Near Death and Out of Body Experiences

annnnoid · Jan 30, 2015

dlorde said:
Disembodied consciousness is like a rook moving diagonally. We know enough about the physics of human scale interactions to know it's not a valid move.

Not correct.

I’ve a friend who’s a theoretical physicist. Here’s what he had to say about the matter:

I find the claim that "were it to occur it would be detectable" somewhat question-begging. It presumes that it (OBEs) would occur in a way that is easily detectable through the known forces of nature (EM, weak, strong, gravity). But in fact, it's not so clear. For example, the electromagnetic vacuum energy of quantum electrodynamics is an enormous energy density, yet we can barely observe its indirect physical effects on visible matter other than in highly controlled experimental setups (e.g. Casimir plates in a hard vacuum). If OBEs (say) were mediated by the E&M vacuum energy (perhaps through correlations in the vacuum field modes or whatever), it would be extremely hard to detect those correlations (much harder than doing a Casimir effect experiment). Then of course, there's the fact that there are mediums in our physical universe whose constituents or physical origins we know next to nothing about - dark matter and dark energy (it's not clear yet if dark energy is really the same as the electromagnetic/weak/strong quantum vacuum energy, or something different). These two mediums constitute around 96% of the mass-energy content of the universe, yet the only way we know how to 'detect' them at the moment is by observing their gravitational effects at galactic and inter-galactic scales. If (say) the medium for OBEs (assuming they really are 'consciousness' displacing itself from the physical brain) was mediated by dark matter and/or dark energy, it would be hopeless right now to try and detect the physical effects of an OBE with earth-bound lab experiments, and probably impossible to infer OBEs from gravitational effects at galactic or inter-galactic scales. I can't think of any evidence or theory that can decisively rule out these two possibilities for the mediums of OBEs.

I’ve heard this ‘but it contradicts all the laws of the universe’ silliness for way to long. It's nothing more than a bare assertion, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Especially given that nobody has any clear idea as to the actual phenomenology and / or range of activity of consciousness and especially given the indisputable fact that nobody has any idea how it’s generated by the brain in the first place.

Constantly bleating that ‘the mind is what the brain does’ is nothing more than a convenient fairy tale to hide the elephant in the room. Ignorance.

steenkh said:
It is well-known that memory is unreliable.

Of course this is blatant nonsense (and can easily be established to be exactly that)…but for once, we’ll let one of your own demonstrate.

dlorde said:
Hyper-real or vivid experiences are a common feature of lucid dreams and may also occur as a result of extreme mental or physiological stress (PTSD, NDEs), and psychoactive drugs. I've had several hyper-vivid lucid dreams over the years; you don't forget them.

We’ll just assume that dlorde is lying shall we.

I’m thinking that dlorde has just become a witness for the defense.

bruto · Jan 30, 2015

I see that we appear to have another poster who is unclear on the difference between the container and its contents. I think it's reasonable to suggest that memory is faulty without suggesting that no memory can be relevant, and that we can remember a dream without forgetting it was only a dream.

Donn · Jan 30, 2015

Even if there's some bleeding-edge physics that postulates a means to connect our atomic brains to the outside of our skulls, what does the "consciousness" attach-to when it leaves the brain?

I.e. why is the brain so complex? If that complexity is required to "host" a "consciousness" then whatever else may "host" it should be at least as complex. What could that be?

If this "consciousness" is self-contained and needs no structure to be "hosted" then why the brain at all? Why not a marble of electromagnetic vacuum energy, whatever?

If this "consciousness" is merely data - and it must move to various "hosts" in order to exist - then what is its bandwidth? What are the measurements in gigs per second, say, that it would take to move from in the skull to outside the skull, and off into super-universe-brain-space?

Are the mentioned quantum vacuum energy flim-flams up to the task? Would there not be some residual signal we can detect now? As the "consciousness" moves out, would it not leave some heat, some light perhaps?

So many questions.

Nonpareil · Jan 30, 2015

annnnoid said:
I’ve a friend who’s a theoretical physicist.

Assuming you're still talking about Max Derakshani, no, you don't. You have a friend who is a college student majoring in physics.

annnnoid said:
Constantly bleating that ‘the mind is what the brain does’ is nothing more than a convenient fairy tale to hide the elephant in the room. Ignorance.

It's really not.

annnnoid said:
Of course this is blatant nonsense (and can easily be established to be exactly that)…but for once, we’ll let one of your own demonstrate.

We’ll just assume that dlorde is lying shall we.

I’m thinking that dlorde has just become a witness for the defense.

In other news, annnnoid still does not know the definition of "fallible".

Navigator · Jan 30, 2015

Donn said:
Yes, one should. As narrators of reality, even our own accrued lives, humans are rubbish at non-fiction.

So something happened which was real but how it is reported is not how it was.

For a certain social aspect, we pretend that we are in control and at the helm. We can manage an identity over time by the constant use of it. Other oft-repeated things groove into our minds and maintain the illusion of self, etc. For this short span and social aspect, we are "reliable" but it's within very strict limits.

Ah. So 'the illusion of self' has more to do with how the self puts on a costume and acts out.
I have been saying as much in relation to my experience with ideomotor. The ego personality is at the helm and the real self is ignored and/or presumed to be something it isn't.

It is that real self which I am speaking about communicating with through ideomotor.

It is quite the humbling experience for ego personality as the real self slowly undresses it and washes it clean of makeup.

Here's another very strange thing:

You say it's a claim and then you say it can so-and-so as if that's a fact. No, it's more claiming. You do this a lot, shifting from cautious to carefree and dabbing all over the canvas.

Or so you claim. I see you relying upon hearsay here and have not provided examples.

See? And, no, that's not at all clear.

No I do not see. What is not clear. You need to clarify.

Affirming the consequent. Begging the question. Coming to a gun fight with a halibut.

