Paranormal Experiences and Sleep Paralysis

[MD]

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.

And I see you sticking to your stupidity or stubbornness because you don't understand it. The ontological gap remains and as such people like you who fail to understand it just try to explain it away. Like the creationist who explains evolution away, you're no different from them because you do not understand the Hard Problem.

It wasn't a rhetorical device at all, it is a beautiful example of the limitation of science. I suspect that as IIT has shown, more and more scientists will move away from the sort of thinking you have and start to look at other possibilities like panpsychism.

 

[MD]

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.

Here this should shut you up

Would We Give Up Naturalism to Solve the Hard Problem of Consciousness? - Evolution News & Views
http://scitation.aip.org/docserver/...est&checksum=7720CEA7F3F0F01E6B845AF904748AE9

 

[Bunyip]

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.

Insults and pretending that there is no controversy is not debate, I'll leave you to it.

 

[Bunyip]

Here this should shut you up

Would We Give Up Naturalism to Solve the Hard Problem of Consciousness? - Evolution News & Views
http://scitation.aip.org/docserver/...est&checksum=7720CEA7F3F0F01E6B845AF904748AE9

In what way is that supposed to 'shut me up'? Why would that be a greater authority than the ones I identified? Why not just use your sole tactic of saying 'oh that guy? He doesn't count!'.

 

[MD]

In what way is that supposed to 'shut me up'? Why would that be a greater authority than the ones I identified? Why not just use your sole tactic of saying 'oh that guy? He doesn't count!'.

Your 'authorities' aren't even well known. If we are playing the 'argument from authority' game

I provided Koch, Tononi, Ramachandran, Searle, Chalmers and others, who are at the forefront of their field. I provided ENTIRE INDUSTRIES, like the Comp sci industry which pretty much acknowledges the Hard Problem. I am not even providing Planck, Penrose, Stapp and the whole slew of other quantum physicists who pretty much agree that consciousness is beyond some of the definitions of science. Heck even freaking Tegmark came out and said that consciousness is something more.

You provided Dennett, whose ideas have been dismissed as being ridiculous. Just because he's one of the 4 Horsemen doesn't make him some sort of atheist god who knows all. And the others are some no name academics.

 

[Bunyip]

Shahz

For all your bluster, there is nothing about the 'hard problem' that argues for the paranormal anyway - it is irrelevant. I believe I have pointed that out a number of times.

 

[Bunyip]

Your 'authorities' aren't even well known. If we are playing the 'argument from authority' game.

Correct, you are playing the 'argument from authority game' and it is a pointless waste of time.

I provided Koch, Ramachandran, Searle, Chalmers and others, who are at the forefront of their field. I am not even providing Planck, Penrose and the whole slew of other quantum physicists who pretty much agree that consciousness is beyond some of the definitions of science.

You provided Dennett, whose ideas have been dismissed as being ridiculous. Just because he's one of the 4 Horsemen doesn't make him some sort of atheist god. And the others are some no name professors.

You prove my point.

 

[MD]

Correct, you are playing the 'argument from authority game' and it is a pointless waste of time. You prove my point.

You started this game and as usual you run away like a child when you can't really argue or keep up. Whatever, you belong with the YECs and Climate Change deniers. Enjoy your little bubble.

 

[MD]

Shahz

For all your bluster, there is nothing about the 'hard problem' that argues for the paranormal anyway - it is irrelevant. I believe I have pointed that out a number of times.

You said the mind is 'biochemistry' and I was simply saying that there are other possibilities out there, starting with how the mind isn't even physically only 'biochemistry'. Such idiotic statements can't be ignored.

Please, you completely have no idea what you're talking about and simply are wasting everyone's time with your ridiculous bull****.

 

[Bunyip]

You said the mind is 'biochemistry' and I was simply saying that there are other possibilities out there,

Nope, I said no such thing.

starting with how the mind isn't even physically only 'biochemistry'. Such idiotic statements can't be ignored.

Yeah, especially since I made no such statement. I suppose now you accuse me of 'backtracking' again because you insist on misrepresenting me?

Please, you completely have no idea what you're talking about and simply are wasting everyone's time with your ridiculous bull****.

Nice. As a rebuttal, usless.

 

[Gambit]

Just pointing our you original source.

You were just making a lame attempt to discredit my source. The book was written by two professors of physics at UC/Santa Cruz. It was based on an actual course taught at that institution to instruct any student who might be interested to learn how consciousness is implicated in quantum mechanics - hence, the name of the book "Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness."

"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?

I stand by my orginal argument. There is no known physical mechanism for quantum indeterminacy or quantum entanglement, not because it represents a gap in our knowledge. But because this is what quantum theory says (at least according to the standard interpretation of QM). More to the point, consciousness is implicated in QM due to the measurement problem..

 

[George-ananda]

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

You could say the same thing about anything colloquially called paranormal. If they exist, then they are natural and need to be researched. 'Ghosts', if they exist, would be a physical phenomena still to be researched.

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?

You sound to have a misunderstanding of what scientific people interested in what is colloquially called the 'supernatural or paranormal' are saying. We believe there are mechanisms not understood but real behind all phenomena. You seem to want to think we just want to call it 'magic'.

The words 'supernatural and paranormal' have a fairly clearly defined colloquial meaning. But anybody seriously interested would say there is technically no such thing as paranormal or supernatural in their literal meaning; anything that exists has to be natural (whether or not the mechanism is understood).

