233 replies to this topic

[eight bits]

Matt

We have discussed this repatedly. Apparently it's news to you that not every vitalist must believe everything that any vitalist has ever believed. That's not my problem.


Leo

I am unsure what your concern is. Is it that life might be required at some point to begin consciousness?

C-T offers no account of the origin or pre-history of the systems in question. If it turned out that there were some requirement that only living systems could build non-living conscious systems, then C-T would (I think) be unaffected. What mattered to Church and Turing was the functional specification, not how a particular satisfaction of the specification was achieved and maintained.

Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about whether antecedent life was necessary for non-living consciousness until I had resolved the actual C-T problem and had a non-living consciousness to wonder about.


Copa

The video in the OP, like many good thread-starters, proposes a lot of things. Even if it were undisputed that some of its claims were ridiculous, there would remain the unridiculous questions of what did happen, why do some people interpret it one way, while others interpret it differently, what is the religious significance of this ... lots of good questions, IMO.

So, I think that's an interesting search. And I think it will take a while to sort out. That being the case, who's qualified to participate in the search? Who's disqualified?

Might a physicist be able and allowed to contribute some insight to the questions before us? A philosopher? A mathematician? An engineer? Who's on your black list? Anybody who hasn't studied biology recently has been proposed. What's yours?

Quote

Again, do you think human consciousness exists without the brain?

I don't know. That's a religious question. As you already know, I'm an agnostic.While some agnostics could have a categorical opinion about this, for me personally, it's too closely bound up with other questions to disentangle.

I note also, what with this being a religious board, the supposedly limited-debating religious board, that some religions which feature an incorporeal afterlife claim that what exists apart from a brain is a dramatically altered human consciousness. Adherents of those religions would likely disagree with the vid's apparent favored interpretation of the events, as would those whose religions  offer an exclusively corporeal (resurrected, for example) conscious afterlife. I think that's an interesting aspect of the problem.

Quote

Maybe a little white-knight-syndrome too

For Max Planck? I think he can take care of himself. For ChloeB, who brought Planck into the conversation? I know she can take care of herself. For all my fellow non-biologists who would venture an opinion about the relation between matter and consciousness, but might be intimidated by  the refined prose stylings somebody picked up dockside? Yeah, I'll stand up against that. But could I have that armor in red, please? Thanks.

[Lion6969]

@ matt and co

What is concsiousness?

Since you guys keep repeating the fact that the brain exhibits consciousness (not disputed) you also imply that consciousness arose as a result of physical processes consisting of bio/chemical processes etc. Therefore consciousness has a physical beginning it arose from matter.......so pleasecan you put consciousness in your lab test tubes, can you quantify it, measure it, feel it, touch it, verify it, experiment physically with it? Please show me consciousness as you would any other biological process!!!!

Oh wait that's right, consciousness can not be measured, quantified etc because it's an immaterial reality. So what you propose is that unconscious inanimate matter (physical reality) gave birth to a immaterial reality (consciousness). This is ridiculous, if you believe that matter gave birth to something immaterial, I would love to see the scientific evidence for this

For science to try and explain the truth of the self would be tantamount to arguing in a circle! Even scientists recognise this, the physicist Gerald Schroeder points out that there is no real difference between a heap of sand and the brain of an Einstein. The advocates of a physical explanation for the self (consciousness) end up in a muddle as they require answers to even bigger questions such as ‘how can certain bits of matter suddenly create a new reality that has no resemblance to matter?’

The best-seller and popular atheist Richard Dawkins almost admits defeat concerning the self and consciousness, he states “We don’t know. We don’t understand it.”

Richard Dawkins and Steeve Pinker, “Is Science Killing the Soul?” The Guardian-Dillons Debate, Edge 53. April 8, 1999

(that's not 80 years old is it )

For you guys who still believe in Verificationism a dead philosophy, which by the way died before planks statement (ironic matt how you dismissed something 80 years old, yet your world view is based on an even older and dead philosophy. Lol). Dude you cannot even prove your own reality by your very own standards (ponder on this.....)

