|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Nov 12, 2018 10:01:13 GMT -5
I really know this is mostly a stupid, futile game... but what arguments have you found most persuasive to getting people to change their view that that the brain generates consciousness?
That is the overriding operational viewpoint of society today, and I find that it's so engrained that it is practically impossible to persuade most people otherwise.
Especially "educated" Science-trusting types.
They literally cannot conceive of any other possibility.
What analogies, metaphors, examples, and questions have you found persuasive, if any?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 12, 2018 10:13:53 GMT -5
I really know this is mostly a stupid, futile game... but what arguments have you found most persuasive to getting people to change their view that that the brain generates consciousness? That is the overriding operational viewpoint of society today, and I find that it's so engrained that it is practically impossible to persuade most people otherwise. Especially "educated" Science-trusting types. They literally cannot conceive of any other possibility. What analogies, metaphors, examples, and questions have you found persuasive, if any? Haven't found anyone in real life interested enough in the topic to try it out. Seems to me that it's all there in the black and white of both science and philosophy, but even people who are open to the question and can understand this -- like my wife -- they just don't seem to see a link between this and what we know as self-inquiry. Try it on the internet, and you'll find out pretty quick what Adyashanti means by the hard knotted nut of "no" at the core of their gut, just underneath the feeling of rage.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Nov 12, 2018 10:28:38 GMT -5
I really know this is mostly a stupid, futile game... but what arguments have you found most persuasive to getting people to change their view that that the brain generates consciousness? That is the overriding operational viewpoint of society today, and I find that it's so engrained that it is practically impossible to persuade most people otherwise. Especially "educated" Science-trusting types. They literally cannot conceive of any other possibility. What analogies, metaphors, examples, and questions have you found persuasive, if any? Haven't found anyone in real life interested enough in the topic to try it out. Seems to me that it's all there in the black and white of both science and philosophy, but even people who are open to the question and can understand this -- like my wife -- they just don't seem to see a link between this and what we know as self-inquiry. Try it on the internet, and you'll find out pretty quick what Adyashanti means by the hard knotted nut of "no" at the core of their gut, just underneath the feeling of rage. Yes, exactly, that's mostly what I've seemed to encounter. Though there are a few people who are basically sympathetic and just haven't been exposed to the right argument, having already been indoctrinated in materialism... so there is an occasional receptivity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2018 10:34:54 GMT -5
I don't think scientists even understand exactly how propofol works, but it does. Or is that a different form of consciousness in your vi
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 12, 2018 11:24:31 GMT -5
Haven't found anyone in real life interested enough in the topic to try it out. Seems to me that it's all there in the black and white of both science and philosophy, but even people who are open to the question and can understand this -- like my wife -- they just don't seem to see a link between this and what we know as self-inquiry. Try it on the internet, and you'll find out pretty quick what Adyashanti means by the hard knotted nut of "no" at the core of their gut, just underneath the feeling of rage. Yes, exactly, that's mostly what I've seemed to encounter. Though there are a few people who are basically sympathetic and just haven't been exposed to the right argument, having already been indoctrinated in materialism... so there is an occasional receptivity. It's a pretty simple chicken/egg ("chegg") argument, but ultimately, it's metaphysical: if the states of sub-atomic particles aren't independent of the observation of them, then how can the source of that observation first arise from a hierarchy based on the assumed foundation of their objective existence? Because that metaphysics can become so contentious, the way I like to approach it is to point out that Biology is founded on Chemistry which is founded on Physics, but that Physics doesn't currently offer any foundation for the existence of the building blocks of matter independent of observation. Specifically, no Physicist will ever win a Nobel for explaining the "Quantum Observer", because, it's not a physical process. People will argue even with that, and, quite passionately and doggedly so.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Nov 12, 2018 11:34:03 GMT -5
Yes, exactly, that's mostly what I've seemed to encounter. Though there are a few people who are basically sympathetic and just haven't been exposed to the right argument, having already been indoctrinated in materialism... so there is an occasional receptivity. It's a pretty simple chicken/egg ("chegg") argument, but ultimately, it's metaphysical: if the states of sub-atomic particles aren't independent of the observation of them, then how can the source of that observation first arise from a hierarchy based on the assumed foundation of their objective existence? Because that metaphysics can become so contentious, the way I like to approach it is to point out that Biology is founded on Chemistry which is founded on Physics, but that Physics doesn't currently offer any foundation for the existence of the building blocks of matter independent of observation. Specifically, no Physicist will ever win a Nobel for explaining the "Quantum Observer", because, it's not a physical process. People will argue even with that, and, quite passionately and doggedly so. Yeah, makes sense to me, heh, but as I understand it there are materialist interpretations of quantum effects where there is no dependence on a conscious observer. To take a random wikipedia thing I found in 5 seconds of looking: "Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory" --Werner Heisenberg "Was the wave function waiting to jump for thousands of millions of years until a single-celled living creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer for some highly qualified measurer - with a PhD?" -John Stewart Bell "According to standard quantum mechanics, it is a matter of complete indifference whether the experimenters stay around to watch their experiment, or leave the room and delegate observing to an inanimate apparatus, instead, which amplifies the microscopic events to macroscopic measurements and records them by a time-irreversible process" -also John Bell
