Paranormal Experiences and Sleep Paralysis

[Gambit]

No it isn''t , it has been thoroughly susbstantiated.
I asked you a question, are you going to answer it?

Well, if it has been substantiated, then where's your documentation to support that claim?

 

[Bunyip]

Well, if it has been substantiated, then where's your documentation to support that claim?

First please answer my question. Then I can provide endless documentation.

 

[MD]

Science has shown that conscious experience is a product of biochemical activity. It is readily proveable.

My God your arguments get stupider and stupider every month Bunyip. Science has shown a correlation between conscious experience and biochemicals. There is no causal mechanism by which biochemicals create conscious experiences. The very fact that you made such a ridiculous blatant assertion shows how wrong you are about your own claims, even if you present them with such arrogance.

 

[MD]

***staff edit***

You back up your claims first. You're the one spouting nonsense here. Biochemicals? Wow and you think you're smart?

'Biochemicals' as in neurotransmitters work on different parts of post synaptic receptors which give rise to different potentiation between neurons. This potentiation somehow gives rise to subjective experience, and we have no idea how that happens or what is going on. This is also known as the Hard Problem. If you don't know these basic concepts your idiotic arguments fall flat .

And I'm not your bud. Quite frankly I've never really liked you, ***staff edit***.

 

[shawn001]

That's just an unsubstantiated claim.

To someone who knows nothing about neuroscience perhaps.

That's just an unsubstantiated claim.

I think you missed or did not read this post. Which is old research now.

"
The Electric Brain

• Posted 10.23.01
• NOVA

How does a three-pound mass of wet gray tissue (the brain) succeed in representing the external world so beautifully? In this interview with noted neuroscientist Rodolfo Llinás of the New York University School of Medicine, find out how the rhythm of electrical oscillations in the brain gives rise to consciousness, and how failures in this rhythm can lead to a variety of brain disorders."

NOVA | The Electric Brain

 

[Bunyip]

To someone who knows nothing about neuroscience perhaps.



I think you missed or did not read this post. Which is old research now.

"
The Electric Brain

• Posted 10.23.01
• NOVA

How does a three-pound mass of wet gray tissue (the brain) succeed in representing the external world so beautifully? In this interview with noted neuroscientist Rodolfo Llinás of the New York University School of Medicine, find out how the rhythm of electrical oscillations in the brain gives rise to consciousness, and how failures in this rhythm can lead to a variety of brain disorders."

NOVA | The Electric Brain

Not to forget neuropsychology and behavioural neurology. You could keep posting references to solid research showing that consciousness and thought are a product of biochemical interactions for weeks, there is a truly vast body of evidence.

 

[MD]

To someone who knows nothing about neuroscience perhaps.



I think you missed or did not read this post. Which is old research now.

"
The Electric Brain

• Posted 10.23.01
• NOVA

How does a three-pound mass of wet gray tissue (the brain) succeed in representing the external world so beautifully? In this interview with noted neuroscientist Rodolfo Llinás of the New York University School of Medicine, find out how the rhythm of electrical oscillations in the brain gives rise to consciousness, and how failures in this rhythm can lead to a variety of brain disorders."

NOVA | The Electric Brain

These are correlations, not causal since the mechanism itself is a total mystery. Please do your research before trying to one up someone else.

 

[Bunyip]

These are correlations, not causal since the mechanism itself is a total mystery. Please do your research before trying to one up someone else.

So what? It still demonstrates that consciousness is a product of biochemical activity. Whether we know the cause or understand the mechanism or not. It can still be demonstrated that consciousness is a product of biochemistry.

We can still demonstrate that gravity exists without understanding either the cause or the mechanism. They are irrelevant to the claim in hand.

 

[MD]

So what? It still demonstrates that consciousness is a product of biochemical activity. Whether we know the cause or understand the mechanism or not. It can still be demonstrated that consciousness is a product of biochemistry.

We can still demonstrate that gravity exists without understanding either the cause or the mechanism. They are irrelevant to the claim in hand.

That's a big leap since the causal mechanism is unknown. And it's incredibly incomplete since it's not only 'biochemicals', but rather a whole heap of things like networks, neurotransmitters and vascular supply. Saying biochemicals is a **** poor incomplete explanation as it is. And even then with all this the leap towards the causal mechanism is unknown. For all we know consciousness is ubiquitous in the universe and the brain simply channels it into a certain pattern which gives rise to our own conscious minds. It's everywhere and at different levels of expression in different systems. Heck that's what IIT says and it's supposed to be the most scientifically thorough explanation of consciousness in literature today.