Edited by Lion6969, 20 May 2012 - 04:28 AM.

[Rlyeh]

_Only, on 19 May 2012 - 09:09 PM, said:

As in so many other threads, he's saying that because there is evidence of one thing being linked to another (brain activity to consciousness), that means that the brain triggers consciousness, as opposed to the possibility of the other way around. Which he can't prove. I'll take back this view if incorrect, but in his eyes, if it can't be proven (or at least having supporting evidence), it doesn't exist. Leaving the idea and person it came from open for him to mock.

If the brain didn't trigger consciousness, anesthetic (with works on the brain) wouldn't suppress or switch off consciousness.

http://emedicine.med...271543-overview

[Rlyeh]

Lion6969, on 19 May 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

What relevance does your statement besides it being an emotional and a personal response! How does anything you say counter the substance of plancks statement?

Is Hawking's statement that the afterlife is a fairy story an educated statement? If you say no, then you've got a double standard.

Edited by Rlyeh, 20 May 2012 - 08:27 AM.

[Mattshark]

eight bits, on 20 May 2012 - 03:32 AM, said:

Matt

We have discussed this repatedly. Apparently it's news to you that not every vitalist must believe everything that any vitalist has ever believed. That's not my problem.

Irrelevant, I haven't argued for vitalism and what you are claiming is vitalism, isn't.

Lion6969, on 20 May 2012 - 04:18 AM, said:

@ matt and co

What is concsiousness?

Since you guys keep repeating the fact that the brain exhibits consciousness (not disputed) you also imply that consciousness arose as a result of physical processes consisting of bio/chemical processes etc. Therefore consciousness has a physical beginning it arose from matter.......so pleasecan you put consciousness in your lab test tubes, can you quantify it, measure it, feel it, touch it, verify it, experiment physically with it? Please show me consciousness as you would any other biological process!!!!

Oh wait that's right, consciousness can not be measured, quantified etc because it's an immaterial reality. So what you propose is that unconscious inanimate matter (physical reality) gave birth to a immaterial reality (consciousness). This is ridiculous, if you believe that matter gave birth to something immaterial, I would love to see the scientific evidence for this

For science to try and explain the truth of the self would be tantamount to arguing in a circle! Even scientists recognise this, the physicist Gerald Schroeder points out that there is no real difference between a heap of sand and the brain of an Einstein. The advocates of a physical explanation for the self (consciousness) end up in a muddle as they require answers to even bigger questions such as 'how can certain bits of matter suddenly create a new reality that has no resemblance to matter?'

The best-seller and popular atheist Richard Dawkins almost admits defeat concerning the self and consciousness, he states "We don't know. We don't understand it."

Richard Dawkins and Steeve Pinker, "Is Science Killing the Soul?" The Guardian-Dillons Debate, Edge 53. April 8, 1999

(that's not 80 years old is it )

For you guys who still believe in Verificationism a dead philosophy, which by the way died before planks statement (ironic matt how you dismissed something 80 years old, yet your world view is based on an even older and dead philosophy. Lol). Dude you cannot even prove your own reality by your very own standards (ponder on this.....)

Ok Lion, can you see if someone is unconscious or not?
EEG's are different for the unconscious and the conscious.
So clearly we can measure between consciousness and unconsciousness, so how exactly is it immaterial? That is pure conjecture on your part.

While consciousness is not easy to define, it is generally accepted as being awake and subjectively aware of your surroundings.

So consciousness can be defined and measured so that is half your argument gone straight away.

Now a few other issues on your part. Science doesn't seek to show the truth, truth is subjective, science aims simply to further understand the world.

You seem to be lacking in understand again with regards to Dawkins, saying we don't know is the most common statement in science. Doesn't mean we won't know in the future, doesn't equate to defeat, it simply means it is something we at the time do not understand. Compare that in contrast to you, who thinks that making stuff up for these explanations despite the fact there is obvious evidence counter to your point, is a valid explanation. It isn't. You are arguing for your conjecture and nothing more. Trouble is you are dismissing what we do know to make your point.

You don't prove anything in science, this is a common misnomer, but it is a misnomer.
Oh and science doesn't operate on verificationism, it operates on falsification.

You really need to learn how science works.

[Seeker79]

Mattshark, on 19 May 2012 - 09:41 PM, said:

Well firstly we can replicate it in the lab.


Explain why signalling can lead to the stimulation of it. How can you verify the time when the person (and it is very few patients who ever claim such an experience) claims this happened and when the ceased brain activity? You cannot.
You don't prove anything in science, it is all evidencing.


And you are offering conjecture and testimony as if they are evidence, they are not in the slightest. You are just wrong on that account.


Well all the evidence suggest such, there is no scientific evidence to the contrary.

W have been over this. You can replicate many experiences in the lab. That does not invalidate them or suggest that they are anything other than what they apear to be. ( we are going in circles).

An NDE is an EXPERIENCE!!!!!!! There can be nothing but testimony. No one doubts people have the experience. It's the nature of the experience we are debating. A doctor is a scientist. Their observations should be noted as that. Observations. Especially when there is a hell of a lot of them. When someone is clinically brain dead and they are describing conversations and tools used when they were clinically brain dead one must take note. It's also repeatable. It is unethical to go the "flatliners" route, but I assure you there will be more NDEs, and there will be more people describing things when that they should not know. Things only observable when they are clinically brain dead. The scenario is going to repeat over and over again.

You are trying to do science backwards. You are taking a phenomenon then saying it dosnt really happen because you cram it into your model without any evidence that it even fits into that model. It's like makeing the observation that if you sail far enough and end up where you started and your model is earth is flat, then makeing the assumption you must have sailed in a large 2d circle instead of a 3d one.

Real unbiased scientic work makes the observation of a phenomenon and unless there is evidence to the contrary. It is exactly what it appears to be. That puddle of water on the road is a puddle of water until such time that you get close enough to see that it is a mirage. ( innocent until prooven guilty) We do not need evidence of what an NDE really is. We need evidence of what it is not. If it turns out that conciousness is not leaving the body, then fine. Proove it. As of now there is no reason to assume that it is not exactly what it appears to be as observed by experiencers and medical doctors.

[Seeker79]

Rlyeh, on 20 May 2012 - 08:14 AM, said:

If the brain didn't trigger consciousness, anesthetic (with works on the brain) wouldn't suppress or switch off consciousness.

http://emedicine.med...271543-overview

Ugggg we have been over this to. That argument is mute. If the brain is an antenna for conciousness then obviously anestisia can shut of the antenna. You would have a point if NDEs do not happen while under anestisia, but quite obviously they do. Observations are at odds with your anslysis and consistent with conciousness being separate from the body.

[Leonardo]

OrdinaryClay, on 20 May 2012 - 01:51 AM, said:

It is ironic when people who claim Ketamine as identical to an NDE rely on the same form of evidence (testimonial) they reject for NDEs they don't want to believe in. This is a clear case of emotional bias on the part of the NDE skeptic. If you accept the evidence for Ketamine then it would be rational to accept the evidence for NDEs that are not "exactly" like Ketamine induced hallucinations.

Why would that be rational?

[Leonardo]

Seeker79, on 20 May 2012 - 01:15 PM, said:

You are trying to do science backwards. You are taking a phenomenon then saying it dosnt really happen because you cram it into your model without any evidence that it even fits into that model.

With all due respect, that is not what Matt is doing. Matt is not denying the phenomenon behind  NDE experiences does not exist. Matt is arguing, quite reasonably, that the experience described in NDE's and the experience described in artificially-induced "NDE's", matches in quality and in what seems to be process. That the experiences may differ in the substance of what is "perceived" matters not a jot, as that is entirely dependent on the personal beliefs of the subject.

Quote

Ugggg we have been over this to. That argument is mute. If the brain is an antenna for conciousness then obviously anestisia can shut of the antenna.

The argument is not moot. There is no evidence for the belief the brain functions as an "antenna", while there is evidence for the brain (or central nervous system) being the source of consciousness.