 

[George-ananda]

Shahz

For all your bluster, there is nothing about the 'hard problem' that argues for the paranormal anyway - it is irrelevant. I believe I have pointed that out a number of times.

Sorry Bunyip but when intelligent people discuss the word 'paranormal' it does not mean 'magic' but more like 'not understood yet'. And it typically refers to things that imply a more dramatic lack of scientific understanding.

 

[George-ananda]

You started this game and as usual you run away like a child when you can't really argue or keep up. Whatever, you belong with the YECs and Climate Change deniers. Enjoy your little bubble.

I think supporters of hard materialism are like the reasonably intelligent people of the past who argued against the earth being round, against the earth being old, against humans forming through evolution, etc.. of previous centuries (resistance to paradigm shift). Eventually the waves keep lapping harder and higher and almost all reasonable intelligent people eventually accept the newer paradigm (there is no sudden moment when this happens).

 

[Gambit]

The following is a ten part video interview with David J. Hufford (professor emeritus of medical anthropology at Penn State) on sleep paralysis.

 

[George-ananda]

The following is ten part video list presented by David J. Hufford (professor emeritus of medical anthropology at Penn State) on sleep paralysis.

As interested as I have always been in so-called paranormal subjects I never heard much discussion of unusual experiences during sleep paralysis. I guess I went with the mainstream answer that anything experienced in that state must be hallucination because the physiology of sleep paralysis is already understood (never questioned why just because the physiology is understood, the experiences can't be real, Logical error on my part).

 

[Bunyip]

Sorry Bunyip but when intelligent people discuss the word 'paranormal' it does not mean 'magic' but more like 'not understood yet'. And it typically refers to things that imply a more dramatic lack of scientific understanding.

Please re-read my post. I said that there is nothing about the 'hard problem' that argues for or infers any paranormal dimension to consciousness. And no mate - 'paranormal' does not mean 'not understood yet' - look it up. Science has never claimed to be complete, that many, many things are not understood yet does not make them paranormal. Thanks for the nasty, rude and completely unecessary inference regarding my intelligence. Notice how I have not flung any such unsults at you.

 

[Bunyip]

I think supporters of hard materialism are like the reasonably intelligent people of the past who argued against the earth being round, against the earth being old, against humans forming through evolution, etc.. of previous centuries (resistance to paradigm shift). Eventually the waves keep lapping harder and higher and almost all reasonable intelligent people eventually accept the newer paradigm (there is no sudden moment when this happens).

Gee thanks - so your argument here is basically how stupid anyone who disagrees with you is? Brilliant mate. Is that all you have? There is no reliable scientific evidence of the paranormal - insulting everyone who disagrees is bigotry - not an argument. You also know that I am not in fact a supporter of 'hard materialism'.
Your 'newer paradigm' is not the new paradigm at all - it is the old, archaic magically minded paradigm of the past, not the future. More than a century of research science has failed to demonstrate anything remotely paranormal. You are clinging to the flat earth mate, not me. Insulting others for rejecting the evidence you do not actually have is a useless debating tactic.


For all of you attacks on my character and intellect - you are yet to identify any reliable evidence for the paranormal - neither of course has science. Just calling anyone who disagrees names is not an intelligent rebuttal. Milk leaking statues and Ganzfield's unexplored anomalies are not things that are particularly impressive, or that in any way challenge science. In honest debate one must not endlessly retreat to diminishing, insulting or otherwise attacking the characte of your opponant - but instead adress the argument in hand. The fact that science has shown no reliable evidence for the paranormal can not be discounted simply by trying to portray your opponant as a fool in denial - you have presented nothing to deny.

I would like to debate these issues beyond the point of simply being dismissed as an ignorant denialist over evidence that nobody ever gets around to presenting - and that frankly does not exist.

 

[shawn001]

You could say the same thing about anything colloquially called paranormal. If they exist, then they are natural and need to be researched. 'Ghosts', if they exist, would be a physical phenomena still to be researched.




You sound to have a misunderstanding of what scientific people interested in what is colloquially called the 'supernatural or paranormal' are saying. We believe there are mechanisms not understood but real behind all phenomena. You seem to want to think we just want to call it 'magic'.

The words 'supernatural and paranormal' have a fairly clearly defined colloquial meaning. But anybody seriously interested would say there is technically no such thing as paranormal or supernatural in their literal meaning; anything that exists has to be natural (whether or not the mechanism is understood).

"there is technically no such thing as paranormal or supernatural in their literal meaning; anything that exists has to be natural (whether or not the mechanism is understood)."

Exactly!

"'Ghosts', if they exist, would be a physical phenomena still to be researched."

They have been for a long time. They are also an old pagan concept.

Anyone who wants too, can knock themselves out. They have been for a long time. .

There is another side to this though, perhaps someone just because THEY believe it to be paranormal or supernatural doesn't get the right information or treatment for a known disorder.

 

[Gambit]

As interested as I have always been in so-called paranormal subjects I never heard much discussion of unusual experiences during sleep paralysis. I guess I went with the mainstream answer that anything experienced in that state must be hallucination because the physiology of sleep paralysis is already understood (never questioned why just because the physiology is understood, the experiences can't be real, Logical error on my part).

I suspect that the "third eye" is activated during sleep paralysis and the hypnagogic/hypnapompic state of consciousness. It appears to be a portal to the astral realm or the collective unconscious.