What does that even mean in regard to what you quote?

Evolution is a word with many meanings. One is that, loosely, things change and go from one state to another over time. So, yes, kinda-sorta, the universe evolved.

Ah yes. There are so many singular words with multiple meanings. That makes it easier not to have to say what you mean, or be understood.
generally people have been lead to believe that the universe exists through the process of evolution, in a definite rather than kinda-sorta way.

Were the goal posts moved or did someones discover something previously hidden?

The evolution here is not the same as the theory of evolution used in biology.

Ah... so same universe but different processes. Why use the same word for a different process?

Bald assertion served by your special pleading. Well done! No, there is no evidently about it. Zero.

Nope, wrong. Evidence? And not more fallacious looping.

That will be your illusion of self talking here. It simply prefers not to see the obvious because of the implications. It needs to get out of its box and remove its costumes and makeup and start being real.
The evidence is there to observe. What more evidence could you require? What evidence will you accept?

Yeah, you can discover that the mind is an endless source of stories that fit the mind.

You will never know if you continue to live the facade of your illusion of self.

Psychonaut, doubt thyself!

Says the illusion about the real.

annnnoid · Jan 30, 2015

Nonpareil said:
Assuming you're still talking about Max Derakshani, no, you don't. You have a friend who is a college student majoring in physics.
.

He has a masters degree in theoretical physics...currently doing research.

Tell me Nonpareil...what qualifications do you possess?

Your never-ending refusal to provide a shred of evidence to support your claims would lead one to conclude that you possess...nothing.

Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.

Can you challenge the conclusions presented?

....no, didn't think so.

So all you're left with is a feeble attempt at ridiculing the author. Ad hominem it's called. Sad.

Unless you can challenge what he wrote (and you can't, and you won't), what he wrote stands.

annnnoid · Jan 30, 2015

Donn said:
Even if there's some bleeding-edge physics that postulates a means to connect our atomic brains to the outside of our skulls, what does the "consciousness" attach-to when it leaves the brain?

I.e. why is the brain so complex? If that complexity is required to "host" a "consciousness" then whatever else may "host" it should be at least as complex. What could that be?

If this "consciousness" is self-contained and needs no structure to be "hosted" then why the brain at all? Why not a marble of electromagnetic vacuum energy, whatever?

If this "consciousness" is merely data - and it must move to various "hosts" in order to exist - then what is its bandwidth? What are the measurements in gigs per second, say, that it would take to move from in the skull to outside the skull, and off into super-universe-brain-space?

Are the mentioned quantum vacuum energy flim-flams up to the task? Would there not be some residual signal we can detect now? As the "consciousness" moves out, would it not leave some heat, some light perhaps?

So many questions.

...so few answers. Congratulations Donn...you're finally beginning to get it!

Science can't tell you what you are (...cause it....doesn't....know!).

Can you?

Nonpareil · Jan 30, 2015

annnnoid said:
He has a masters degree in theoretical physics...currently doing research.

On what, precisely?

Because I very much doubt it's anything related to this field. He is simply pulling things out of his posterior and saying "well, you haven't yet proven it isn't", rather than there actually being any evidence whatsoever for it being that way.

annnnoid said:
Unless you can challenge what he wrote (and you can't, and you won't), what he wrote stands.

"What he wrote" was baseless speculation.

bruto · Jan 30, 2015

annnnoid said:
...so few answers. Congratulations Donn...you're finally beginning to get it!

Science can't tell you what you are (...cause it....doesn't....know!).

Can you?

If science cannot answer a question, of course it's possible that science is at fault, but first you must be sure it's an answerable question.

Why is a mouse when it spins? The inability to answer this old riddle is inherent in the question. No answer will ever come to how a thing called consciousness is handled, if consciousness is not a thing.

Donn · Jan 30, 2015

annnnoid said:
...so few answers. Congratulations Donn...you're finally beginning to get it!

Science can't tell you what you are (...cause it....doesn't....know!).

Can you?

Knowledge must exist amidst doubts. That there is doubt does not make two proposals equal in worth.

On one hand you have the sum total of human science - the very best of what the species can do - saying that consciousness is of and in the brain. It does not come from without, but within.

On the other hand, you have scant gaps of dubious pedigree and a tank-load of mystic muttering that says, well, variously opposite things.

The two are not on the same level; they are not equal; they do not balance.

If they were on a see-saw, science would be the elephant and the other side would be a gnat.

So, what's your position on the see-saw?

annnnoid · Jan 30, 2015

Donn said:
Knowledge must exist amidst doubts. That there is doubt does not make two proposals equal in worth.

On one hand you have the sum total of human science - the very best of what the species can do - saying that consciousness is of and in the brain. It does not come from without, but within.

On the other hand, you have scant gaps of dubious pedigree and a tank-load of mystic muttering that says, well, variously opposite things.

The two are not on the same level; they are not equal; they do not balance.

If they were on a see-saw, science would be the elephant and the other side would be a gnat.

So, what's your position on the see-saw?

"All is jaundiced to the jaundiced eye."

...I can (and have on other threads) produce a pile of neuroscientists who flat out claim that we have no idea how the physical activity of the brain generates consciousness.

... and nowhere does there exist anything remotely resembling a consensus on the phenomenology of consciousness or what constitutes normative activity.

...and nowhere does science even begin to have anything remotely resembling the ability to explain it's own existence.

...but they're just scant gaps.

Ok then! ...believe what you want. Just don't pretend they're facts, cause they're not. It's called religion.

dlorde · Jan 30, 2015

annnnoid said:
dlorde said:

Disembodied consciousness is like a rook moving diagonally. We know enough about the physics of human scale interactions to know it's not a valid move.

Click to expand...

Not correct.

