IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags ndes , obes

Reply
Old 18th November 2015, 06:42 AM   #681
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Embedded and embattled, reporting from Mississippi
Posts: 5,203
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Science can't tell us anything about the Near Death Experience and about consciousness. That's not because the Near Death Experience or consciousness are illusions. It's because science is limited.
How is saying that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain saying it's an illusion? Surely even you'd concede that consciousness can produce illusions, without being one itself?
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2015, 07:02 AM   #682
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 7,259
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Science can't tell us anything about the Near Death Experience and about consciousness. That's not because the Near Death Experience or consciousness are illusions. It's because science is limited.
By giving us a solid framework, science tells us a lot about NDEs and consciousness. You just do not like the conclusions. That is not a limitation of science but of you.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2015, 07:13 AM   #683
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 7,175
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Science can't tell us anything about the Near Death Experience and about consciousness. That's not because the Near Death Experience or consciousness are illusions. It's because science is limited.
The very first page of this thread has multiple links showing how science can tell us a lot about NDEs and consciousness.
The fact that you refuse to accept this is not a statement of the limitations of science.
__________________
'Of course it can be OK to mistreat people.'- shuttlt

Bring Back the Yak! P.J. Denyer
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2015, 07:31 AM   #684
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Science can't tell us anything about the Near Death Experience and about consciousness. That's not because the Near Death Experience or consciousness are illusions. It's because science is limited.
Science tells us a lot about those things. It's just not the things you want to believe. And the argument "science is too 'limited' to appreciate my brilliance and that of other fringe believers" is getting pretty old these days.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2015, 07:35 AM   #685
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,758
Getting old? It got; got shot; rebooted; booted; rose; axe to nose; came back.

It's the zombie of fallacies.
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2015, 07:41 AM   #686
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
It's getting even older these days because Maartenn100 and Jodie have both relied heavily upon it to promote their various brands of woo lately.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2015, 09:10 AM   #687
MaartenVergu
Illuminator
 
MaartenVergu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,146
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
How is saying that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain saying it's an illusion?
Where is the proof for the idea that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain?
Some scientists say that consciousness is an illusion.

It's also probable that the smaller the animal (like flies or bees or butterflies f.e.) the richer their subjective experiences.
A less complex brain has an enhanced awareness.
__________________
'Where' is the image in the mind? What 'space' is the image in your mind in? Where is the dream? Where is your inner voice? It's not the same spacetime then where the electrical and chemical pulses are in the brain, causing this image or the dream. The image you see in your mind's eye is in a completely different dimension than where the chemistry in the brain is. (Maarten Vergucht)

Last edited by MaartenVergu; 18th November 2015 at 09:15 AM.
MaartenVergu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2015, 09:15 AM   #688
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Where is the proof for the idea that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain?
All through the first part of this thread, where your only response was denial.

Quote:
Some scientists say that consciousness is an illusion.
Which sciencists? Please provide references.

Quote:
It's also probable that the smaller the animal (like flies or bees or butterflies f.e.) the richer their subjective experiences.
Is this your own research or someone else's? Please provide references.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2015, 09:18 AM   #689
MaartenVergu
Illuminator
 
MaartenVergu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,146
JayUtah, why are people like you (sceptics on this forum) always asking for a breakthrough in science on a forum? Can't we discuss without you forcing me to meet the standard for a new theory in science?
Can't we just have a good philosophical discussion without the expectation that I come up with an argument to win the nobelprize?
You can't meet these standards, so don't ask such standards in a discussion from other people!

Read this:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ighlight=nobel
__________________
'Where' is the image in the mind? What 'space' is the image in your mind in? Where is the dream? Where is your inner voice? It's not the same spacetime then where the electrical and chemical pulses are in the brain, causing this image or the dream. The image you see in your mind's eye is in a completely different dimension than where the chemistry in the brain is. (Maarten Vergucht)

Last edited by MaartenVergu; 18th November 2015 at 09:23 AM.
MaartenVergu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2015, 09:25 AM   #690
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
...
Some scientists say that consciousness is an illusion.
...
Consciousness as separate from the brain, non corporeal entity, is an illusion.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2015, 09:28 AM   #691
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
JayUtah, why are people like you (sceptics on this forum) always asking for a breakthrough in science on a forum? Can't we discuss without you forcing me to meet the standard for a new theory in science?
Can't we just have a good philosophical discussion without the expectation that I come up with an argument to win the nobelprize?
You can't meet these standards, so don't ask such standards in a discussion from other people!

Read this:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ighlight=nobel
What you really want to do is, express an evidence free fantasy. If you could ever produce some proper evidence for your beliefs, you'd be welcome to do so.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2015, 09:33 AM   #692
MaartenVergu
Illuminator
 
MaartenVergu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,146
Again, where is the evidence that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain?
That's also an assumption.

We can only have assumptions when we talk about consciousness.

Because the scientific method is limited to the physical reality of the brain.
Phenomena like 'enhanced awareness' and near death experiences can never be subject to scientific investigation, because science is limited to what's measurable.
__________________
'Where' is the image in the mind? What 'space' is the image in your mind in? Where is the dream? Where is your inner voice? It's not the same spacetime then where the electrical and chemical pulses are in the brain, causing this image or the dream. The image you see in your mind's eye is in a completely different dimension than where the chemistry in the brain is. (Maarten Vergucht)

Last edited by MaartenVergu; 18th November 2015 at 09:37 AM.
MaartenVergu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2015, 09:37 AM   #693
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Again, where is the evidence that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain?
That's also an assumption.

We can only have assumptions when we talk about consciousness.

Because the scientific method is limited to the physical reality of the brain.
Phenomena like 'enhanced awareness' can never be part of science, because science is limited to what's measurable.
Hilite by Daylightstar

There is no evidence for any other 'reality' of the brain.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2015, 09:39 AM   #694
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Again, where is the evidence that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain?
That's also an assumption.

We can only have assumptions when we talk about consciousness.

Because the scientific method is limited to the physical reality of the brain.
Phenomena like 'enhanced awareness' and near death experiences can never be subject to scientific investigation, because science is limited to what's measurable.
HIlite by Daylightstar

Well, non existence of something would cause measurement problems
__________________
homeopathy homicidium

Last edited by Daylightstar; 18th November 2015 at 11:23 AM. Reason: "s" at end of "measurements" removed.
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2015, 09:41 AM   #695
MaartenVergu
Illuminator
 
MaartenVergu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,146
Where is the evidence to proof that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain?
That's an assumption without evidence.
__________________
'Where' is the image in the mind? What 'space' is the image in your mind in? Where is the dream? Where is your inner voice? It's not the same spacetime then where the electrical and chemical pulses are in the brain, causing this image or the dream. The image you see in your mind's eye is in a completely different dimension than where the chemistry in the brain is. (Maarten Vergucht)

Last edited by MaartenVergu; 18th November 2015 at 09:43 AM.
MaartenVergu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2015, 09:43 AM   #696
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
JayUtah, why are people like you (sceptics on this forum) always asking for a breakthrough in science on a forum?
Why are fringe theorists always begging for science to water itself down to the point where their claims become acceptable? If your claims can't pass scientific muster, you don't get to claim there's science behind it. Incessant whining is a poor substitute.

Here you're simply being asked to prove your claims. Above, you make claims that "scientists" have said a certain thing. I asked merely for substantiation. You claim birds and bees have a "richer" consciousness. I asked merely for substantiation.

If you can't even meet that absurdly low burden of production, you're in the wrong place.

Quote:
Can't we discuss without you forcing me to meet the standard for a new theory in science?
No.

Quote:
Can't we just have a good philosophical discussion without the expectation that I come up with an argument to win the nobelprize?
Straw man. You're being asked to meet gatekeeper criteria. We haven't even gotten to the science yet.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2015, 09:54 AM   #697
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Where is the proof for the idea that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain?
Some scientists say that consciousness is an illusion.
I don't suppose you have a source for this assertion...

Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
It's also probable that the smaller the animal (like flies or bees or butterflies f.e.) the richer their subjective experiences.
A less complex brain has an enhanced awareness.
I don't suppose you have a source for these assertions...
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2015, 10:01 AM   #698
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
JayUtah, why are people like you (sceptics on this forum) always asking for a breakthrough in science on a forum?
I don't suppose you have a concrete example of someone doing this
...

[quote=Maartenn100;10985192]JCan't we discuss without you forcing me to meet the standard for a new theory in science?

I don't suppose you have a concrete example of someone doing this
...

Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Can't we just have a good philosophical discussion without the expectation that I come up with an argument to win the nobelprize?
I don't suppose you have a concrete example of someone doing this
...

Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
You can't meet these standards, so don't ask such standards in a discussion from other people!

Read this:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ighlight=nobel
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2015, 10:32 AM   #699
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,438
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Where is the evidence to proof that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain?
That's an assumption without evidence.
Maarten: if you want to know the current status of neuroscience, I suggest that you consider either taking some courses, or at least read some of the latest pop science on the subject. A couple books immediately leap to my mind: Sam Kean's "The Tale of Duelling Neurosurgeons" and V.S. Ramachandran's "The Tell-Tale Mind" are both compelling reads and will give you some insight as to where this very young field of science is going.

Ultimately, though: we can reliably alter consciousness in very specific ways, repeatedly, by stimulating or damaging specific areas of the brain. This is the first and most obvious piece of evidence. Try thinking of consciousness as a process that is ongoing (like an engine running) and not as an entity in and of itself. The fact that your consciousness is different now for having read this should give you some understanding that it is an ongoing process, ever changing until it stops.
jond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2015, 10:49 AM   #700
Pooneil
Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 234
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Where is the evidence to proof that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain?
That's an assumption without evidence.
I'll delurk here for a comment. As an interested non-scientist, I see the following:

Consciousness is a vague concept because it is poorly understood. It tends to be defined differently within different areas and used for different reasons. So arguing about "consciousness" without further definition is pointless. Please define your terms.

Science assumes methodological materialism. That is all phenomenon must be addressed as having material causes. At this point and aside from any actual science in the field, consciousness emerging from the brain is the parsimonious argument. If you think consciousness comes from elsewhere, please state from where it comes and expand on that proposition with material arguments. Otherwise you are not talking about science.

This is a skeptics board. Among the things skeptics do is withhold judgement about a proposition and ask for sound reasons to believe a novel proposition is true. Skeptics with knowledge in the field will go further in asking for a detailed explanations of why previous knowledge is incorrect. While the skeptic response is clearly frustrating to you, it should not be unexpected. Did you really come here for an unchallenged discussion of metaphysics or mysticism?

Last edited by Pooneil; 18th November 2015 at 10:52 AM.
Pooneil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2015, 08:26 AM   #701
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 7,259
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Where is the proof for the idea that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain?
There are many ideas of what consciousness is, and none of them can be proved, but this is the only one that is not in conflict with the laws of physics.

Quote:
Some scientists say that consciousness is an illusion.
And some people say that existence is an illusion. These people and the scientists can present their evidence, or otherwise we can conclude that they cannot support it, and that the conventional view of physics is better supported.

Quote:
It's also probable that the smaller the animal (like flies or bees or butterflies f.e.) the richer their subjective experiences.
A less complex brain has an enhanced awareness.
Did you make that up yourself?

Many things are possible. It could also be possible that only mid-size animals have rich subjective influences, or that perhaps brains function as brakes on subjective experiences, and that bacteria have even richer subjective experiences, but not, I suspect, as rich as those of bootnails.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2015, 05:38 PM   #702
dlorde
Philosopher
 
dlorde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,864
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Some scientists say that consciousness is an illusion.
I suspect that what they mean is that the experience we have of our consciousness as a unified continuous self with agency is illusory; we are conscious, but it is not what it seems to be; it's a construct of many parts.

A simple analogy would be our experience of films, video, and TV - persistence of vision gives successive static images the illusion of continuous motion. We see and enjoy the film or video, but nevertheless, it's an illusion

Vision gives an even better example, in that our clear, focused, high-resolution field of view is tiny (the area of your thumb at arms length); the rest is a distorted blur with gaps where the optic nerves enter; and the eyes jump rapidly around in saccades to position the focus of attention; yet the brain reconstructs a clear, steady, focused approximation of the scene that we take to be a direct image - but good though it seems, it's a construct, an illusion. Episodic memory is also an associative reconstruction that we experience as clearer, more consistent and reliable than it really is; an illusion of clarity & reliability.

It probably isn't a stretch to say that, in a sense, our consciousness is an illusion built on illusions...
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice...

Last edited by dlorde; 21st November 2015 at 05:40 PM.
dlorde is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2015, 12:05 PM   #703
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 14,588
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Where is the evidence to proof that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain?
That's an assumption without evidence.
This is so very right!

And just to prove it, if 'Maartenn100' will send me $1000.00, then I will provide him with some extra consciousness.
__________________
A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2015, 12:22 PM   #704
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Where is the evidence to proof that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain?
That's an assumption without evidence.
Really? You can't think of any of the evidence in support of this? Not any of the evidence provided by others in any of the threads you have begun here? Not in any of the websites or scientific reviews/papers you can look up from your computer in a second? Not in any of the books in the library or local bookstore?

What is the point of simply pretending that there is no evidence. You know the evidence, having participated in the many discussions on this Forum alone. Do you want to have it presented all over again, so that you can challenge it again, and have your challenge debunked again? Why don't you skip this silly steps and just start by presenting the novel reasons you don't accept the evidence?

There is no reason to assume that repeating yet again the same argument without any new reasoning or information will result in a different outcome. Even if you didn't like the prior outcomes. There is no logic to that. It is only hoping that maybe this time your assertions will not be noticed by those competent to debunk them, and so will stay unopposed in some steal mode.

Last edited by Giordano; 22nd November 2015 at 12:25 PM.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2015, 06:55 PM   #705
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
I'm pretty sure I linked this before, maybe it was in a different thread. If this proves to be correct then nothing about our reality is what we think it is including how consciousness might evolve within a brain, a brain that simply isn't there.

http://phys.org/news/2014-08-d-holog...-universe.html

Which might include the illusion of consciousness whether it's brain centered or non corporeal consciousness.
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd

Last edited by Jodie; 29th November 2015 at 07:11 PM.
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2015, 02:00 AM   #706
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 7,175
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
I'm pretty sure I linked this before, maybe it was in a different thread. If this proves to be correct then nothing about our reality is what we think it is including how consciousness might evolve within a brain, a brain that simply isn't there.

http://phys.org/news/2014-08-d-holog...-universe.html

Which might include the illusion of consciousness whether it's brain centered or non corporeal consciousness.
I can't find anything in the link that says anything like what you claim it says. Nothing about brains, consciousness (corporeal or non-corporeal, illusory or actual), or indeed the idea that 'nothing about our reality is what we think it is'. Now I confess to being an absolute layman when it comes to these things, so could you please explain to me (and possibly others in similar positions) how the article relates to your claims?
__________________
'Of course it can be OK to mistreat people.'- shuttlt

Bring Back the Yak! P.J. Denyer
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2015, 09:30 AM   #707
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
I'm pretty sure I linked this before, maybe it was in a different thread. If this proves to be correct then nothing about our reality is what we think it is including how consciousness might evolve within a brain, a brain that simply isn't there.

http://phys.org/news/2014-08-d-holog...-universe.html

Which might include the illusion of consciousness whether it's brain centered or non corporeal consciousness.
No. I agree with Cosmic Yak; there's nothing in that article that even remotely relates to your purported summary.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2015, 09:33 AM   #708
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
If this proves to be correct then nothing about our reality is what we think it is
Then it won't prove to be correct because we've seen time and time again that what we think our reality is really is how it is.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2015, 05:57 PM   #709
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
I'm pretty sure I linked this before, maybe it was in a different thread. If this proves to be correct then nothing about our reality is what we think it is including how consciousness might evolve within a brain, a brain that simply isn't there.