Your gravity analogy was flawed as well since we are proving it exists, not that it is the byproduct of planets interacting with each other. Gravity itself is space and time curving around planets. Space and time is another concept which we can't explain.

 

[Bunyip]

That's a big leap since the causal mechanism is unknown. And it's incredibly incomplete since it's not only 'biochemicals', but rather a whole heap of things like networks, neurotransmitters and vascular supply.

No idea what 'leap' you are referring to - but the networks, neuro transmitters and vascular supply you mention are all elements of biochemistry. It's like saying "It's not only cars! How incredibly incomplete! There are also Hondas, Subarus, Chevies and Fords!"

Saying biochemicals is a **** poor incomplete explanation as it is.

Again, I have no idea what point you are making, perhaps you have confused me for somebody else? I never 'said biochemicals' as a complete explanation of anything.

- And even then with all this the leap towards the causal mechanism is unknown. For all we know consciousness is ubiquitous in the universe and the brain simply channels it into a certain pattern which gives rise to our own conscious minds.

There is no evidence to support that contention whatsoever - which is ironic as you seem to take great offence at whay you see as unsubstantiated claims.

It's everywhere and at different levels of expression in different systems.

Your gravity analogy was flawed as well since we are proving it exists, not that it is the byproduct of planets interacting with each other.

So what? All I said was that we can prove it exists, just as we can porve thoughts to be a product of b.iochemical processes.

Gravity itself is space and time curving around planets. Space and time is another concept which we can't explain.

So what?[/quote][/quote]

 

[Gambit]

To someone who knows nothing about neuroscience perhaps.

I cited Christof Koch.

I think you missed or did not read this post. Which is old research now.

It would appear that Sam Harris did too.

While there is much to be said against a naive conception of a soul that is independent of the brain, the place of consciousness in the natural world is very much an open question. The idea that brains produce consciousness is little more than an article of faith among scientists at present, and there are many reasons to believe that the methods of science will be insufficient to either prove or disprove it. (source: pg. 208, "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris)

 

[MD]

***deleted post***

Hahaha electricity is not the same as biochemistry, anyone who has taken basic science in school would know that. My God your attempts are becoming more and more hilarious.

The Hard Problem basically asks what causes consciousness. You said it was 'BIOCHEMISTRY!' when it's clearly much much more than that and then some. And there's no great controversy over the Hard Problem anymore. I dare you to find this 'controversy' and present it to me. In fact I double dare ya

 

[shawn001]

I cited Christof Koch.



It would appear that Sam Harris did too.

First

Christof Koch.

"While the ancient Egyptians and Hebrews placed the psyche in the heart and the Mayans located it in the liver, we now know that the conscious mind is a product of the brain. That the world of the mind is closely related to the physical structure of the brain is dramatically demonstrated by a stroke or a strong blow to the head that extinguishes conscious experiences."

Consciousness Is Everywhere | Christof Koch

Sam Harris is an atheist and doesn't believe in the paranormal.

Second your quote is from Sam Harris in 2005. Its 2014 and neuroscience knows a whole lot more then in 2005. Ten years later.

They think recently they might have found "The SEAT" of consciousness. Although this is a study with one person. There is another team as well.

Consciousness on-off switch discovered deep in brain

Consciousness on-off switch discovered deep in brain - life - 02 July 2014 - New Scientist

By the way your defeating your own paranormal ideas by posting those scientists.

Nor do you seem to understand the discussion of the actual neuroscience and how the brain works. That would be a good start and its REALLY interesting.

Someone to look into if you want to learn some neuroscience Dr. V.S. Ramachandran.

"Vilayanur Ramachandran has been called a Sherlock Holmes of neuroscience. Director of the Center for Brain and Cognition at the University of California, San Diego, and adjunct professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California, Ramachandran has brilliantly sleuthed his way through some of the strangest maladies of the human mind."

He has helped a lot of people with

"In cases of phantom limbs, amputees and even those born without one or more limbs feel pain and other sensations in their missing body parts. Here, read neuroscientist V.S. Ramachandran's vivid descriptions of his experiences with phantom-limb patients and how he has managed to understand their singular dilemmas and thereby help them."