I’ve a friend who’s a theoretical physicist. Here’s what he had to say about the matter:

<... words to the effect that we don't know or can't say ...>

I’ve heard this ‘but it contradicts all the laws of the universe’ silliness for way to long.

I'm going by Sean Carroll's assessment of what the current state of physical knowledge allows us to say. I find it persuasive, but provisional - like all science.

But hey, two theoretical physicists have different opinions - who'da thunk it?

steenkh said:
It is well-known that memory is unreliable.

Click to expand...

Of course this is blatant nonsense (and can easily be established to be exactly that)…but for once, we’ll let one of your own demonstrate.

dlorde said:

Hyper-real or vivid experiences are a common feature of lucid dreams and may also occur as a result of extreme mental or physiological stress (PTSD, NDEs), and psychoactive drugs. I've had several hyper-vivid lucid dreams over the years; you don't forget them.

Click to expand...

We’ll just assume that dlorde is lying shall we.

I’m thinking that dlorde has just become a witness for the defense.

Don't be silly. It is well established that episodic memory is unreliable, including autobiographical memory. That doesn't mean you forget vivid experiences (although you may), but that, if you recall them, the content is likely to be unreliable. So it's likely that my current recall of the dream may not correspond precisely to what I dreamt, or how I would have described it the morning after. For most memories, especially dreams, it doesn't really matter.

There is also the possibility that I never had the dream at all, and have unwittingly incorporated it from other sources or confabulated it. This kind of thing has been shown to occur, but seems unlikely in this case, as I have other memories of describing it at various times, including shortly after.

annnnoid · Jan 30, 2015

bruto said:
If science cannot answer a question, of course it's possible that science is at fault, but first you must be sure it's an answerable question.

Why is a mouse when it spins? The inability to answer this old riddle is inherent in the question. No answer will ever come to how a thing called consciousness is handled, if consciousness is not a thing.

...and does anyone have any ability to determine whether or not it is a thing? Cristof Koch, for one, has insisted that consciousness is phenomenologically differentiated. Doesn't mean it is, just means he, for one, thinks it is.

Donn · Jan 30, 2015

Navigator said:
So something happened which was real but how it is reported is not how it was.

Yes, actually. This is why science compounds results over time - to give more weight to results exactly because individual an human's reports are apt to err.

One man can be wrong in his reporting of <x>. Fifty men are less likely to be wrong if their reports on <x> all tally. It's always a probability.

This is why you stand alone in your self-dowsing. We cannot afford to believe you because individuals are unreliable. *

(* I say this stuff now but I didn't always know it. Unless I stay in this mode, I will forget it again. You might find me one day totally ignorant about these skeptical topics. I forget stuff all the time.)

Ah. So 'the illusion of self' has more to do with how the self puts on a costume and acts out.

Yeah, that sounds like a good analogy. The costume is one we fashion all the time, in real-time. If we do not maintain it, it will fade in those places. The costume I was when I a teenager is long gone. The one I will be in five years time, who knows?

I have been saying as much in relation to my experience with ideomotor. The ego personality is at the helm and the real self is ignored and/or presumed to be something it isn't.

I must say* there is no "real self" - you have a homunculus fetish.

(* I only "know" this from recent reading and a humble acceptance of my relative capacity to know things. I'm asserting, yes, that there is no "real self", but it's backed by recent arguments that convinced me of the truth of it. Those arguments included evidence, although my ability to critically appraise scientific evidence is limited.)

How do you know that your "real self" is the one, so-to-speak, below your "ego" self? I mean, how can you tell that it's not reversed and you're suffering some mental disorder?

Or what if there's another level under your "real self" that is the real real self and it's just playing a trick on you by talking "up" a layer?

Or what if there is no other layer at all, and all you have is the picture we've been explaining in this thread?

You owe it to yourself to come up with some way, some means, some test whereby you can exclude the false trails in your self experiments. If you do not, then you may as well believe anything at all.

On the "evolution" word:

Ah yes. There are so many singular words with multiple meanings. That makes it easier not to have to say what you mean, or be understood.

Well, you've been posting here for long enough to have been told about what evolution is many times. You are the one equivocating.

generally people have been lead to believe that the universe exists through the process of evolution, in a definite rather than kinda-sorta way.

And this generally is the wrong notion.

Were the goal posts moved or did someones discover something previously hidden?

No, you moved them. Stop using the word to cover two bases at once, it's slippery.

annnnoid · Jan 30, 2015

Nonpareil said:
"What he wrote" was baseless speculation.

The guy has a masters degree in theoretical physics. He’s explicitly talking about theoretical physics. It has been specifically stated…numerous times…that NDE’s, OBE’s, psi, etc. etc. contradict all the known laws of god, the universe, and everything.

He has clearly demonstrated that they do not.

If you’re going to insist that this is baseless speculation at least make some attempt to argue the point…

…or are we going to have to bring up the epileptic on a nest of fire ants again. Hands a waving, hands a waving, hands a waving.

If you can do no better than…’ but he’s wrong…and I know it…cause I’ll be upset if he isn’t…!!!!!!’…then we’ll just have to ignore you and move on.

Navigator · Jan 30, 2015

steenkh said:
Of course. It is not so unreliable that I cannot in general work with the assumption that what I experience is real, but I am well aware that it does not need to be so.

It is well-known that memory is unreliable. I have memories from my childhood that cannot have happened, and others where people tell me that what I remember did not happen. our powers of observation are not so great as people generally think, and this is why eye-witnesses are not to be relied on exclusively, even if they do not lie. Think of the famous "gorilla-suit" clip, or the experiments where people who see a violent event remember it based on their biases, and not on what really happened.

Our senses can be fooled in many ways, and we can see and hear things that do not exist, or see patterns that do not exist. We can even be fooled into thinking that we make decisions voluntarily that have actually been forced on us.

