Things you don't like about Materialism

[Nous]

A few from the last year or so:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170727141804.htm

The last sentence of the blurb on this first study explicitly notes that it does not provide evidence showing how conscious experience (much less free will) is produced by any "part" of the brain: "Importantly, this study offers new hope that the biological foundations of consciousness may well be within our grasp."

So you can cite no study that actually does provide evidence that shows how something in brains produces conscious experience or free will?

 

[Polymath257]

The last sentence of the blurb on this first study explicitly notes that it does not provide evidence showing how conscious experience (much less free will) is produced by any "part" of the brain: "Importantly, this study offers new hope that the biological foundations of consciousness may well be within our grasp."

So you can cite no study that actually does provide evidence that shows how something in brains produces conscious experience or free will?

We do not know the mechanism. But few people studying this have any doubt that it is the physical brain that produces consciousness.

One of the problems is getting a useful definition of the term 'consciousness'.

 

[Nous]

On the contrary, if there is no transmission, it is the brain that is producing the consciousness.

Prove it.

And the conclusions are, at the very least, problematic with most scientists finding physical explanations to be more plausible.

People who are dedicated to certain beliefs often have difficulty with the facts that contradict their beliefs. There are few better examples of this than you.

 

[Nous]

We do not know the mechanism.

Now was that so painful to admit?

There's no "but . . ." after that sentence, is there?

 

[Laika]

People who are dedicated to certain beliefs often have difficulty with the facts that contradict their beliefs. There are few better examples of this than you.

Now was that so painful to admit?

There's no "but . . ." after that sentence, is there?

I'm not sure of the background here, but this comes across as quite ugly, personal and unlikely to end well. Debating on a forum ultimately gives us almost zero control over another person's opinions even when we regard them as offensive or false. There typically aren't decisive victories in debates even about things we are really passionate about. This is not really my business, but perhaps it would be better to let this one go and put polymath on ignore if only to cool down a bit?

 

[atanu]

"So, you now mean that oxygen is controller of brain that is controller of consciousness? Tell us on what all things consciousness depends?"

No. I never said that oxygen is the CONTROLLER of the brain. Why would you make such an ignorant statement? Oxygen is simply required for the brain to continue functioning. And all of the evidence we have thus far suggests that a functioning brain is REQUIRED to produce consciousness.

"Surely, breath is controller-driver of the body-brain. But where is the control of the breath?"

Again, no, breathe is NOT the 'controller' of the body-brain. Oxygen, as well as other nutrients are required for the body to FUNCTION, but it's the brain that appears to control the body. Your lungs function automatically due to signals being sent by the brain, so again, it's the brain that controls your breathing. .

From what you say, we can hardly say that brain is controller of body and breathing. It has no control over when breath will stop and kill the brain.

 

[atanu]

The difference is, of course, that we can measure radio waves in other ways that do not involve TVs. Do you have any evidence of consciousness without brains?

OTOH, can we ever know of brain without consciousness?

Evidence of all pervasive intelligence is all around and in all states. Brain is a special linstance. Destruction of one or many brains does nothing to the consciousness that pervades all forms, even as destruction of waves does nothing to the ocean or melting down of a bangle does nothing to the gold.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Exactly like the very fact that if you damage a TV set you can affect the picture s is EVIDENCE that it is the physical TV set which is producing the TV show.

What do you think the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc refers to.

It may well seem like evidence, up until you discover that the program is being sent to your TV set via a transmitter. However, if there was absolutely NO evidence that the program originated from somewhere else, it would support the notion that the program was being generated by the TV set.

If you HAVE actual evidence that consciousness is being transmitted to our brains from somewhere else, please DO share it.

 

[QuestioningMind]

From what you say, we can hardly say that brain is controller of body and breathing. It has no control over when breath will stop and kill the brain.

Wow, what another ignorant statement. Just because your brain sends signals to your lungs that cause them to expand and contract does NOT mean that your brain can prevent you from developing lung cancer that causes your lungs to become inoperable. If you're behind the wheel of a car, you are in control of that vehicle. When YOU press the brake, the car stops. However, if your brake line bursts and pressing the brakes suddenly doesn't work any longer, it does NOT mean that you were never in control of the car. It just means that a component of the car is no longer functioning properly.

 

[atanu]

Wow, what another ignorant statement.

Very characteristic.

Just because your brain sends signals to your lungs that cause them to expand and contract does NOT mean that your brain can prevent you from developing lung cancer that causes your lungs to become inoperable. If you're behind the wheel of a car, you are in control of that vehicle. When YOU press the brake, the car stops. However, if your brake line bursts and pressing the brakes suddenly doesn't work any longer, it does NOT mean that you were never in control of the car. It just means that a component of the car is no longer functioning properly.

All that you say confirms that brain is dependent machine and not the creator of consciousness. When the breath stops it will not be able to say “I am conscious”.

 

[sayak83]

Yeah. I posted Kaku’s video as an example to show that Philosophical materialistic claims regarding QM is only one side.

Probably no quantum physicist ascribes to the idea of a personal God. But many do ascribe to Relational Quantum Mechanics, which treats the state of a quantum system as being observer dependent.

Almost no life quantum physicists believe this to be a possibility anymore. A lot has happened in quantum physics in the last 25 years showing that such speculations are completely wrong.

 

[sayak83]

What parts of the brain? Describe that "process" by which conscious experience and free will are produced. Be sure to cite the findings by which to deduce your claims.

How did you deduce that? See:
Do reports of consciousness during cardiac arrest hold the key to discovering the nature of consciousness?

Cite the studies you are referring to.

