Paranormal Experiences and Sleep Paralysis

[shawn001]

If you bothered to read more than post bits and pieces from articles, it would serve you well.

Ramachandran has made laws on qualia. Qualia are part of the Hard Problem, he acknowledges that subjective experiences exist.

Koch (and Tononi) has basically come out and said that consciousness is a fabric of the universe. You really should do your homework first before trying to prove someone wrong when in fact you look awfully ignorant.

No need to be insulting here, as we have never talked or corresponded.

I brought Ramachandran up, because he is one of the leaders in the field of Neuroscience and have not once in any thread mentioned the Hard Problem.

"
Is a worm conscious? How about a bumblebee? Does a computer that can play chess “feel” anything?

To Christof Koch, chief scientific officer of the Allen Institute for Brain Science in Seattle, the answer to these questions may lie in the fabric of the universe itself. Consciousness, he believes, is an intrinsic property of matter, just like mass or energy. Organize matter in just the right way, as in the mammalian brain, andvoilà, you can feel."

I am also aware of this

"“integrated information theory,” which asserts that consciousness is a product of structures, like the brain, that can both store a large amount of information and have a critical density of interconnections between their parts."

Allen Institute’s Christof Koch on Computer Consciousness | MIT Technology Review


Of course matter is energy and mass.



I am also involved in Cognitive computing, although not one of the researchers.

 

[shawn001]

The "Sagan Standard" is often invoked by skeptics.



What does Carl Sagan say on the matter of parapsychology?

Carl who was great, died in 96. I have personally no problem with anyone studying anything, its the evidence for the supernatural that creates the problem here with your beliefs and still no evidence.

You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe.
--Carl Sagan


You also might want to not cheery pick onnce again here and post the full quote from Sagan which again was in 96.

"”At the time of writing there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study: (1) that by thought alone humans can (barely) affect random number generators in computers; (2) that people under mild sensory deprivation can receive thoughts or images ”projected” at them; and (3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any way other than reincarnation. I pick these claims not because I think they’re likely to be valid (I don’t), but as examples of contentions that might be true.”
(source: p. 302, "The Demon-Haunted World" by Carl Sagan)

 

[gsa]

Carl who was great, died in 96. I have personally no problem with anyone studying anything, its the evidence for the supernatural that creates the problem here with your beliefs and still no evidence.

You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe.
--Carl Sagan


You also might want to not cheery pick onnce again here and post the full quote from Sagan which again was in 96.

"”At the time of writing there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study: (1) that by thought alone humans can (barely) affect random number generators in computers; (2) that people under mild sensory deprivation can receive thoughts or images ”projected” at them; and (3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any way other than reincarnation. I pick these claims not because I think they’re likely to be valid (I don’t), but as examples of contentions that might be true.”
(source: p. 302, "The Demon-Haunted World" by Carl Sagan)

That book had a profound influence on me back in the day. Wonderful read; should be required reading in high school (I read it in Middle School, but I'd settle for late adolescence).

 

[Bunyip]

You keep on switching on yourself, are you confused?

No, I am neother confused nor am I 'switching'.

You can't handle criticism and then you call it personal attacks? Sounds like you have a problem with being wrong, maybe it's something you should consider changing in your life. Deleting posts and then backtracking on what you said does nothing more than to show that you're a liar.

No, accusations like that make you the liar mate, not me.

You specifically said Biochemistry is all there is to consciousness, now you are dishonestly running away like a child from this claim.

I made no such claim, your tactics are apallingly infantile.

You actually have confusion with what the Hard Problem is. It is basically asking how does consciousness arise from the brain. It is the ontological gap. The idea is not from Chalmers, and anyone with any basic knowledge in the history of philosophy would know that. It's an ancient problem and Chalmers just gave it that name for now.

I know what the hard problem is - but unlike you I do not confuse it for evidence of the paranormal.