In favour of what? Experiencing something yourself is not the same as gaining knowledge that is not based on belief. You yourself speak about the experience of entities that you can sense, although it is quite obvious that you are just experiencing a recurrent hallucination, not something that is actually real.

And it should be equally as obvious that I am not saying it was real.

Again, your personal experience, though convincing to yourself, is not actually evidence that this is real.

So you are saying that even if you experienced it this does not signify it is real. Yet I made no mention of whether it was real or not. What I said was:
The mind process has something to do with the consciousness I speak about in relation to ideomotor.
You will not know this until you can verify it through the same process
The evidence is obtained through the data. The data is real. It can be recorded as it is happening.

But you still have not presented any evidence that what you experienced was real, and not a hallucination.

I don't need to produce evidence. I am not claiming the experience was real. I am claiming it was a real experience.

I have experienced people who hallucinated, and who were quite convinced about something that was at odds with reality. A very good example was of a lady who had been given some wrong medication, and who was convinced that there was a light switch on a wall where there was none. Your sense of what is real cannot be relied upon.

Let me put it another way which might help remove you from the obvious confusion you are under.

A movie isn't real, but still can be experienced.

Okay?

So your claim is that you can communicate with your own subconscious mind? This is not controversial at all. Schizophrenics do it all the time. But that does not turn your subconscious mind into a real "entity".

I am communicating with you. Are you a 'real' entity?
If so, then your assertion is incorrect.
If not, then what is real and who can explain that to me?
And are we all thus Schizophrenics?

Really? Why on Earth should you believe a hallucination?

You believe the subconscious is a hallucination?

Evolution is a natural process that is observed in biology. It has nothing to do with the universe as a whole, and the universe is not the product of evolution.

Well who moved the goal posts and why?

I have no idea what you are talking about here. What movement? What relation to the universe?

As much as it looks like galaxies are stationary, they are moving. It the movement, they are evolving.

Er, what? How do you determine that "the process" is "evidently intelligent"?

By observing the intelligence of the process, rather than ignoring or otherwise pretending it isn't there.

As a matter of fact, you are wrong. This plant would become extinct if there were no bees but only flies. So, no consciousness is evident.

Yet there are both bees and flies so the process is intelligent.

Evolution might change things over lots of generations, but only if the change in insect life happens over a long time. Evolution does not display intelligence any more than water running downhill display intelligence in picking the route of least resistance.

Yet if water ran uphill, lifeforms would likely not be able to evolve and be plentiful as the are in reality.

The process of evolution does not necessarily have to take a very long time in order for changes to occur, but the amount of time anything takes is not an argument against their being no intelligence involved in the process.

Sorry, "the process" does not display intelligence, so your argument falls flat.

Yes it does so my argument stands.

Any more than the example of gravity? Why do you see a difference?

I don't. The origin of this argument started by the claim that consciousness can only occur in things with brains and is absent from everything else.
gravity is part of the intelligent process and it works admirably.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Although I do agree that everything to do with consciousness is subjective.

That is why we have science to overcome the bias.

So when an individual overcomes personal bias, he/she is being scientific.

No.

In fact, yes, but you answer from ignorance and bias. So in that context, you are correct. For you the answer has to be 'no'.

(see the hilited for more detail.)

Donn · Jan 30, 2015

annnnoid said:
...I can (and have on other threads) produce a pile of neuroscientists who flat out claim that we have no idea how the physical activity of the brain generates consciousness.

I've read those posts. I also read as they were torn to shreds. You have left many questions unanswered in those threads, in favour of just repeating this refrain.

I'm not persuaded.

... and nowhere does there exist anything remotely resembling a consensus on the phenomenology of consciousness or what constitutes normative activity.

Except where it does and your cherry-picked experts are not on the list. Also, physics.

...and nowhere does science even begin to have anything remotely resembling the ability to explain it's own existence.

So? An argument from ignorance is building.

...but they're just scant gaps.

Yes. Your efforts to stretch them wider are not persuasive.

Ok then! ...believe what you want. Just don't pretend they're facts, cause they're not. It's called religion.

I notice you dodge my basic question and ignore my post's message. Well done. You earn --

+10 Teflon points for :frogsat:

slipperiness.

Donn · Jan 30, 2015

Navigator said:
..gravity is part of the intelligent process and it works admirably.

You have yet to tell us what is not intelligent in your system.

dlorde · Jan 30, 2015

annnnoid said:
... It has been specifically stated…numerous times…that NDE’s, OBE’s, psi, etc. etc. contradict all the known laws of god, the universe, and everything.

He has clearly demonstrated that they do not.

Has he 'clearly demonstrated' it or just expressed his opinion?

What you posted from him, "I can't think of any evidence or theory that can decisively rule out these ... possibilities" is an uncertain opinion.

Donn · Jan 30, 2015

annnnoid said:
He has clearly demonstrated that they do not.

Glass caked in mud and tar is clear by comparison.

Please provide this demonstration so we can all be clear about it.

Navigator · Jan 30, 2015

Donn said:
Even if there's some bleeding-edge physics that postulates a means to connect our atomic brains to the outside of our skulls, what does the "consciousness" attach-to when it leaves the brain?

That is a very good question. In order to answer it one would need to understand what consciousness is - what motivates it, what it prefers etc.

I.e. why is the brain so complex? If that complexity is required to "host" a "consciousness" then whatever else may "host" it should be at least as complex. What could that be?

It is an assumption that the brain needs to be complex in order to host consciousness.
Likely it is an advantage to consciousness to be hosted by a complex brain, but not just the brain. The form is also an advantage.
For example, the whole human form can be utilized to create incredible machinery.

Work is being done (and is being mentioned in this discussion) on finding ways of making machinery a viable container for consciousness.
It is likely that the success or failure of such undertaking rests on our precise understand of the exact and true nature of consciousness.