This phenomenon has already been explained.
Could a final surge in brain activity after death explain near-death experiences? | Brain Metrics | Learn Science at Scitable

 

[sayak83]

OTOH, can we ever know of brain without consciousness?

Evidence of all pervasive intelligence is all around and in all states. Brain is a special linstance. Destruction of one or many brains does nothing to the consciousness that pervades all forms, even as destruction of waves does nothing to the ocean or melting down of a bangle does nothing to the gold.

Your reply makes no sense. You have observed consciousnesses that exist in entities that do not possess brains?

 

[atanu]

Your reply makes no sense. You have observed consciousnesses that exist in entities that do not possess brains?

Can anything be seen or known without consciousness?

This question may not make sense to your intellect. Beyond intellect there are layers of intelligence which are not accessible to so called conscious mind.

All affairs in nature are tempered with communication and intelligence. Some just call it blind. But it is blind to your intellect.

 

[atanu]

Almost no life quantum physicists believe this to be a possibility anymore. A lot has happened in quantum physics in the last 25 years showing that such speculations are completely wrong.

Talk of Kaku please. I can show many more.

 

[atanu]

This phenomenon has already been explained.
Could a final surge in brain activity after death explain near-death experiences? | Brain Metrics | Learn Science at Scitable

Explained?

The article says “This raises the fascinating possibility that they have identified the neural basis for near death experiences.”.

So, ‘possibility’ is equal to ‘explained’?
.....

Neural correlates are correlarates and not causative explanations. As I tried to point out earlier in a post that correlates do not represent the actual first party state.

You can measure electrical signals of a man dreaming, or sleeping, or experiencing non dual consciousness, or experiencing death. If you think that these signals actually represent the first party states and also explain generation of consciousness in brain, then I differ.

I have been closely associated with a colleague who went through such an experience for 2 days. He says that the experience made him joyful and fearless. He was very happy afterwards that his concept that he was a body was erased.

So chemical surge causes the content of consciousness or the contents of consciousness are reflected in physical changes?

I am not into proselytism. But it will be happy if people come to know that the self is the master, as taught in Gita, and not a helpless victim of chemicals, as implied by Philosophical materialism.

Our intentions and actions can alter states of brain.

 

[sayak83]

It may not make sense to your intellect. Beyond intellect there are layers of intelligence which are not accessible to so called conscious mind.

All affairs in nature are tempered with communication and intelligence. Some just call it blind. But it is blind to your intellect.

So you haven't observed any such thing.

 

[sayak83]

Explained?

The article says “This raises the fascinating possibility that they have identified the neural basis for near death experiences.”.

So, ‘possibility’ is equal to ‘explained’?
.....

Neural correlates are correlarates and not causative explanations. As I tried to point out earlier in a post that correlates do not represent the actual first party state.

You can measure electrical signals of a man dreaming, or sleeping, or experiencing non dual consciousness, or experiencing death. If you think that these signals actually represent the first party states and also explain generation of consciousness in brain, then I differ.

I have been closely associated with a colleague who went through such an experience for 2 days. He says that the experience made him joyful and fearless. He was very happy afterwards that his concept that he was a body was erased.

So chemical surge causes the content of consciousness or the contents of consciousness are reflected in physical changes?

I am not into proselytism. But it will be happy if people come to know that the self is the master, as taught in Gita, and not a helpless victim of chemicals, as implied by Philosophical materialism.

Our intentions and actions can alter states of brain.

Confusing the ultimate self with the mind and thereby attacking the materiality of mind (universally acknowledged in Hindu philosophy) is not a good way to achieve what you intend.

For example all intentions and actions thereof fall within the realm of karma and causality, and hence Prakriti and hence will be physical. It's hardly surprising therefore that intentions will themselves be instantiated as physical structures. Are you claiming Prakriti is not physical?

 

[sayak83]

Talk of Kaku please. I can show many more.

He talks Rubbish.

 

[Pudding]

As scientists have physically observed, consciousness have a relation with brain. The incident damage of part of brain or the suffocation of it or manually manipulating brain with chemical will affect how the consciousness manifest in people.

As a result, some people comes to the conclusion that brain creates the existence of consciousness. Consciousness require brain to exist.

Otoh, there is an assumption that consciousness can exists without brain, maybe consciousness still exist in a specific places after brain dead or the physically death of people. What i can imagine the evidence which can support this assumption is that there have been patients who appeal to be unconscious in surgery manage to describe the details in the room after they wake up. There have been arguments against these evidence. My opinion is that i don't have firm beliefs in either sides because i haven't seen reliably repeatable and conclusive evidence to support either sides.

Additionally, the experience how some people saw or possessed by ghost and other waiting to solve mystery phenomenon can be consider to support the assumption that consciousness can exists without brain, although it is not conclusively nor reliably repeatable.

About how consciousness manifest in people due to damage or manually manipulate of brain and how some people comes to the conclusion that consciousness needs brain to exist, my opinion is that the manifestation of consciousness in people are limited by the function of brain.

I cannot think of why "the manifestation of consciousness in people are limited by the function of brain" must necessarily lead to the conclusion that consciousness needs brain to exist.

There are two possibilities i can think of base on the observable phenomenon which can be repeat reliably that "the manifestation of consciousness in people are limited by the function of brain":
1: Consciousness is created by brain and cannot exist without brain.
2: Regardless, consciousness can exist without brain.

My opinion is that i don't have firm beliefs in either sides because i haven't seen reliably repeatable and conclusive evidence to support either sides nor do i personally witness the phenomenon that consciousness can exist without brain.