I pretty much gave three huge fields which deal with cognition where it's not controversial anymore and it's not hotly contested. Providing some sources from obscure academics and a philosopher whose views have been debunked does nothing more than show that you're no different from those climate change deniers who provide one or two scientists to claim that climate change is 'controversial'.

Your arguments are nothing short of pathetic.

At least they are arguments, rather than your tantrums, abuse and inventions.

Do you actually have an argument? If so, cut out all the shenanigans and present it.

 

[MD]

No, I am neother confused nor am I 'switching'.No, accusations like that make you the liar mate, not me. I made no such claim, your tactics are apallingly infantile. I know what the hard problem is - but unlike you I do not confuse it for evidence of the paranormal. At least they are arguments, rather than your tantrums, abuse and inventions.

Do you actually have an argument? If so, cut out all the shenanigans and present it.

I have, you just fail to notice them as usual.

There is no clear causal mechanism by which consciousness arises
Consciousness encompasses things which are not physically describable (such as qualia and intentionality)

Thus, it is more than simply 'biochemistry' as you so poorly put it. By more it could simply be another property of the universe itself.

 

[MD]

Carl who was great, died in 96. I have personally no problem with anyone studying anything, its the evidence for the supernatural that creates the problem here with your beliefs and still no evidence.

You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe.
--Carl Sagan


You also might want to not cheery pick onnce again here and post the full quote from Sagan which again was in 96.

"”At the time of writing there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study: (1) that by thought alone humans can (barely) affect random number generators in computers; (2) that people under mild sensory deprivation can receive thoughts or images ”projected” at them; and (3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any way other than reincarnation. I pick these claims not because I think they’re likely to be valid (I don’t), but as examples of contentions that might be true.”
(source: p. 302, "The Demon-Haunted World" by Carl Sagan)

The Study of Fundamental Consciousness Entering the Mainstream | Collective-Evolution

Tononi states:

“Consciousness is a fundamental property, like mass or charge. Wherever there is an entity with multiple states, there is some consciousness. You need a special structure to get a lot of it but consciousness is everywhere, it is a fundamental property.”

 

[Bunyip]

I have, you just fail to notice them as usual.

There is no clear causal mechanism by which consciousness arises

That is irrelevant to my argument. Consciousness is still clearly a product of the physical brain. That we do not yet fully understand the mechanism is not evidence of the paranormal, nor does it refute my position.

Consciousness encompasses things which are not physically describable (such as qualia and intentionality)

Thus, it is more than simply 'biochemistry' as you so poorly put it. By more it could simply be another property of the universe itself.

I never put it in that way, so you are tilting at windmills.

 

[MD]

That is irrelevant to my argument. Consciousness is still clearly a product of the physical brain. That we do not yet fully understand the mechanism is not evidence of the paranormal, nor does it refute my position. I never put it in that way, so you are tilting at windmills.

There's no proof that it is the product of the brain, that's also a faith based statement.

As such it holds as much water as consciousness being a property of the universe and the brain channeling it into what we know as our minds.

 

[Bunyip]

There's no proof that it is the product of the brain, that's also a faith based statement.

Not at all, it is an observation. There is no consciousness known other than that which is a product of a ohysical brain, damage or destroy the brain and the consciousness is gone.

As such it holds as much water as consciousness being a property of the universe and the brain channeling it into what we know as our minds.

No, that hypothesis has no observable evidence.

What made you imagine that the fact that we do not yet fully understand the mechanism infers that consciousness is not a product of the mind?

I pointed out that there is a great deal of controversy over whether the hard problem even exists or not and gave citations - you dismissed them on frankly no rational pretext. You can similarly dismiss any further examples or citations I supply - so clearly that is a waste of time with you.

You quote Tononi, and expect it to be swallowed as gospel, I refer to Dennet and you dismiss him along with the others out of hand - that's not debate mate.