If this "consciousness" is self-contained and needs no structure to be "hosted" then why the brain at all? Why not a marble of electromagnetic vacuum energy, whatever?

Not just the brain. The whole form. Why? I offer one possible answer above.

If this "consciousness" is merely data - and it must move to various "hosts" in order to exist - then what is its bandwidth? What are the measurements in gigs per second, say, that it would take to move from in the skull to outside the skull, and off into super-universe-brain-space?

I am not convinced consciousness is data. (if it is, it wouldn't be 'merely' it would be 'wow!')
Consciousness works with data. Collects it through experience.
In relation to form, and in particular, human form, (to keep things close to home as it were) there is something to be said for a more hands on experience - mucking in and getting dirty even.
It is one thing to observe from a more disconnected position. It is another thing to get involved more directly.

Are the mentioned quantum vacuum energy flim-flams up to the task? Would there not be some residual signal we can detect now? As the "consciousness" moves out, would it not leave some heat, some light perhaps?

So many questions.

These are good as far as questions go. Perhaps if you use ideomotor such questions might be eventually answered, or perhaps you will start to understand that although the questions are good from a particular position, they are here nor there from another one.

Navigator · Jan 30, 2015

Nonpareil said:
Because

I very much doubt

Click to expand...

it's anything related to this field. He is simply pulling things out of his posterior and saying "well, you haven't yet proven it isn't", rather than there actually being any evidence whatsoever for it being that way.

What would you accept as evidence? I am finding that is the best question to ask those who consistently use that line in their argument.

annnnoid · Jan 30, 2015

Donn said:
I've read those posts. I also read as they were torn to shreds. You have left many questions unanswered in those threads, in favour of just repeating this refrain.

I'm not persuaded.

Except where it does and your cherry-picked experts are not on the list. Also, physics.

So? An argument from ignorance is building.

Yes. Your efforts to stretch them wider are not persuasive.

I notice you dodge my basic question and ignore my post's message. Well done. You earn --
+10 Teflon points for slipperiness.

Well Donn…we all know exactly how you can prove me wrong.

It’s called evidence.

I’ve said that neuroscience has no idea how the brain generates consciousness…

…presumably you are going to claim that neuroscience knows how the brain generates consciousness.

Here’s a couple of question that should be easy for you then:

- What is it about any particular neural process that causes any sensory input to be felt as a particular sensation or experience?
- What physical property differentiates the quality of these experiences?
- How is this process expressed through the biochemistry of neurons?
- What part of the system actually has the experience(s)?
- What are the relevant physical properties of this portion of the system that causes it to be subjectively sensible?
- Why (for example) does the amygdala have the physical dimensions and bio-chemical constitution that it has (and how did it achieve that condition) and in what specific ways do these elements determine its cognitive functionality? When you’re done explaining that, provide equivalent explanations for every other significantly differentiated brain region (modularity of mind...what many claim is evidence that we know how the brain works).

I’ve said that there is no consensus on the phenomenology of consciousness or its normative condition.

...your claim, presumably, is that there is a consensus.

Evidence?

I’ve insisted that science has no ability to explain its own existence.

…your claim, presumably, is that science can explain it’s own existence.

Evidence?

I can produce evidence to support my arguments. You are beginning to behave dangerously like Nonpareil. You just wave your hands about like an epileptic on an ant hill and scream….’ …you’re wrong, you’re wrong, you’re wrong, you’re wrong…’

I’m right until you produce some evidence. So far all you’ve presented is…

Donn said:
special pleading.

annnnoid · Jan 30, 2015

dlorde said:
Has he 'clearly demonstrated' it or just expressed his opinion?

What you posted from him, "I can't think of any evidence or theory that can decisively rule out these ... possibilities" is an uncertain opinion.

...he's clearly demonstrated that the argument is not even remotely resolved...as so many here (including you) frequently try to argue.

dlorde · Jan 30, 2015

Donn said:
You have yet to tell us what is not intelligent in your system.

Given the strange usages, perhaps intelligence, consciousness, and evolution have a different meaning for him than for others on the forum.

Navigator · Jan 30, 2015

bruto said:
If science cannot answer a question, of course it's possible that science is at fault, but first you must be sure it's an answerable question.

In the same way, if evidence is demanded, the evidence demanded must be able to be produced.
"What kind of evidence will you accept" is a reasonable question.

No answer will ever come to how a thing called consciousness is handled, if consciousness is not a thing.

Take the following as a jocular journey of the mind and don't get too serious about it:

Consciousness is a thing. Just as the process of evolution is a thing.
Even 'nothing' is a thing, because consciousness itself determines that and while it (nothing) is absent of anything (thus can be called 'nothing'), this process is exactly what what distinguishes nothing as something.

The one thing which can determine nothing as a thing can only do so if it experiences nothing as something.

Therefore, consciousness has the ability to experience nothing and report that this has occurred.

In fact we all remember experiencing nothing, before we experienced something.

If we didn't, then how is it that we know so much about nothing?

Q: If consciousness experiences nothing, then because consciousness is within nothing and experiencing it as nothing, does that make nothing something?

A: Yes. Consciousness has determined it as being something and has thus labelled it accordingly. It seems to be something consciousness likes doing. Naming things. It even names itself.
Nothing else which exists, does this.

No answer will ever come to how a thing called consciousness is handled, if consciousness is not a thing.

It exists. Therefore it is something.

You are consciousness. Do you consider yourself to being something?

Is it really important making such distinction? How does it help?

Nonpareil · Jan 30, 2015

annnnoid said:
The guy has a masters degree in theoretical physics. He’s explicitly talking about theoretical physics. It has been specifically stated…numerous times…that NDE’s, OBE’s, psi, etc. etc. contradict all the known laws of god, the universe, and everything.

He has clearly demonstrated that they do not.

No, he's talking speculation.