http://phys.org/news/2014-08-d-holog...-universe.html

Which might include the illusion of consciousness whether it's brain centered or non corporeal consciousness.
It's funny how such research is always claimed to compromise reality but never compromises fantasy
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2015, 09:27 PM   #710
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
I can't find anything in the link that says anything like what you claim it says. Nothing about brains, consciousness (corporeal or non-corporeal, illusory or actual), or indeed the idea that 'nothing about our reality is what we think it is'. Now I confess to being an absolute layman when it comes to these things, so could you please explain to me (and possibly others in similar positions) how the article relates to your claims?
OOOOooooh for pete's sake. If we are just a three dimensional projection of two dimensional information, we aren't what we think we are. That's what I got out of it.
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2015, 09:29 PM   #711
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Then it won't prove to be correct because we've seen time and time again that what we think our reality is really is how it is.
I think that's a bit short sighted.
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2015, 09:30 PM   #712
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
No. I agree with Cosmic Yak; there's nothing in that article that even remotely relates to your purported summary.
If you can't intuit the implications of their potential findings then I don't know what to say to that.
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2015, 09:54 PM   #713
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
If you can't intuit the implications of their potential findings then I don't know what to say to that.
You could explain it in your own words, using the proper terms from quantum field theory. Don't just rely on the terrible 2-D vs. 3-D analogy. Phys.org is not a bad site, but it's dumbed-down for laymen. Since you are an expert in quantum field theory and all its non-intuitive findings, please lay out a properly-formulated physics treatise explaining the implications of the proposed study for all the rest of us poor, benighted, emotionally-crippled critics.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2015, 09:59 PM   #714
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
OOOOooooh for pete's sake. If we are just a three dimensional projection of two dimensional information, we aren't what we think we are. That's what I got out of it.
Then you paid attention only to the atrociously misapplied television analogy and ignored the actual science explained in the paragraphs that followed. The study is about the orthogonality of the non-spatial dimensions in quantum field theory. It's a degrees-of-freedom problem. If the "jitter" is non-orthogonal then there cannot be additional degrees of freedom among the non-spatial dimensions. The number of degrees of freedom affects how uncertainty bounds the unknowns in a QFT problem, which is what they're trying to explain with the "stores information" approximation.

And mathematically speaking, even though it's entirely irrelevant to the actual study, you can't project two dimensions into three. Please look up what a projection means, in mathematics.

Last edited by JayUtah; 30th November 2015 at 10:08 PM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2015, 01:51 AM   #715
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
I'm pretty sure I linked this before, maybe it was in a different thread. If this proves to be correct then nothing about our reality is what we think it is including how consciousness might evolve within a brain, a brain that simply isn't there.

http://phys.org/news/2014-08-d-holog...-universe.html

Which might include the illusion of consciousness whether it's brain centered or non corporeal consciousness.
annnnoid has posted that story in the "NON PHYSICAL SPACE" thread, perhaps that's what you remember.
(that link has expired so I'm referring to my response which includes a snippet from that page paired with that link).

As far as the atrocious analogy is concerned:
Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
The characters on the TV screen do not know anything. The characters in the actual TV show realize that the picture of them on the TV screen is only a two dimensional representation of their three dimensional world.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2015, 02:07 AM   #716
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 7,175
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
If you can't intuit the implications of their potential findings then I don't know what to say to that.
I fail to see how my guess ("intuit") at the possible consequences of what they might find if it's true ("potential findings") would help me to understand what you meant. What if my guess is different from yours? How would I even know that if I don't know what your guess is?
Is this your idea of science, or is this Speculation 101?
__________________
'Of course it can be OK to mistreat people.'- shuttlt

Bring Back the Yak! P.J. Denyer
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2015, 07:31 PM   #717
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
OOOOooooh for pete's sake. If we are just a three dimensional projection of two dimensional information, we aren't what we think we are. That's what I got out of it.
Hmmm...

Any support for that "IF"?
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2015, 07:33 PM   #718
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
If you can't intuit the implications of their potential findings then I don't know what to say to that.
...If one has to "intuit" what is not in the article then the article does not say what you claim it says...
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2015, 03:42 PM   #719
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
You could explain it in your own words, using the proper terms from quantum field theory. Don't just rely on the terrible 2-D vs. 3-D analogy. Phys.org is not a bad site, but it's dumbed-down for laymen. Since you are an expert in quantum field theory and all its non-intuitive findings, please lay out a properly-formulated physics treatise explaining the implications of the proposed study for all the rest of us poor, benighted, emotionally-crippled critics.
If my link is from a reputable site then I shouldn't need to go above and beyond what anyone else here does when discussing any topic. The article plainly states that their experiment would indicate that we exist in two dimensional space, however, we perceive our existence as three dimensional. That means that anything we perceive here would be an illusion. That includes consciousness, itself, whether you observe it as originating in the brain or if , like me, you believe it's non corporeal. Essentially neither explanation would be correct.
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2015, 03:52 PM   #720
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
I fail to see how my guess ("intuit") at the possible consequences of what they might find if it's true ("potential findings") would help me to understand what you meant. What if my guess is different from yours? How would I even know that if I don't know what your guess is?
Is this your idea of science, or is this Speculation 101?
You didn't post anything about the article. Those are moot questions.
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:12 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.