NOVA | From Ramachandran's Notebook

But he has done a lot more in the field of neuroscience.

 

[Bunyip]

Hahaha electricity is not the same as biochemistry, anyone who has taken basic science in school would know that. My God your attempts are becoming more and more hilarious.

I know that electricity is not the same as biochemistry - where on earth did you get that from? Electrical mm impulses created by organisms is biochemistry though.

The Hard Problem basically asks what causes consciousness. You said it was 'BIOCHEMISTRY!' when it's clearly much much more than that and then some. And there's no great controversy over the Hard Problem anymore. I dare you to find this 'controversy' and present it to me. In fact I double dare ya

I already told you that there is great controversy about whether the 'hard problem' even exists. Cause is irrelevant to the fact that consciousness is a product of the physical brain. What do you even mean by 'find the controversy'?

Massimo Pugliucci, Daniel Dennet and many others have argued that the 'hard problem' does not exist. Glen Carruthers and Elizabeth Schier from Maquarie University recently did a brilliant presentation called "Dissolving the hard problem of consciousness".,

Sam Harris' s comments are 10 years out of date, today the so called 'hard problem' has faded in its importance as an increasing number of academics simply abandon it. Nowadays it is found far more often in the context of parapsychology than in philosophy or neuro biology.

 

[MD]

I know that electricity is not the same as biochemistry - where on earth did you get that from? Electrical mm impulses created by organisms is biochemistry though.I already told you that there is great controversy about whether the 'hard problem' even exists. Cause is irrelevant to the fact that consciousness is a product of the physical brain. What do you even mean by 'find the controversy'?

Massimo Pugliucci, Daniel Dennet and many others have argued that the 'hard problem' does not exist. Glen Carruthers and Elizabeth Schier from Maquarie University recently did a brilliant presentation called "Dissolving the hard problem of consciousness".,

Sam Harris' s comments are 10 years out of date, today the so called 'hard problem' has faded in its importance as an increasing number of academics simply abandon it. Nowadays it is found far more often in the context of parapsychology than in philosophy or neuro biology.

***staff edit*** Electricity is not the same as biochemistry. Anyone with basic grade school education would know that, ***staff edit*** ?

There is no controversy over whether the hard problem exists. Aside from Dennett, the names you have provided aren't well known academics from some University in Australia. And Dennett's explanation on consciousness is laughed at because he pretty much explains it away.

Look you really have no freaking clue as to what you're talking about. Like really you don't. Arguing with you is how it feels to argue with creationists. You simply don't want to accept the truth and keep on making up fantastic tales to deny it.

A) Most prominent neuroscientists such as Christof Koch and Ramachandran state that qualia exists. Koch is one of the most prominent neuroscientists in the world and IIT includes the Hard Problem. Ramachandran has written laws of qualia. Even Edelman and Damasio acknowledged that the Hard Problem existed.

B) The AI industry The entire AI industry sees the Hard Problem as something real and difficult to tackle and it is one reason why Artificial consciousness is seen as possibly an impossible task. Even die hard technophiles like Ray Kurzweil agree that the Hard Problem exists. Chalmers is a computer scientist

C) Searle, Chomsky and intentionality

So aside from your obscure academics I've given you the leaders in their fields and an industry who acknowledge that the Hard Problem exists. I mean to be honest anyone who doesn't think the Hard Problem exists is trying to serve their own ego by claiming that it's an illusion, which is such a preposterous idea that I wonder how it passes Peer Review. Then again so does some intelligent design.

 

[allfoak]

No it isn''t , it has been thoroughly susbstantiated.
I asked you a question, are you going to answer it?

Those that have met their Soul would have to disagree with the conclusions of science.

 

[Gambit]

"While the ancient Egyptians and Hebrews placed the psyche in the heart and the Mayans located it in the liver, we now know that the conscious mind is a product of the brain. That the world of the mind is closely related to the physical structure of the brain is dramatically demonstrated by a stroke or a strong blow to the head that extinguishes conscious experiences."

Consciousness Is Everywhere | Christof Koch

Consciousness is everywhere? Huh? Interesting. That's sounds like panpsychism.