 

[Bunyip]

I see the 'hard problem' as being absurdly over-rated. It is an interesting idea - but seems so often mistaken for some kind of barrier or insurmountable obstacle to our further understanding of consciousness - which is in all honesty just ridiculous. Meanwhile science has learned a great deal about many facets of this great mystery. That we do not fully understand - therefore magic is no more effective than the various 'we do not fully underrstand cosmology - therefore god' arguments.
The 'hard problem' was just a rhetorical device to illustrate the majesty and scope of the scientific investigation in to this most fundamental of qualities, not a barrier that has science caught like a rabbit in a fence.
We do not fully understand the atom, but my laptop works

Why can’t the world’s greatest minds solve the mystery of consciousness? | Oliver Burkeman | Science | The Guardian

I suspect, as the author above does that when the 'hard problem of consciousness' is finally solved, the laws of physics will emerge unscathed.

 

[shawn001]

The Study of Fundamental Consciousness Entering the Mainstream | Collective-Evolution

Tononi states:

“Consciousness is a fundamental property, like mass or charge. Wherever there is an entity with multiple states, there is some consciousness. You need a special structure to get a lot of it but consciousness is everywhere, it is a fundamental property.”

Okay he states it,

The Study of Fundamental Consciousness Entering the Mainstream | Collective-Evolution

Tononi states:

“Consciousness is a fundamental property, like mass or charge. Wherever there is an entity with multiple states, there is some consciousness. You need a special structure to get a lot of it but consciousness is everywhere, it is a fundamental property.”

he did state that

"topic of serious mainstream discussion"

I am interested in how those discussion turn out.

"Integrated information theory is in its infancy and there are still many questions it must face. Did the information of brains operate at the level of the neuron, or the protein, or something deeper still?"

Will see where it goes.

Is Consciousness Related to Quantum Physics?

The Study of Fundamental Consciousness Entering the Mainstream | Collective-Evolution


Your connectome is you. If you know all 10-15 power connections in your brain, and you understand those, [it is possible to predict] exactly what you are going to do.
—University of Virginia neuroscientist Barry Condron, opining on the promise of neuroscience research (The Cavalier Daily, October 10)

 

[Gambit]

The Study of Fundamental Consciousness Entering the Mainstream | Collective-Evolution

Tononi states:

“Consciousness is a fundamental property, like mass or charge. Wherever there is an entity with multiple states, there is some consciousness. You need a special structure to get a lot of it but consciousness is everywhere, it is a fundamental property.”

Yep, this definitely qualifies as panpsychism.

 

[Gambit]

Is Consciousness Related to Quantum Physics?

The standard (or "Copenhagen") interpretation "asserts that an observation produces the property observed." (source: pg. 100, "Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness" by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner)

 

[shawn001]

The standard (or "Copenhagen") interpretation "asserts that an observation produces the property observed." (source: pg. 100, "Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness" by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner)

So what does that mean Gambit?

 

[shawn001]

"Quantum Enigma"

About Quantum Enigma


Quantum Enigma’s treatment is understandable without prior physics background.

Quantum Enigma » Physics Encounters Consciousness

 

[shawn001]

What Is the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics?

"
uestion: What Is the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics?

There is probably no area of science more bizarre and confusing than trying to understand the behavior of matter and energy at the smallest scales. In the early part of the twentieth century, physicists such as Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, and many others laid the foundation for understanding this bizarre realm of nature: quantum physics."

Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

This isn't supernatural or paranormal either so you know and your entering and area which if you study closely will be more bizarre then you can possibly imagine.

""The Fabric of the Cosmos," a four-hour series based on the book by renowned physicist and author Brian Greene, takes us to the frontiers of physics to see how scientists are piecing together the most complete picture yet of space, time, and the universe. With each step, audiences will discover that just beneath the surface of our everyday experience lies a world we'd hardly recognize—a startling world far stranger and more wondrous than anyone expected.