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 12, 2018 20:35:27 GMT -5
It's a pretty simple chicken/egg ("chegg") argument, but ultimately, it's metaphysical: if the states of sub-atomic particles aren't independent of the observation of them, then how can the source of that observation first arise from a hierarchy based on the assumed foundation of their objective existence? Because that metaphysics can become so contentious, the way I like to approach it is to point out that Biology is founded on Chemistry which is founded on Physics, but that Physics doesn't currently offer any foundation for the existence of the building blocks of matter independent of observation. Specifically, no Physicist will ever win a Nobel for explaining the "Quantum Observer", because, it's not a physical process. People will argue even with that, and, quite passionately and doggedly so. Yeah, makes sense to me, heh, but as I understand it there are materialist interpretations of quantum effects where there is no dependence on a conscious observer. To take a random wikipedia thing I found in 5 seconds of looking: "Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory" --Werner Heisenberg "Was the wave function waiting to jump for thousands of millions of years until a single-celled living creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer for some highly qualified measurer - with a PhD?" -John Stewart Bell "According to standard quantum mechanics, it is a matter of complete indifference whether the experimenters stay around to watch their experiment, or leave the room and delegate observing to an inanimate apparatus, instead, which amplifies the microscopic events to macroscopic measurements and records them by a time-irreversible process" -also John Bell Yes, what Heisenberg writes there refutes what Chopra, Goswami, the TM movement and a host of other sources would speculate: that the Quantum Observer is somehow directly related to the typical idea of "personal consciousness". So his answer to "does a tree that falls in an empty wood make a sound?" would be "yes". But the other thing he writes in that book is: "It may be said that classical physics is just that idealization in which we can speak about parts of the world without any reference to ourselves." That no Physicist has solved the "measurement problem", and noone in the mainstream of Physics is currently even trying to solve it, is just a bald, persistent, fact. Why that is, is one of those arguments you started the thread looking for. In any event, Werner's book is a great read, and I'm sure it's made millions of realists very uneasy over the decades. Bell's incredulity is funny there, and I remember actually contemplating that very question during my Period of Great Confusion. His contempt is also founded on the misconception of consciousness as localized, and divided. Compare the scenario to what E' and gopal propose about the way creation works. It's funny stuff, and, really, just an intellectual version of the Zen koan, "what was your original face, before you were born?" In the end, anything the physicists have to say about it is all just mind spinning on something that's ever out of it's reach: self-inquiry. Also, the reason Bell designed the experiment he's famous for wasn't to prove the effect of entanglement, it was to test the possibility of the main rival to the Copenhagen interpretation at the time: the Bohm and DeBroglie pilot way theory based on "hidden variables". Heisenberg mentions this theory in that book as well, and not favorably, and the results of the test of Bell's Theorem proved him right. The realists wouldn't have to resort to the contortions they have to now if it had gone the other way, and check out what's taught in University's by perusing a few syllabi: material realism, isn't even close to a mainstream consensus interpretation, and hasn't been for decades. They still teach Copenhagen. Until that changes, the metaphysical argument I proposed has some strong legs.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Nov 12, 2018 21:36:43 GMT -5
Yeah, makes sense to me, heh, but as I understand it there are materialist interpretations of quantum effects where there is no dependence on a conscious observer. To take a random wikipedia thing I found in 5 seconds of looking: "Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory" --Werner Heisenberg "Was the wave function waiting to jump for thousands of millions of years until a single-celled living creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer for some highly qualified measurer - with a PhD?" -John Stewart Bell "According to standard quantum mechanics, it is a matter of complete indifference whether the experimenters stay around to watch their experiment, or leave the room and delegate observing to an inanimate apparatus, instead, which amplifies the microscopic events to macroscopic measurements and records them by a time-irreversible process" -also John Bell Yes, what Heisenberg writes there refutes what Chopra, Goswami, the TM movement and a host of other sources would speculate: that the Quantum Observer is somehow directly related to the typical idea of "personal consciousness". So his answer to "does a tree that falls in an empty wood make a sound?" would be "yes". But the other thing he writes in that book is: "It may be said that classical physics is just that idealization in which we can speak about parts of the world without any reference to ourselves." That no Physicist has solved the "measurement problem", and noone in the mainstream of Physics is currently even trying to solve it, is just a bald, persistent, fact. Why that is, is one of those arguments you started the thread looking for. In any event, Werner's book is a great read, and I'm sure it's made millions of realists very uneasy over the decades. Bell's incredulity is funny there, and I remember actually contemplating that very question during my Period of Great Confusion. His contempt is also founded on the misconception of consciousness as localized, and divided. Compare the scenario to what E' and gopal propose about the way creation works. It's funny stuff, and, really, just an intellectual version of the Zen koan, "what was your original face, before you were born?" In the end, anything the physicists have to say about it is all just mind spinning on something that's ever out of it's reach: self-inquiry. Yep! All right, you convinced me .