"Theoretical physics" requires some actual physics being theorized about. All he's saying is that science has not yet definitively ruled out magic.

Which is true, because there is no defined mechanism for magic, and people are free to keep making up any sort of nonsense they want for how it might work. But that doesn't actually make their hypothetical nonsense "theoretical physics".

annnnoid said:
If you’re going to insist that this is baseless speculation at least make some attempt to argue the point…

It is baseless speculation.

There is nothing else to be said. He does not make any attempt whatsoever to actually back up anything he says. That is the definition of baseless speculation.

Navigator · Jan 30, 2015

Donn said:
Knowledge must exist amidst doubts. That there is doubt does not make two proposals equal in worth.

On one hand you have the sum total of human science - the very best of what the species can do - saying that consciousness is of and in the brain. It does not come from without, but within.

In the context of the topic, it is not here nor there how consciousness originated.
also, since it can only be observed scientifically through things which have brains, while it is understandable the observation leads the subjective individuals to assume only one thing, since other things can also be assumed through the same observations, it cannot be said with any certainty (other than along the lines of 'beyond reasonable doubt' - which is bias because doubt and belief are bedfellows and bias is the child of belief) it actually does not matter if consciousness is the product of the brain or an independent entity.

In relation to the human experience, consciousness is along for the ride and thus remains for as long as the brain and body are able to host it.

What happens to that consciousness afterwards is beyond the ability of scientists to know for certain.

Nonpareil · Jan 30, 2015

Navigator said:
In relation to the human experience, consciousness is along for the ride and thus remains for as long as the brain and body are able to host it.

What happens to that consciousness afterwards is beyond the ability of scientists to know for certain.

It's really not.

Navigator · Jan 30, 2015

dlorde said:
I'm going by Sean Carroll's assessment of what the current state of physical knowledge allows us to say. I find it persuasive, but provisional - like all science.

But hey, two theoretical physicists have different opinions - who'da thunk it?

Yes so there are different groups one can choose depending on what suits their particular bias. The groups might overlap in agreement in some details but it is really just opinion after all.

Don't be silly. It is well established that episodic memory is unreliable, including autobiographical memory. That doesn't mean you forget vivid experiences (although you may), but that, if you recall them, the content is likely to be unreliable. So it's likely that my current recall of the dream may not correspond precisely to what I dreamt, or how I would have described it the morning after. For most memories, especially dreams, it doesn't really matter.

There is also the possibility that I never had the dream at all, and have unwittingly incorporated it from other sources or confabulated it. This kind of thing has been shown to occur, but seems unlikely in this case, as I have other memories of describing it at various times, including shortly after.

How 'shortly after'?

Anyway, it is not here nor there because it depends on your individual response to the experience. Like people who experience the same movie but have different and even opposing opinions about the experience.

I remember enough of what I experienced in relation to the entity to have eventually understood what it was about and why it happened the way I remember it happening.

Not just through my memory and subsequent contemplation of experiencing it but also my communications process through ideomotor regarding the experiences.

While the vividness of experience cannot be recalled in sharp detail minutes after, notes on it from the time and over the years do not fade.
I can describe the entity enough that together with a forensic artist an accurate enough picture of the entity could be created which would be sharper than my recall.

Apparently (or rumor has it) hypnosis also reports successful recall and it is very clear. The person recalls so vividly that they are literally reliving the experience.
If true, that goes to show that memory is still stored as precise and sharply as was experienced. Normal recall is the fuzzy thing.
I think the memory argument is overused an mostly non contextual. .

Donn · Jan 30, 2015

annnnoid said:
Well Donn…we all know exactly how you can prove me wrong.

Since I don't even know your position, despite having asked, what can I do?

I stand by the standard science as I know it and as I read it here, in books and online. I am fairly sure my outlook matches the null hypothesis: that consciousness is what the brain does.

If you differ, it's not me who has to prove you wrong. But you know this too.

I’ve said that neuroscience has no idea how the brain generates consciousness…

Yes, you've shouted it from an anthill. I don't find it persuasive. It's too binary. "Neuroscience" is not a single thing. "No idea" is not true, there are many fronts in the research and many levels of knowledge.

…presumably you are going to claim that neuroscience knows how the brain generates consciousness.

You presume wrong. As far as I know, as a pop-culture dilettante, the thing is still a mystery.

Even so, there is more on the elephant's side of the see-saw than on the gnat's.

Some evidence is much greater than none.

Here’s a couple of question that should be easy for you then:

All moot. Nicely designed on a bad assumption to show how little I personally know.

Your list only goes to show how complex the brain is - and that makes the question of why intensely pertinent. Why all that almost fractal intricacy if the "consciousness" is something that can come and go, brain optional?

Why are no parts of the brain like any part of a radio? This renders the mind as signal from outside moot.

The more you express how little science knows about the mind, the more you show how little is know - period. There are no other ways of knowing that are worth a whisper into a hurricane.

In other words, the more you work to build your argument from ignorance, the more you spotlight your ignorance.

Mr. Annnnoid, build up that wall!

I’ve insisted that science has no ability to explain its own existence.

…your claim, presumably, is that science can explain it’s own existence.

Evidence?

Science is the best we have and you know very well that there are basic postulates that are assumed. Solipsism is quicksand, you have to lay a few planks to start building.

I can produce evidence to support my arguments.

Funny, I must have missed that in the last few years of your xerox-like posts. Do astound us!

You are beginning to behave dangerously like Nonpareil. You just wave your hands about like an epileptic on an ant hill and scream….’ …you’re wrong, you’re wrong, you’re wrong, you’re wrong…’

How convincing. I stand naked before all - exposed in my iniquity.
:ant:

Do you hold that the elephant and the gnat are balanced on the see-saw, or not? What is your position other than so much ink in the water?

Slowvehicle · Jan 30, 2015

annnnoid said:
Not correct.