Brian Greene is going to let you in on a secret: We've all been deceived. Our perceptions of time and space have led us astray. Much of what we thought we knew about our universe—that the past has already happened and the future is yet to be, that space is just an empty void, that our universe is the only universe that exists—just might be wrong.

Interweaving provocative theories, experiments, and stories with crystal-clear explanations and imaginative metaphors like those that defined the groundbreaking and highly acclaimed series "The Elegant Universe," "The Fabric of the Cosmos" aims to be the most compelling, visual, and comprehensive picture of modern physics ever seen on television."

QM is one of the most successful scientific theories.

 

[Gambit]

What Is the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics?

There is probably no area of science more bizarre and confusing than trying to understand the behavior of matter and energy at the smallest scales. In the early part of the twentieth century, physicists such as Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, and many others laid the foundation for understanding this bizarre realm of nature: quantum physics."

Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

This is from the same article that you cited above. It simply corroborates what I have already cited in a previous post.

"There is no 'official' Copenhagen interpretation. But every version grabs the bull by the horns and asserts that an observation produces the property observed."

(source: "What Is the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics?" by Andrew Zimmerman Jones)

I don't know why you keep citing Brian Greene. The bottom line is that there isn't any physical mechanism for "quantum indeterminancy" or "quantum entanglement" (what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance").

 

[Gambit]

About Quantum Enigma


Quantum Enigma’s treatment is understandable without prior physics background.

Quantum Enigma » Physics Encounters Consciousness

What exactly is your point? Do you believe "Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" (the article you cited) was written in a professional journal for physicists? Do believe Brian Greene's book "The Elegant Universe" was intended for consumption by the physics community?

 

[shawn001]

This is from the same article that you cited above. It simply corroborates what I have already cited in a previous post.



I don't know why you keep citing Brian Greene. The bottom line is that there isn't any physical mechanism for "quantum indeterminancy" or "quantum entanglement" (what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance").

Just pointing our you original source.

"quantum entanglement" isn't supernatural or paranormal. Is a physical phenomenon still be researched

Quantum indeterminacy


Do you think they have solved all of science and and all aspects of all scientific theories and that if they can't explain them, then they are supernatural or paranormal?

 

[MD]

Not at all, it is an observation. There is no consciousness known other than that which is a product of a ohysical brain, damage or destroy the brain and the consciousness is gone.No, that hypothesis has no observable evidence.

What made you imagine that the fact that we do not yet fully understand the mechanism infers that consciousness is not a product of the mind?

I pointed out that there is a great deal of controversy over whether the hard problem even exists or not and gave citations - you dismissed them on frankly no rational pretext. You can similarly dismiss any further examples or citations I supply - so clearly that is a waste of time with you.

You quote Tononi, and expect it to be swallowed as gospel, I refer to Dennet and you dismiss him along with the others out of hand - that's not debate mate.

That is not an observation, that is your opinion. Consciousness is not a product of the mind? Clearly you're becoming confused as consciousness and the mind are usually synonymous. I think you meant to ask whether consciousness is not the product of the brain? And to that we know are simply the correlates. The correlates of the brain show that the physical is heavily involved, but the ontological gap is large enough to entertain other possibilities. Only people like you like to claim that this has been solved, because once again, you're either too stubborn or too stupid to understand the ontological gap itself. According to IIT different systems which share a certain amount of information in a certain pattern have consciousness.

There isn't a great controversy over the Hard Problem. It exists and you better learn to deal with it. There's as much 'controversy' over the Hard Problem as there is over Climate Change. Qualia exists. Intentionality exists. I guarantee you that. There is NO color, sound, feelings or meaning in the physical universe. Dennett's views have been dismissed by anyone in the field as preposterous and laughable. Sorry 'mate', but you're just wrong on this one. And your citations are bull, you gave me some obscure academics , I gave you three giant fields which accept the Hard Problem as existing: neuroscience, AI and linguistics.

I feel like I am wasting my time with you, maybe you should join the YECs.