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 12, 2018 21:50:47 GMT -5
Science is a reductionist procedure, and consciousness is a dynamic process, so scientific method cannot establish a causal link between the electro-chemical processes of the body and the qualia of experience. The brain can be manipulated to produce experiences, like by taking LSD for example, or perhaps brain trauma, so the corrolation between brain and experience is compelling - but there is no causal link between biology and qualia.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 14, 2018 1:44:58 GMT -5
Yes, what Heisenberg writes there refutes what Chopra, Goswami, the TM movement and a host of other sources would speculate: that the Quantum Observer is somehow directly related to the typical idea of "personal consciousness". So his answer to "does a tree that falls in an empty wood make a sound?" would be "yes". But the other thing he writes in that book is: "It may be said that classical physics is just that idealization in which we can speak about parts of the world without any reference to ourselves." That no Physicist has solved the "measurement problem", and noone in the mainstream of Physics is currently even trying to solve it, is just a bald, persistent, fact. Why that is, is one of those arguments you started the thread looking for. In any event, Werner's book is a great read, and I'm sure it's made millions of realists very uneasy over the decades. Bell's incredulity is funny there, and I remember actually contemplating that very question during my Period of Great Confusion. His contempt is also founded on the misconception of consciousness as localized, and divided. Compare the scenario to what E' and gopal propose about the way creation works. It's funny stuff, and, really, just an intellectual version of the Zen koan, "what was your original face, before you were born?" In the end, anything the physicists have to say about it is all just mind spinning on something that's ever out of it's reach: self-inquiry. Yep! All right, you convinced me . yipppeeeeeee! yay! ... hey, do I get an embossed certificate of advanced convincerdooderology now??
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 14, 2018 1:55:50 GMT -5
Science is a reductionist procedure, and consciousness is a dynamic process, so scientific method cannot establish a causal link between the electro-chemical processes of the body and the qualia of experience. The brain can be manipulated to produce experiences, like by taking LSD for example, or perhaps brain trauma, so the corrolation between brain and experience is compelling - but there is no causal link between biology and qualia. Well, rather than go that far, I say, rather, render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. The way I do that is to recognize that a functioning brain is a necessity to a living, conscious experience of a human being. What guys like Chopra and Goswami seem to me to have gotten right, is that it's the entirety of eternity that "collapses the wave function", but this "entirety" can be objectified and thereby misconstrued. People form theories of life after death and past lives, telekinesis, clairvoyance, necromancy and astral projection based on this core idea that consciousness is non-physical and nonlocal. And I don't dismiss the validity of their underlying experiences, nor deny the intriguing nature of this idea of nonlocal, disembodied consciousness. I've even had some very shallow and fleeting versions of a few of them myself. But those theories are all based on personalizing what is ultimately an impersonal totality. One point I've seen made on the internet is: "oh yeah, ok, Quantum Mechanics, therefore magic is real. ha ha, yeah, right". And I see their point. The way I think of sifty's original idea that consciousness can't be said to arise from the brain, is as a statement of an absence of knowledge. And then, just leave it at that.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 14, 2018 4:31:13 GMT -5
Science is a reductionist procedure, and consciousness is a dynamic process, so scientific method cannot establish a causal link between the electro-chemical processes of the body and the qualia of experience. The brain can be manipulated to produce experiences, like by taking LSD for example, or perhaps brain trauma, so the corrolation between brain and experience is compelling - but there is no causal link between biology and qualia. Well, rather than go that far, I say, rather, render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. The way I do that is to recognize that a functioning brain is a necessity to a living, conscious experience of a human being. What guys like Chopra and Goswami seem to me to have gotten right, is that it's the entirety of eternity that "collapses the wave function", but this "entirety" can be objectified and thereby misconstrued. People form theories of life after death and past lives, telekinesis, clairvoyance, necromancy and astral projection based on this core idea that consciousness is non-physical and nonlocal. And I don't dismiss the validity of their underlying experiences, nor deny the intriguing nature of this idea of nonlocal, disembodied consciousness. I've even had some very shallow and fleeting versions of a few of them myself. But those theories are all based on personalizing what is ultimately an impersonal totality. One point I've seen made on the internet is: "oh yeah, ok, Quantum Mechanics, therefore magic is real. ha ha, yeah, right". And I see their point. The way I think of sifty's original idea that consciousness can't be said to arise from the brain, is as a statement of an absence of knowledge. And then, just leave it at that. Chopra just throws 'quantum' in the mix at random, which makes me giggle a bit.
