, you should have read the previous quote more carefully :Classical physics were /are deterministic and causally closed ,so it made/ makes no room whatsoever for any causal efficacy of the mind .So, Darwin's viewpoint concerning the causal efficacy of the mind did conflict with the classical physics of his time as well as with his deterministic materialism that was built upon classical physics , ironically and paradoxically enough .QM did replace the classical deterministic universe with the probabilistic one that allowed /allows for a non-mechanical causation of the mind by eliminating the causal closure of the physical thus .
Happy new year , lady .Happy new year to all of you , guys .Best wishes.
A lots of exciting and fascinating things have been happening ,thanks to the works of many non-materialist scientists .You're just too a dogmatic materialist to either notice or acknowledge that fact .
QuoteQuotebut a non-physical and a non-local process that can have instantaneous non-local and non-mechanical causal effects on matter , and that without obeying any laws of physics whatsoever , per definition thus You realise that is a pretty solid definition of magic, right? []You don't really mean consciousness is magic, do you?If you're interested in inexplicable 'scientific " magic , all you have to do is check out your own "scientific " materialism : stop projecting thus .
Materialism is just a false outdated and superseded 19th century ideology that has been equated with science , ironically and paradoxically enough ,while turning science into a dogmatic ideology or secular atheistic religion,unfortunately enough .
You're a real jerk ,you know that ? A depressing dogmatic fool who thinks himself to be wise or funny .
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg447635#msg447635 date=1419990079]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 30/12/2014 18:29:18A lots of exciting and fascinating things have been happening ,thanks to the works of many non-materialist scientists .You're just too a dogmatic materialist to either notice or acknowledge that fact .Just let me know when they come up with something interesting or useful and I'll notice and acknowledge it.
QuoteQuoteQuotebut a non-physical and a non-local process that can have instantaneous non-local and non-mechanical causal effects on matter , and that without obeying any laws of physics whatsoever , per definition thus You realise that is a pretty solid definition of magic, right? []You don't really mean consciousness is magic, do you?If you're interested in inexplicable 'scientific " magic , all you have to do is check out your own "scientific " materialism : stop projecting thus .I'm just quoting your own words Don. Care to explain how 'a non-physical and a non-local process that can have instantaneous non-local and non-mechanical causal effects on matter , and that without obeying any laws of physics whatsoever' differs from magic ?
QuoteMaterialism is just a false outdated and superseded 19th century ideology that has been equated with science , ironically and paradoxically enough ,while turning science into a dogmatic ideology or secular atheistic religion,unfortunately enough .Your the only one whining constantly about materialism. As I said before, I couldn't care less about your personal stereotype of materialism; I'm not a subscriber. Respond to the posts, not some straw man philosophical stereotype.
QuoteYou're a real jerk ,you know that ? A depressing dogmatic fool who thinks himself to be wise or funny .Lol! I don't need to be funny while you're around [)]You spend a whole post (and a past history of insults) on ad-hominems, then call me a jerk for one trivial quip. Look to the log in your own eye pal. You may like to feel superior by being a jerk yourself, but you cry when some one does it back to you. Maybe if you learned to be a little more pleasant and addressed the argument rather than a straw man stereotype of the arguer, you wouldn't get treated like a jerk yourself.
But cheer up - you've got a whole new year to find something useful from 'Post Materialistic Science', and to find a plausible and credible rebuttal of the Yu & Nikolic paper ('Quantum mechanics needs no consciousness'). If your model of the world is scientific, testable, and right, you shouldn't have any difficulty at all (snicker).
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg447630#msg447630 date=1419979970]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 30/12/2014 19:24:57You do realize that the above is inconsistent with all materialist theories of mind , do you ? that consider the mind as just a useless side effect or a by -product of evolution ,an epiphenomena , ironically and paradoxically enough .I don't think consciousness is an epiphenomena, and I don't know of any neuroscientists who do, as I've explained several times before in response to Carter's straw man argument.
You do realize that the above is inconsistent with all materialist theories of mind , do you ? that consider the mind as just a useless side effect or a by -product of evolution ,an epiphenomena , ironically and paradoxically enough .
QuoteBetter still, some materialists would even say that subjective experiences ...are just useful illusory evolutionary simulations computed by the physical brain , simulations that feel real though lol, like Graziano argued .I'm not even sure how to make sense of that statement. If they are useful, then they aren't epiphenomena. Simulations in what way? Our perceptions and qualia correspond with reality well enough for us to navigate the world, but do they provide us with all of the information - can we see in the ultra violet range or echolocate like bats or sense magnetic fields like migrating birds? No, so perhaps in that sense our perception is a limited "simulation" of reality. So?
