Things you don't like about Materialism

[Laika]

My apologies to @Polymath257 (and to you) for all my offensive remarks.

In fact, as I'm sure Polymath will confirm, he and I have discussed these topics extensively. And, in fact, that history includes hundreds of posts on a single thread concerning the single issue of the nonlocalness of collapse of the wavefunction. It also includes hundreds of posts on that same thread on the single issue of referring to objects that do not have mass (and/)or volume as "matter". So, at least between he and I, these issues are not promptly resolved--even though I think there isn't a great deal to discuss on these issues, warranting hundreds of posts.

No worries nous. I didn't know how to interpret it and was just a little concerned.

 

[Nous]

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

I don't think I've looked at the actual study referenced there. But the blurb say that "researchers observed a surge of brain activity just moments before death." Presumably you understand that the complex, organized experiences and memory formation that people report in association with clinical death are not accounted for as products of "surges" (whatever that word means) of electrical activity in the brain. And most certainly veridical perceptions that are not acquired by way of the senses and processing of sensory signals cannot be accounted for by a "surge" of electrical activity in the brain. The Parnia study linked to above includes a single veridical perception, subsequently reported by the patient, namely the words of the automated defibrilation machine, which did occur 2-3 minutes after the patient's last shockable rhythm, which is well after people go isoelectric on EEG. There are documented reports and confirmations of more extensive veridical perceptions as well (e.g., Pam Reynolds). Again, a "surge" of electrical activity in the brain hardly accounts for these experiences, memories and reported perceptions.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I don't agree that "no evidence" supports such a claim of some other origination, especially when that "no evidence" is not the product of experimental findings, and especially when there are no experimental findings that account for conscious experience and free will being generated by neurons and/or electricity (or whatever you propose).

The evidence I cited is of complex, organized experiences, formation of memory and veridical perceptions not processed through sensory pathways during clinical death. I don't derive any further conclusions from that evidence.

You'll have to reword this in a comprehensible manner. I've no idea what you're trying to say.

 

[Nous]

You'll have to reword this in a comprehensible manner. I've no idea what you're trying to say.

Sorry about that. I'll try my best to expound and explain:

You said, "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." I disagree that we can draw an analogous conclusion with respect to the cause or origination of consciousness.

Generally (at least) one simply cannot draw specific conclusions from "no evidence". There is no evidence (as far as I know) that technologically advanced beings exist in the closest galaxy. From that absence of evidence, we cannot deduce that no such beings exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence is absence. The same goes for consciousness.

But there are additional factors prohibiting the conclusion that consciousness does not exist in the absence of brain electricity. I noted some of these. One is that your claim of "no evidence" is not product of experiments where such evidence was attempted to be acquired. Another factor is that there is a little bit of pretty good evidence that some people have complex, organized experiences, form memories, and even have veridical perceptions not gotten by or processed the sensory pathways during clinical death or soon thereafter when their brains are simply not functioning in organized ways..

 

[Polymath257]

That answered neither portion of my request. There was no definition of "actual evidence", not even a standard offered by which to judge evidence as "actual", nor a counterpositioning against 'inactual' evidence.

OK, how about someone showing that they were conscious of details of events that happened while their brain was not functioning? Or where they had access to information that would not have been available to them from the location of their body and that nobody around them had access to?

So, for example, have a picture placed on a shelf above the operating table such that nobody on the surgical staff knows what the picture is. Then see if patients that 'died' on the operating table and had OOBEs could tell what the picture was. Guess what? This has been done. If the staff does not know, NOBODY with an OOBE has been able to make out the picture.

Or, for example, have a situation where there are EEGs hooked up and events happening in the vicinity where the person *with a flat EEG* is able afterwards to detail what happened without prompting.

There is no mechanism offered by science by which consciousness is produced in or arises from the physical processes of the brain. Therefore, any insistence that it is such is every bit as much a result of feeling it "must be", informed by a philosophy of materialism instead of fact and logic.

On the contrary, we have detailed knowledge of which areas of the brain control many of the aspects of consciousness, including thought, planning, time awareness, language, motor skills, etc. The main issue isn't finding the brain areas that govern these activities. It is *defining* what is even meant by the term 'consciousness' so that any study of it at all can be made. If philosophers can't even agree whether a thermostat is conscious, there is going to be no way to 'explain' it.

 

[Nous]

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

Actually, now that I've read that blurb (beyond the first paragraph), there seems to be nothing really new in it. It is well known and accepted (note Parnia's paper above), that after the last shockable heartbeat, measureable electrical activity continues for some 10-20 seconds, maybe even 30 seconds in some cases.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Sorry about that. I'll try my best to expound and explain:

You said, "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." I disagree that we can draw an analogous conclusion with respect to the cause or origination of consciousness.

Generally (at least) one simply cannot draw specific conclusions from "no evidence". There is no evidence (as far as I know) that technologically advanced beings exist in the closest galaxy. From that absence of evidence, we cannot deduce that no such beings exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence is absence. The same goes for consciousness.

But there are additional factors prohibiting the conclusion that consciousness does not exist in the absence of brain electricity. I noted some of these. One is that your claim of "no evidence" is not product of experiments where such evidence was attempted to be acquired. Another factor is that there is a little bit of pretty good evidence that some people have complex, organized experiences, form memories, and even have veridical perceptions not gotten by or processed the sensory pathways during clinical death or soon thereafter when their brains are simply not functioning in organized ways..

"I disagree that we can draw an analogous conclusion with respect to the cause or origination of consciousness." But I never said you could then CONCLUDE that the program is being generated by the TV set, only that IF every effort to detect the program being transmitted from elsewhere comes up empty handed, THEN it SUPPORTS the notion that the TV set is generating the programs.

For instance, the fact that there has thus far been zero evidence that magical unicorns exist is NOT CONCLUSIVE evidence that they do not. But every decade that passes WITHOUT any evidence that they exist increases SUPPORT for the notion that they do not.

"Another factor is that there is a little bit of pretty good evidence that some people have complex, organized experiences, form memories, and even have veridical perceptions not gotten by or processed the sensory pathways during clinical death or soon thereafter when their brains are simply not functioning in organized ways.."

I'm sorry, but I don't see how any of that supports the notion that a brain is not required for consciousness.

 

[Mister Emu]

OK, how about someone showing that they were conscious of details of events that happened while their brain was not functioning?

Are you quoting me and addressing someone else by mistake, perchance? Once again that doesn't address the definition of "actual evidence" nor is it counterposed with any 'inactual' evidence.

The main issue isn't finding the brain areas that govern these activities. It is *defining* what is even meant by the term 'consciousness' so that any study of it at all can be made.

You aren't certain what consciousness means, but you are certain it is a phenomenon entirely based in the brain?

Surely, you can see the issue.

 

[Nous]

"I disagree that we can draw an analogous conclusion with respect to the cause or origination of consciousness." But I never said you could then CONCLUDE that the program is being generated by the TV set, only that IF every effort to detect the program being transmitted from elsewhere comes up empty handed

What you actually said was ". . . if there was absolutely NO evidence . . . " What do you mean by "every effort to detect. . . "? Every effort to detect whether technologically advanced beings live in the closest galaxy has come up empty handed, has it not? So what are you claiming that one can deduce from that fact?

"Another factor is that there is a little bit of pretty good evidence that some people have complex, organized experiences, form memories, and even have veridical perceptions not gotten by or processed the sensory pathways during clinical death or soon thereafter when their brains are simply not functioning in organized ways.."

I'm sorry, but I don't see how any of that supports the notion that a brain is not required for consciousness.

If a TV were to continue to play a show even several minutes after the TV had been unplugged and there was no electrical activity in the box, would you understand that that means that the TV show is not the product of the working components of the TV set?

 

[QuestioningMind]

What you actually said was ". . . if there was absolutely NO evidence . . . " What do you mean by "every effort to detect. . . "? Every effort to detect whether technologically advanced beings live in the closest galaxy has come up empty handed, has it not? So what are you claiming that one can deduce from that fact?

If a TV were to continue to play a show even several minutes after the TV had been unplugged and there was no electrical activity in the box, would you understand that that means that the TV show is not the product of the working components of the TV set?

"What you actually said was ". . . if there was absolutely NO evidence . . . " What do you mean by "every effort to detect. . . "? Every effort to detect whether technologically advanced beings live in the closest galaxy has come up empty handed, has it not? So what are you claiming that one can deduce from that fact?"

I mean that if after extensive attempt to find evidence, no evidence is found. As for your example of finding advanced beings in the closest galaxy, the longer we spend studying the closet galaxy without finding any evidence, the less likely it becomes that such life will be found. Thus far we've been looking for a VERY short amount of time, so the fact that we have yet to find anything doesn't mean much. However, if we continue to search for evidence over the next 1000 years and STILL can't find any evidence, that would greatly increase support for the notion that there is nothing to find.

"If a TV were to continue to play a show even several minutes after the TV had been unplugged and there was no electrical activity in the box, would you understand that that means that the TV show is not the product of the working components of the TV set?"

Yes, because we fully understand exactly how a TV set works, whereas the human brain is still a mystery in many ways. We have ways of measuring whether or not there is sufficient electrical activity in a TV set to determine if it will work or not. Not so with the brain. We don't know precisely when a brain stops functioning. We don't know precisely how much electrical activity is required to produce a thought or how much residual electrical activity remains in the brain after we're no longer able to detect it.

 

[atanu]

Yes, if the brain is CREATING consciousness then OBVIOUSLY once the brain STOPS FUNCTIONING, it will no longer possess consciousness. Your inability to grasp such a simple concept is troubling.

This again shows that brain is not the master creator of consciousness. It is switched off by yet unknown power even as computers are switched off by us.

 

[QuestioningMind]

This again shows that brain is not the master creator of consciousness. It is switched off by yet unknown power even as computers are switched off by us.

ROFL.... Really. you think that people die because 'some yet unknown power' flips a switch and turns them off? It's a good thing that you're not a medical coroner, because their entire job is to figure out WHY a person died. And guess what, they NEVER attribute the death to 'some at yet unknown power'. The brain dies when the body that keeps the brain alive dies and in virtually every case, medical experts can determine exactly why. It's not this big 'unknown' that you seem to imagine it is.

Are you seriously that ignorant?

 

[atanu]

Let's not talk of Kaku. He is a purveyor of the extremes of speculation disguised as science.

Okay. This way we discard many eminent scientists of present time and of past. But it does not matter at all since the first party consciousness does not require a third party evidence.

Prove it.

I said "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."

Correlation is not a proof of causation. This statement does not require any proof. If you are genuinely interested you may wish to respond to the OP in First party consciousness states and third party correlations thereof.

Our intentions are brain states. Our actions can change brain states. So can sensory experiences or thoughts.

You surely indicate two entities. "My intentions are brain states. My actions can change brain states."

So, who is seer of the 'brain' and of 'me'?

 

[atanu]

ROFL.... Really. you think that people die because 'some yet unknown power' flips a switch and turns them off? It's a good thing that you're not a medical coroner, because their entire job is to figure out WHY a person died. And guess what, they NEVER attribute the death to 'some at yet unknown power'. The brain dies when the body that keeps the brain alive dies and in virtually every case, medical experts can determine exactly why. It's not this big 'unknown' that you seem to imagine it is.

Are you seriously that ignorant?

No. I did not think so. I simply deduced it from your statements. Can you not understand that much? Do you really think that I am an imbecile?

I however accept I am ignorant and do not know anything of life process and its origin. But it seems you know everything about life and awareness. You know what is birth and death? Please enlighten us of the process of birth and death and vanishing of "I" sense from a dead body although all physical elements are present.

What is the process of 'life' that creates consciousness of "I" and power of digestion in a living body? And if brain is life-consciousness then why does it not prevent the body from dying?

 

[Polymath257]

Okay. This way we discard many eminent scientists of present time and of past. But it does not matter at all since the first party consciousness does not require a third party evidence.

But that doens't exclude the possibility of third-party evidence.

I said "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 claim the correlates do not represent the actual third party state. I asked for a proof of that claim.

Correlation is not a proof of causation. This statement does not require any proof.

They may not form proof, but in the absence of other causal agents, they are certainly evidence for causation.

If you are genuinely interested you may wish to respond to the OP in First party consciousness states and third party correlations thereof.

I think @sayak83's responses served quite nicely.

You surely indicate two entities. "My intentions are brain states. My actions can change brain states."

So, who is seer of the 'brain' and of 'me'?

The brain, in both cases. Often, it is one aspect of the brain 'seeing' the results of another aspect of the brain.

 

[Polymath257]

No. I did not think so. I simply deduced it from your statements. Can you not understand that much? Do you really think that I am an imbecile?

I however accept I am ignorant and do not know anything of life process and its origin.

There are plenty of sources you can learn from. I suggest starting with a neurology book (although a simple biology book might be a better starting point, depending on your current knowledge).

But it seems you know everything about life and awareness. You know what is birth and death? Please enlighten us of the process of birth and death and vanishing of "I" sense from a dead body although all physical elements are present.

What makes you think all the physical elements are present at death? In fact, of course, they are not. The reason we die is that the brain is deprived of oxygen and can no longer support the metabolic processes that drive neuronal activity.

What is the process of 'life' that creates consciousness of "I" and power of digestion in a living body?

That is a *very* strange question. Digestion has little, if anything, to do with either a sense of self or even the immune aspects of self-hood.

And if brain is life-consciousness then why does it not prevent the body from dying?

How could it? The body dies because its tissues are deprived of oxygen also. Typically, the brain dies first because it uses up the energy resources fastest. The reason we can transplant various organs is that they *don't* die as fast as the brain, so they can be removed and re-connected in another person.

 

[atanu]

I think @sayak83's responses served quite nicely.

Please do not be evasive. Read the full and respond to the OP.

We can only proceed if the fundamental difference between a third party waking state electrical record of a man 'sleeping/dreaming/experiencing non dual consciousness/dying'' on one hand and and the actual first party contents of consciousness in those respective states, on the other hand, is appreciated.

Similarly, an appreciation of the distinction between 'contents of consciousness' and 'consciousness itself' will also help, if we wish to discuss further.

 

[atanu]

How could it? The body dies because its tissues are deprived of oxygen also. Typically, the brain dies first because it uses up the energy resources fastest. The reason we can transplant various organs is that they *don't* die as fast as the brain, so they can be removed and re-connected in another person.

My question is simple "If brain is life-consciousness then why does it not prevent the body from dying?"

 

[atanu]

The brain, in both cases. Often, it is one aspect of the brain 'seeing' the results of another aspect of the brain.

Earlier you said: "My intentions are brain states. My actions can change brain states." Now you add "Brain is the creator of "I" consciousness. And brain is the sole seer of the "I" acting and thinking? And it is also the modifier of its own states, thereby able to modify mental and physical results.

Is my understanding of your position correct?

 

[atanu]

Yes, I agree with your latest statement.

So, do you agree that Mulaprakriti is Avyakta (unmanifest) and the categories are its manifestations?