I'm guessing "Goswami" is Amit Goswami. I'm listening to a half hour video so I can Judge if he's worthy .
24 minutes later:
Goswami sounds coherent and he is a theoretical physicist. For these reasons, I deem him worthy.
I don't think astral projection is a proof of non-brain consciousness because the disembodied soul is still connected with the living body, but it does mean there are dimensions of experience which are not physical. Post death experience would be no-brain experience, but dead men tell no tales. However, all the psychic or paranormal abilities you mention imply non-local, non-physical, unified consciousness.
Quantum physics is the realm of possibility, and possibility implies uncertainty, but the intent makes some manifestations more likely than others. EG, I could climb a mountain or go the beach, both of which are possible until I decide, but as soon as I decide I make one impossible and the other inevitable.
People might debate over free will in decisions and so forth, but my favorite line of any movie scene ever was in "Mr. Nobody".
Nemo: If you mix the mashed potatoes and sauce, you can't separate them later. It's forever. The smoke comes out of Daddy's cigarette, but it never goes back in. We cannot go back. That's why it's hard to choose. You have to make the right choice. As long as you don't choose, everything remains possible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2018 8:07:31 GMT -5
It's a pretty simple chicken/egg ("chegg") argument, but ultimately, it's metaphysical: if the states of sub-atomic particles aren't independent of the observation of them, then how can the source of that observation first arise from a hierarchy based on the assumed foundation of their objective existence? Because that metaphysics can become so contentious, the way I like to approach it is to point out that Biology is founded on Chemistry which is founded on Physics, but that Physics doesn't currently offer any foundation for the existence of the building blocks of matter independent of observation. Specifically, no Physicist will ever win a Nobel for explaining the "Quantum Observer", because, it's not a physical process. People will argue even with that, and, quite passionately and doggedly so. Yeah, makes sense to me, heh, but as I understand it there are materialist interpretations of quantum effects where there is no dependence on a conscious observer. To take a random wikipedia thing I found in 5 seconds of looking: "Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory" --Werner Heisenberg "Was the wave function waiting to jump for thousands of millions of years until a single-celled living creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer for some highly qualified measurer - with a PhD?" -John Stewart Bell "According to standard quantum mechanics, it is a matter of complete indifference whether the experimenters stay around to watch their experiment, or leave the room and delegate observing to an inanimate apparatus, instead, which amplifies the microscopic events to macroscopic measurements and records them by a time-irreversible process" -also John Bell This article concerning a clever variation of the double slit experiment disproves the arguments above. In fact, the experimental results are impacted by the observer. The arguments offered above don't do justice to the many illogical and bizarre behaviors in the quantum world that run counter to the "realism" principle. The materialists keep throwing up weak arguments to attempt to bulwark their cheesy explanations. Being an avid student of QM, I can tell you that we are no closer to a conceptual understanding of the quantum phenomena than we were one hundred years ago. I see the study of Physics devolving to ever more clever ways of solving Schrodinger for different systems, but without any grasp of what underlies the dynamics of the quantum world. It is now just a guessing game. The only advances come in applying Schrodinger to ever more complex systems and using quantum phenomena for advancements in technology.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Nov 14, 2018 8:26:18 GMT -5
Yep! All right, you convinced me . yipppeeeeeee! yay! ... hey, do I get an embossed certificate of advanced convincerdooderology now??
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Nov 14, 2018 8:31:35 GMT -5
This article concerning a clever variation of the double slit experiment disproves the arguments above. In fact, the experimental results are impacted by the observer. The arguments offered above don't do justice to the many illogical and bizarre behaviors in the quantum world that run counter to the "realism" principle. The materialists keep throwing up weak arguments to attempt to bulwark their cheesy explanations. Being an avid student of QM, I can tell you that we are no closer to a conceptual understanding of the quantum phenomena than we were one hundred years ago. I see the study of Physics devolving to ever more clever ways of solving Schrodinger for different systems, but without any grasp of what underlies the dynamics of the quantum world. It is now just a guessing game. The only advances come in applying Schrodinger to ever more complex systems and using quantum phenomena for advancements in technology. Huh, fascinating! That experiment is clever, and it's good to hear the materialists don't really have a leg to stand on.
|
|