I’ve a friend who’s a theoretical physicist. Here’s what he had to say about the matter:

I find the claim that "were it to occur it would be detectable" somewhat question-begging. It presumes that it (OBEs) would occur in a way that is easily detectable through the known forces of nature (EM, weak, strong, gravity). But in fact, it's not so clear. For example, the electromagnetic vacuum energy of quantum electrodynamics is an enormous energy density, yet we can barely observe its indirect physical effects on visible matter other than in highly controlled experimental setups (e.g. Casimir plates in a hard vacuum). If OBEs (say) were mediated by the E&M vacuum energy (perhaps through correlations in the vacuum field modes or whatever), it would be extremely hard to detect those correlations (much harder than doing a Casimir effect experiment). Then of course, there's the fact that there are mediums in our physical universe whose constituents or physical origins we know next to nothing about - dark matter and dark energy (it's not clear yet if dark energy is really the same as the electromagnetic/weak/strong quantum vacuum energy, or something different). These two mediums constitute around 96% of the mass-energy content of the universe, yet the only way we know how to 'detect' them at the moment is by observing their gravitational effects at galactic and inter-galactic scales. If (say) the medium for OBEs (assuming they really are 'consciousness' displacing itself from the physical brain) was mediated by dark matter and/or dark energy, it would be hopeless right now to try and detect the physical effects of an OBE with earth-bound lab experiments, and probably impossible to infer OBEs from gravitational effects at galactic or inter-galactic scales. I can't think of any evidence or theory that can decisively rule out these two possibilities for the mediums of OBEs.

I’ve heard this ‘but it contradicts all the laws of the universe’ silliness for way to long. It's nothing more than a bare assertion, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Especially given that nobody has any clear idea as to the actual phenomenology and / or range of activity of consciousness and especially given the indisputable fact that nobody has any idea how it’s generated by the brain in the first place.

Constantly bleating that ‘the mind is what the brain does’ is nothing more than a convenient fairy tale to hide the elephant in the room. Ignorance.

Of course this is blatant nonsense (and can easily be established to be exactly that)…but for once, we’ll let one of your own demonstrate.

We’ll just assume that dlorde is lying shall we.

I’m thinking that dlorde has just become a witness for the defense.

Is that Deraksani, the woo! blogging grad student?

Upon what research in theoretical physics is he currently working?

What has he published, anent physics?

What is the source of your quotation?

ETA: ninja-ed by Nonpareil!

Donn · Jan 30, 2015

Navigator said:
In the context of the topic, it is not here nor there how consciousness originated.

Consciousness continually "originates". Stop your heart for a while and find out.

also, since it can only be observed scientifically through things which have brains, while it is understandable the observation leads the subjective individuals to assume only one thing, since other things can also be assumed through the same observations,

Many words to say: My science is the same as your science.

In a nutshell: no.

The multiple and repeated accrual of knowledge in the sciences over hundreds of years is vastly, vastly, more accurate than your personal ideodowsing experience.

You still refuse to answer my basic question about error-catching within yourself.

In relation to the human experience, consciousness is along for the ride and thus remains for as long as the brain and body are able to host it.

What happens to that consciousness afterwards is beyond the ability of scientists to know for certain.

What happens after is that you gradually become dust and air. There is no personal afterwards. This is a highly probable true statement made with great confidence because science is methodical and filled with doubt. You should try that.

Slowvehicle · Jan 30, 2015

annnnoid said:
He has a masters degree in theoretical physics...currently doing research.

Tell me Nonpareil...what qualifications do you possess?

Your never-ending refusal to provide a shred of evidence to support your claims would lead one to conclude that you possess...nothing.

Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.

Can you challenge the conclusions presented?

....no, didn't think so.

So all you're left with is a feeble attempt at ridiculing the author. Ad hominem it's called. Sad.

Unless you can challenge what he wrote (and you can't, and you won't), what he wrote stands.

...and you put great store in his unsuported opinion. Please to indicate where this quote from Dershani may be found, in situ. In which physics journal has it been published?

Slowvehicle · Jan 30, 2015

annnnoid said:
...so few answers. Congratulations Donn...you're finally beginning to get it!

Science can't tell you what you are (...cause it....doesn't....know!).

Can you?

Oh, I get it!

Because you can claim that [science]...doesn't....know!...you therefore make free to claim that anything is possible, even those things that have yet to be demonstrated to have any grounding in actual reality at all.

Special pleading, anyone?

Slowvehicle · Jan 30, 2015

annnnoid said:
The guy has a masters degree in theoretical physics. He’s explicitly talking about theoretical physics. It has been specifically stated…numerous times…that NDE’s, OBE’s, psi, etc. etc. contradict all the known laws of god, the universe, and everything.

I invite you to support this extravagant claim.

annnnoid said:
He has clearly demonstrated that they do not.

And this one.

Nonpareil · Jan 30, 2015

Slowvehicle said:
Is that Deraksani, the woo! blogging grad student?

Upon what research in theoretical physics is he currently working?

What has he published, anent physics?

What is the source of your quotation?

ETA: ninja-ed by Nonpareil!

Yep, that's him.

For those who missed it in the other thread, Max Derakshani and his friend Johann Baptista are a pair of college students studying physics. Presumably they attend the same university, because they collaborated together to write several "articles" "refuting" criticisms of the ganzfeld experiment meta-studies - experiments which purported to provide evidence for ESP, but which were shown to have serious methodological flaws and, when the flaws were eliminated, turned up nothing.

Max Derakshani also wrote a blog post - which annnnoid insists upon referring to as an "article" - about the same experiments.

Their arguments completely fail to address the actual points raised and have actually nothing to do with "theoretical physics". They are about statistical and methodological analysis, which they apparently have little understanding of, and cite only themselves (repeatedly) and the discredited authors they are trying to defend.