QuoteI don't agree with that part of Carter's book of course regarding the biological evolution and the mind ....at least .I have just posted that to retell you about those false materialist theories of mind .Carter is a substance dualist , so he doesn't believe in that materialistic non-sense regarding the alleged evolutionary biological origin of consciousness, needless to add .Then it's strange that he would do a 180 and attempt to use evolution in his argument. Perhaps he thought no one would notice.
QuoteI don't see either how the biological evolution can ever account for consciousness and the mind .It absolutely can't ,since consciousness is neither reducible to biology nor can it be an emergent property of the so-called evolutionary complexity of the physical brain ,no way .How can materialist Darwin account for the causal efficacy of the mind then ? Because animals that behaved in certain ways survived while others didn't.
QuoteWell, you should have read the previous quote more carefully :Classical physics were /are deterministic and causally closed ,so it made/ makes no room whatsoever for any causal efficacy of the mind .So, Darwin's viewpoint concerning the causal efficacy of the mind did conflict with the classical physics of his time as well as with his deterministic materialism that was built upon classical physics , ironically and paradoxically enough .QM did replace the classical deterministic universe with the probabilistic one that allowed /allows for a non-mechanical causation of the mind by eliminating the causal closure of the physical thus .It makes no room for the causal efficacy of the mind if you assume the mind and the brain are separate entities, and behavior, including the ability to learn from experience, is not in any way a genetic trait. It's not a problem for either biologists or physicists -interaction between the immaterial and the brain is just a problem for mystics and substance dualists - another weakness of that theory.
QuoteHappy new year , lady .Happy new year to all of you , guys .Best wishes.Happy New Year to you as well.
Who the hell do you think you are anyway ?You wouldn't notice,see, or acknowledge counter-evidence against materialism even if it would hit you in the eye ,so , why should i bother then ...Pfft...Don't be stupid ,you silly materialist dogmatic magician ......Do the same instead of trolling this stupid way then ....Why don't you get a real life ? Are you that masochistic ? ...You can expand the meaning of "stupid " in the above lines as to encompass fool , dogmatic , arrogant , uninteresting,sterile ......Happy new year anyway ,dlorde.Best wishes .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 31/12/2014 18:05:39Who the hell do you think you are anyway ?You wouldn't notice,see, or acknowledge counter-evidence against materialism even if it would hit you in the eye ,so , why should i bother then ...Pfft...Don't be stupid ,you silly materialist dogmatic magician ......Do the same instead of trolling this stupid way then ....Why don't you get a real life ? Are you that masochistic ? ...You can expand the meaning of "stupid " in the above lines as to encompass fool , dogmatic , arrogant , uninteresting,sterile ......Happy new year anyway ,dlorde.Best wishes . Pretty much speaks for itself []
QuoteThe claim that we do make is that since by your choice of experiment you can determine whether the object in our 2-box experiment was in one box or both,
The claim that we do make is that since by your choice of experiment you can determine whether the object in our 2-box experiment was in one box or both,
Yes......................a disgusting display of insulting arrogance! There's really no excuse for such behavior.
Quote from: Ethos_ on 01/01/2015 04:18:33Yes......................a disgusting display of insulting arrogance! There's really no excuse for such behavior. What's disturbing is the weird contrast of a barrage of insults, followed by cheerful best wishes for the new year. Something not quite right about that...
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 31/12/2014 21:19:18 QuoteThe claim that we do make is that since by your choice of experiment you can determine whether the object in our 2-box experiment was in one box or both, In other words, mass and charge are not conserved, if I choose not to conserve them. So I can take one atom of gold, and by choice alone, make another, ad infinitum. The implications are remarkable, if not absurd.
Quote from: dlorde on 01/01/2015 01:43:38Quote from: DonQuichotte on 31/12/2014 18:05:39Who the hell do you think you are anyway ?You wouldn't notice,see, or acknowledge counter-evidence against materialism even if it would hit you in the eye ,so , why should i bother then ...Pfft...Don't be stupid ,you silly materialist dogmatic magician ......Do the same instead of trolling this stupid way then ....Why don't you get a real life ? Are you that masochistic ? ...You can expand the meaning of "stupid " in the above lines as to encompass fool , dogmatic , arrogant , uninteresting,sterile ......Happy new year anyway ,dlorde.Best wishes . Pretty much speaks for itself []Yes......................a disgusting display of insulting arrogance! There's really no excuse for such behavior.