“The electric charge of an electron doesn’t arise out of more elemental properties. It simply has a charge,” says Koch. “Likewise, I argue that we live in a universe of space, time, mass, energy, and consciousness arising out of complex systems.”

What Koch proposes is a scientifically refined version of an ancient philosophical doctrine called panpsychism — and, coming from someone else, it might sound more like spirituality than science.

(source: "A Neuroscientist’s Radical Theory of How Networks Become Conscious" by Brandon Keim, "Wired (magazine)"

Sam Harris is an atheist and doesn't believe in the paranormal.

Does Harris really identify himself as an atheist?

"My concern with the use of the term “atheism” is both philosophical and strategic. I’m speaking from a somewhat unusual and perhaps paradoxical position because, while I am now one of the public voices of atheism, I never thought of myself as an atheist before being inducted to speak as one. I didn’t even use the term in The End of Faith, which remains my most substantial criticism of religion."

(source: "The Problem with Atheism" by Sam Harris, "The Washington Post")

And it would appear that Harris does believe in psychic phenomena.

"There also seems to be a body of data attesting to the reality of psychic phenomena, much of which has been ignored by mainstream science,[18]"

(source: pg. 41, "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris)

Second your quote is from Sam Harris in 2005. Its 2014 and neuroscience knows a whole lot more then in 2005. Ten years later.

Is that why Harris's most recent book is entitled "Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion"?

 

[Godobeyer]

There appears to be a direct connection between paranormal experiences and sleep paralysis (and the closely related states of consciousness technically known as hypnagogia and hypnopompia). Such paranormal experiences include (but are not limited to) encounters with shadow people, ghosts, demonic entities (e.g. succubus and incubus), visitations from the dead, alien abductions, OBEs (out-of-body experiences).

Question:

Have any of you had such experiences? If so, what is your take on it?

I experience it once in Madinah in age 17, i was lying in bed trying to sleep , then suddenly i feel something touch me (get inside me) from bottom of my feet , and in same time i paralysed for 10 to 15 seconds , than that thing gone .

 

[Bunyip]

Those that have met their Soul would have to disagree with the conclusions of science.

So would those who have met pixies, leprechauns and smurfs I imagine.

 

[Bunyip]

***staff edit*** Electricity is not the same as biochemistry. Anyone with basic grade school education would know that, ***staff edit*** ?

Yes you said that in a previous post and I pointed out that I never said it was. Of course eclectricity is not the same as biochemistry (second time).

There is no controversy over whether the hard problem exists. Aside from Dennett, the names you have provided aren't well known academics from some University in Australia. And Dennett's explanation on consciousness is laughed at because he pretty much explains it away.

Look you really have no freaking clue as to what you're talking about. Like really you don't. Arguing with you is how it feels to argue with creationists. You simply don't want to accept the truth and keep on making up fantastic tales to deny it.

Personal attacks are not an argument mate. If you had an argument or an intelligent rebuttal you would have posted it.

A) Most prominent neuroscientists such as Christof Koch and Ramachandran state that qualia exists. Koch is one of the most prominent neuroscientists in the world and IIT includes the Hard Problem. Ramachandran has written laws of qualia. Even Edelman and Damasio acknowledged that the Hard Problem existed.

B) The AI industry The entire AI industry sees the Hard Problem as something real and difficult to tackle and it is one reason why Artificial consciousness is seen as possibly an impossible task. Even die hard technophiles like Ray Kurzweil agree that the Hard Problem exists. Chalmers is a computer scientist.

Reading your responses, you seem very mixed up about what the 'hard problem' actually is. It is not arguing that consciousness is physical, or that it is not a product of the physical mind. It doesn't actually conflict with my position. As i said, the 'hard problem' is an idea from Chalmers, it is not a scientific law, it has never been universally accepted and does not argue what you seem to think.

C) Searle, Chomsky and intentionality

So aside from your obscure academics I've given you the leaders in their fields and an industry who acknowledge that the Hard Problem exists. I mean to be honest anyone who doesn't think the Hard Problem exists is trying to serve their own ego by claiming that it's an illusion, which is such a preposterous idea that I wonder how it passes Peer Review. Then again so does some intelligent design.

The 'hard problem' is controversial - it has never been universally accepted and it is hotly contested whether it even exists or not. Your denial of that simple truth is not a rational rebuttal.