Edited by Leonardo, 20 May 2012 - 01:52 PM.

[Leonardo]

eight bits, on 20 May 2012 - 03:32 AM, said:

So, I think that's an interesting search. And I think it will take a while to sort out. That being the case, who's qualified to participate in the search? Who's disqualified?

Might a physicist be able and allowed to contribute some insight to the questions before us? A philosopher? A mathematician? An engineer? Who's on your black list? Anybody who hasn't studied biology recently has been proposed. What's yours?

eb,

Anyone may be allowed to contribute to any search, but in the case in question a physicist should not be held up as an authority for a phenomenon that, at present, has no relevance in, or connection to, physics. Presuming a connection simply through an association which is so broad and ambiguous as to provide no meaningful information (such as associating matter with consciousness), brings no value to the subject.

As for the specific examples provided - Max Planck's quotations - then it is only if we were to presume the forces Planck conceived as being the 'building blocks' of particles, were nonexistent until brought into existence by consciousness (which Planck himself neglected to address in his musings) that we might lend credence to the belief that "matter is dependent on consciousness".

Edited by Leonardo, 20 May 2012 - 02:07 PM.

[Seeker79]

Mattshark, on 19 May 2012 - 09:41 PM, said:

How can you verify the time when the person (and it is very few patients who ever claim such an experience) claims this happened and when the ceased brain activity?

Exactly? How can you? The patient knowing things during the time of ceased brain activity might give a clue as to when the experience is happening. Don you think?

[Rlyeh]

Seeker79, on 20 May 2012 - 01:20 PM, said:

Ugggg we have been over this to. That argument is mute. If the brain is an antenna for conciousness then obviously anestisia can shut of the antenna.

And if you had any evidence, I'd ask for it.

Quote

You would have a point if NDEs do not happen while under anestisia, but quite obviously they do. Observations are at odds with your anslysis and consistent with conciousness being separate from the body.

Every single NDE has been relayed by a living conscious human.

[Seeker79]

Leonardo, on 20 May 2012 - 01:49 PM, said:

With all due respect, that is not what Matt is doing. Matt is not denying the phenomenon behind  NDE experiences does not exist. Matt is arguing, quite reasonably, that the experience described in NDE's and the experience described in artificially-induced "NDE's", matches in quality and in what seems to be process. That the experiences may differ in the substance of what is "perceived" matters not a jot, as that is entirely dependent on the personal beliefs of the subject.



The argument is not moot. There is no evidence for the belief the brain functions as an "antenna", while there is evidence for the brain (or central nervous system) being the source of consciousness.

Personal beliefs taint the experience and report of car accidents. It dosnt mean squat. How Somone inturprets an altered stated experience is going to vary just as what happens in argument between spouses and the reality behind the argument is going to very. Take it from someone who works with people who have OBEs. Variation in inturpretation us just that. Variation in inturpretation.

Just what is the evidence that conciousness arises in the brain. Don't say drugs, trauma, etc. those things will effect a generator just as much as an antenna.

It's simple. If the brain is the a generator then NDEs are just some highly accidental fluke. If its an Antenna then they are most probably exactly what they apear to be.

I challenge anyone to offer any tid bit of evidence that the brain generates conciousness that can not be applied to the brain receiving conciousness. Anyone?

Edited by Seeker79, 20 May 2012 - 02:38 PM.

[Seeker79]

Rlyeh, on 20 May 2012 - 02:29 PM, said:

And if you had any evidence, I'd ask for it.

Every single NDE has been relayed by a living conscious human.

Do you really think NDEs don't happen to people that are not brought back? At the very least, logically, it is going to be on pare with the incidence of those that are.

Edited by Seeker79, 20 May 2012 - 02:42 PM.

[Rlyeh]

Seeker79, on 20 May 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

I challenge anyone to offer any tid bit of evidence that the brain generates conciousness that can not be applied to the brain receiving conciousness. Anyone?

Then the consciousness should always be present whether the brain receives it or not?