Annnnoid, however, insists upon bringing them up again and again. He repeatedly attempts to equivocate between "college student in physics" (or, now, "has a Master's in physics") with "theoretical physicist", and quite ignores the fact that this is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand anyway until someone can come up with an actual theory of physics that allows for ESP. He also equates "blog post" and "unreviewed essay written by two college buddies" with "actual article on the subject".

He also equivocates between observational evidence and anecdotes, fallible and always wrong, and any number of other things. He bends over backwards to try and claim that anecdotes are valid evidence of ESP, while at the same time discarding the entirety of established neuroscience as irrelevant and untrustworthy because it hasn't "conclusively" ruled it out. He redefines terms on a whim to try and find any support at all for his position, and absolutely refuses to consider that he's wrong when his incorrect definitions are pointed out.

So to answer your question, Donn, he is firmly on the gnat's side of the see-saw, but shouting at the top of his voice that the gnat actually weighs more.

Daylightstar · Jan 30, 2015

Navigator said:
...
In relation to the human experience, consciousness is along for the ride and thus remains for as long as the brain and body are able to host it.

What happens to that consciousness afterwards is beyond the ability of scientists to know for certain.

It appears beyond anyone's ability to even demonstrate that consciousness can exist independently.
A body that deceases, simply ceases to be conscious, that's all.

Navigator · Jan 30, 2015

Donn said:
Yes, actually. This is why science compounds results over time - to give more weight to results exactly because individual an human's reports are apt to err.

One man can be wrong in his reporting of <x>. Fifty men are less likely to be wrong if their reports on <x> all tally. It's always a probability.

This is why you stand alone in your self-dowsing. We cannot afford to believe you because individuals are unreliable. *

Thus you have your reason for not needing to verify the ideomotor effect because it relates only to you.

However, if 50 individuals each were able to report the same data through ideomotor, (<^>) that data can be viewed as more reliable.

That is precisely why I don't report the data. However my claim is still solid. All it takes is others to also do the work.

Yeah, that sounds like a good analogy. The costume is one we fashion all the time, in real-time. If we do not maintain it, it will fade in those places. The costume I was when I a teenager is long gone. The one I will be in five years time, who knows?

Yes but still costumes, perhaps even to your dying day.
ideomoter effect gives you a chance to change that. To be undressed and all sign of makeup removed - by that which is actually the real you. I don't expect you to believe it, but am not subject to accept to your opinions about it which insist things you cannot know because you have not tried.

If you were to sincerely try it and immerse yourself in what can be learned by doing so, you will find that what I am claiming is actually real.

I must say* there is no "real self" - you have a homunculus fetish.

No. I have personal experience and verification. Something you do not have because you believe there is no real self but only the unreal costumed one.

Your comment simply shows that you have no understanding and overactive imagination as to what is being communed with. Consciousness is not some miniature adult human being residing within the mind. Your implying as much shows not only your ignorance but also your fears. And by 'you' I am referring to the costumed made up faker.

(* I only "know" this from recent reading and a humble acceptance of my relative capacity to know things. I'm asserting, yes, that there is no "real self", but it's backed by recent arguments that convinced me of the truth of it. Those arguments included evidence, although my ability to critically appraise scientific evidence is limited.)

Backed up by methods which do not include direct contact with real self. In other words, you accept that which backs up your belief that there is no real self only your fake self and this evidence is supplied by other fakes selves and is thus most likely fake evidence - which appears to be real because it is viewed as real by those fakers observing it.

And this is called 'science'?

It is not.

How do you know that your "real self" is the one, so-to-speak, below your "ego" self? I mean, how can you tell that it's not reversed and you're suffering some mental disorder?

One clue is that the fake self will fear such a thing in order to avoid examining it more thoroughly.

But the best answer is in what this real self is able to reveal to the fake (ego self), not only about the real self but also about the fake. The process itself will show clearly that the only thing which has 'mental disorder' is the fake, and that can be cured. It isn't an easy or comfortable process but so what? The results are worth the effort. Fear is to be faced and evil looked squarely in the eye.

Or what if there's another level under your "real self" that is the real real self and it's just playing a trick on you by talking "up" a layer?

That concept can be explored. The ego fake self fear associated with the feeling one might be 'played' and 'tricked' can be examined in detail and dealt with completely through the ideomotor process.

Or what if there is no other layer at all, and all you have is the picture we've been explaining in this thread?

Would I, who knows the process, be pointing out the gaps in the picture, if that were the case?
Would I be making the claim and encouraging you to sincerely try this method, if that were the case?

You owe it to yourself to come up with some way, some means, some test whereby you can exclude the false trails in your self experiments. If you do not, then you may as well believe anything at all.

I agree. I owe that to my self.

This has been done ( and is being done) and is part of the ideomotor process of connecting and communing with the real self. Those who are not doing it but are using ideomotor as a means of 'speaking with the dead', are on something of a false trial through their assumptions and continuing to focus on that alone. Not that the real self is not able to steer the individual through those beliefs, but there are far more efficient ways to get onto the true trail. All require the will of the ego self to set aside beliefs and assumptions and get to the nitty gritty.

Navigator · Jan 30, 2015

Daylightstar said:
It appears beyond anyone's ability to even demonstrate that consciousness can exist independently.
A body that deceases, simply ceases to be conscious, that's all.

Cadavers don't have a lot to say about consciousness.

That's all.

Near Death and Out of Body Experiences

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

The Terrible Trivium

Philosopher

Banned

Banned

The Terrible Trivium

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Banned

Philosopher

Banned

Philosopher

Banned

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Banned

Banned

Philosopher

Philosopher

The Terrible Trivium

Philosopher

The Terrible Trivium

Philosopher

Philosopher

Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin

Philosopher

Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin

Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin

Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin

The Terrible Trivium

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher