I Want To Believe

[jethrofloyd]

I don't believe in the ghosts, but I believe in the Ghostbusters!

[SeekTruth]

On 7/14/2020 at 7:29 PM, psyche101 said:

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2011/05/23/physics-and-the-immortality-of-the-soul/

 

My apologies for the delay!

I got around to reading Carroll's article. It was fun!

Carroll wrote:

Quote

Claims that some form of consciousness persists after our bodies die and decay into their constituent atoms face one huge, insuperable obstacle: the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood, and there’s no way within those laws to allow for the information stored in our brains to persist after we die. If you claim that some form of soul persists beyond death, what particles is that soul made of? What forces are holding it together? How does it interact with ordinary matter?

Carroll is begging the question by assuming that consciousness is reduced to information in our brains. Could it not be the case that consciousness is akin to a signal that is received by a satellite? Is it not possible that the information that constitutes consciousness is more than the workings of the brain? Not if one assumes that consciousness is reduced to brain tissue. But why make that assumption in the first place?

[psyche101]

6 minutes ago, SeekTruth said:

My apologies for the delay!

I got around to reading Carroll's article. It was fun!

Carroll wrote:

Carroll is begging the question by assuming that consciousness is reduced to information in our brains. Could it not be the case that consciousness is akin to a signal that is received by a satellite? Is it not possible that the information that constitutes consciousness is more than the workings of the brain? Not if one assumes that consciousness is reduced to brain tissue. But why make that assumption in the first place?

Very pleased you liked it. Thanks for watching it. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the subject from other perspectives.

He is correct though, thats all that's going on. Cat Scans, brain damage, Lobotomies all support that. There is quite a few avenues into consiouness these days. The connectome project has been mapping consiouness as have the AWARE project headed by Sam Parnia. On top of that, Michael Graziano has proposed the brilliant attention schema theory which provides brilliant insight into the evolution of consciousness.

Duality is an old failed idea. No modern research supports the idea. The AWARE project has supportive evidence that the brain dies much more slowly than we realised. One night even be able to hear their own death being announced. It may take up to several hours for the brain to completely shut down. Even then, parts of your body continue to try and repair the body.

This is an emerging map of consiouness

https://www.google.com/amp/s/bigthink.com/after-death-youre-aware-that-youve-died-scientists-claim.amp.html

[SeekTruth]

On 7/14/2020 at 9:02 PM, psyche101 said:

MRI's, brain surgery, Lobotomies, neural structure. Brain surgery would not be effective if the mind was not the brain. 

The efficacy of brain surgery is no less in the case that the brain is the vehicle of consciousness as opposed to being the totality of consciousness.

Quote

Because those atoms create the energy required to store the information we perceive. We know for a fact this is chemical in nature, we have gone so far as to film a mouse brain chemically storing a memory. 

Sure, but what is the nature of the information itself? Where did the information come from? Is the information reducible to the atoms that comprise the brain? 

Quote

I would in turn ask, why would we consider consiouness to be external an independent? What supports that idea? 

I think the idea should be put on the table and considered; I'm not just yet claiming to have evidence to support the idea. My main point thus far is to call into question certain presuppositions, especially the reductionist definition of consciousness.

Quote

It's not reduced, that's what conscience is. The billions of metal connections that make up 'you'. Basically the sum of your experiences.

I'm afraid you aren't understanding what I meant.  Take a look at this for a primer on reductionism. 

https://philosophyterms.com/reductionism/

You are in fact advocating a reductionist view of consciousness. 

Quote

Not really. The, attention schema theory has made great inroads to understanding consiouness and the connectome project had already created sons marvelous maps of our consciousness.

Your response suggests that you are not familiar with the Hard Problem of Consciousness. Check this out:

 https://blog.ted.com/the-hard-problem-of-consciousness-david-chalmers-at-ted2014/

In short, there is a mystery to be solved in how subjective experience (qualia) can be produced by mere chemical states. This is a really fun question once you get a grasp on it.

 

Quote

They only do what we observe. So when the universe' last black hole releases the last of its Hawking radiation, there won't be anything to observe.

 

Not to get caught up in semantics, and I should have been more clear, but by "laws of physics," I have in mind the laws of nature that necessarily existed prior to the Big Bang. Is there a rational alternative to the conclusion that said laws are timeless and immaterial?
 

Quote

 thank you good fellow. It's nice to talk to someone that actually discussed the subject sensibly. 

Likewise. 'Tis my pleasure! I'll try to continue this as I find the time.

[SeekTruth]

On 7/14/2020 at 9:54 PM, papageorge1 said:

My argument for ghosts was based on quantity, quality and consistency meaning millions of cases.

Are you looking for convincing cases like you have never heard before in all your years?

My argument was based on cumulative weight not particular cases.

 

My question to you doesn't concern the number of cases, but the quality alone. Can you give an example of a case that you consider to be of quality?

[papageorge1]

35 minutes ago, SeekTruth said:

My question to you doesn't concern the number of cases, but the quality alone. Can you give an example of a case that you consider to be of quality?

‘a case’? I have heard dozens or hundreds in my decades of interest in these subjects I thought very strong. No one in particular comes to mind. It is the cumulative weight of that many that I find overwhelming.

I already know a determined skeptic can make an endless debate against any one case. Gets old. 
 

 

 

[SeekTruth]

Just now, papageorge1 said:

‘a case’? I have heard dozens or hundreds in my decades of interest in these subjects I thought very strong. No one in particular comes to mind. It is the cumulative weight of that many that I find overwhelming.

I already know a determined skeptic can make an endless debate against any one case. Gets old. 
 

 

 

Please don't peg me as an impossible skeptic. I'm genuinely open minded about the issue. See my other posts in this very thread.

[papageorge1]

3 minutes ago, SeekTruth said:

Please don't peg me as an impossible skeptic. I'm genuinely open minded about the issue. See my other posts in this very thread.

I wasn’t saying YOU were a determined skeptic. But I honestly don’t have one case. It takes lots and lots of reading, watching and hearing over years for me to get convinced. 

[SeekTruth]

2 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I wasn’t saying YOU were a determined skeptic. But I honestly don’t have one case. It takes lots and lots of reading, watching and hearing over years for me to get convinced. 

When you say you don't have one case, do you mean that you don't have merely one? Or do you mean that you don't have one to present for my consideration?

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, SeekTruth said:

The efficacy of brain surgery is no less in the case that the brain is the vehicle of consciousness as opposed to being the totality of consciousness.

I disagree, we can watch the brain react independently according to stimuli. We all see things differently. If it was a client/server application, that would be highly unlikely as we would all be getting thoughts from the same source. Then there's finer brain adjustments, chemicals that we administer affects outlooks, moods and thoughts. 

What would suggest a client/server architecture? As far as I know that idea never progressed beyond philosophy? 

1 hour ago, SeekTruth said:

Sure, but what is the nature of the information itself? Where did the information come from? Is the information reducible to the atoms that comprise the brain? 

Entirely. Those atoms are the structure that carry genetic information as well as the sum of your experiences. Each action you perform is evaluated and stored by billions of neural connections. 

1 hour ago, SeekTruth said:

I think the idea should be put on the table and considered; I'm not just yet claiming to have evidence to support the idea. My main point thus far is to call into question certain presuppositions, especially the reductionist definition of consciousness.

If you were calling unsupported theories into question I would agree, but that information is not a supposition of any kind. It's the gathered evidence from millions of cases, surgeries, studies and hypotheses. Duality was proposed as an alternative by Descartes in the 1600s. It is only supported y fringe these days because the evidence we do have did not support the proposition. Had it shown any validity, it would be appearing in current lectures in universities. Quite simply, that idea has been well superseded. 

1 hour ago, SeekTruth said:

I'm afraid you aren't understanding what I meant.  Take a look at this for a primer on reductionism. 

https://philosophyterms.com/reductionism/

You are in fact advocating a reductionist view of consciousness. 

Doesn't that link also consider duality ontological reductionism?

It strikes me that taking a stab at the idea of a higher power or thought repository is a far more simpler concept than the billions of neurons involved, storage, chemical balances and millions of years of evolution seems a far more complex theory to me. It's not just atoms, it's the gathered knowledge of the species and millions of developments.

1 hour ago, SeekTruth said:

Your response suggests that you are not familiar with the Hard Problem of Consciousness. Check this out:

 https://blog.ted.com/the-hard-problem-of-consciousness-david-chalmers-at-ted2014/

In short, there is a mystery to be solved in how subjective experience (qualia) can be produced by mere chemical states. This is a really fun question once you get a grasp on it.

But he is still adhering to the attention schema theory not dualism. He states:

It’s possible that wherever information is being processed, there is some consciousness. 

And even theorised if computers can be conscious, which I read as very much local to the brain. I'm not sure the attention schema theory has the final answer, but it had made serious inroads into understand the basics of how consciousness comes to be. 

1 hour ago, SeekTruth said:

Not to get caught up in semantics, and I should have been more clear, but by "laws of physics," I have in mind the laws of nature that necessarily existed prior to the Big Bang. Is there a rational alternative to the conclusion that said laws are timeless and immaterial?

If I'm understanding you correctly yes. That's what the LHCs main reason for existing is. We are smashing particles to get a picture of the universe before the big bang. Information has led us to the big bang, now we are attempting to peer beyond that. 

1 hour ago, SeekTruth said:

Likewise. 'Tis my pleasure! I'll try to continue this as I find the time.

Cheers. It's a pleasure for me too. Great to speak to someone who initiates a sensible discussion as opposed to those like the koala you are currently trying to wring some sense out of. 

Have a great day

[papageorge1]

1 minute ago, SeekTruth said:

When you say you don't have one case, do you mean that you don't have merely one? Or do you mean that you don't have one to present for my consideration?

I am saying I don’t have merely one. They all formed a soup in my mind after decades of dozens/hundreds.

[SeekTruth]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

I am saying I don’t have merely one. They all formed a soup in my mind after decades of dozens/hundreds.

OK, so I take it that you do have at least one case for my consideration. I'd love to hear it.

[papageorge1]

31 minutes ago, SeekTruth said:

OK, so I take it that you do have at least one case for my consideration. I'd love to hear it.

You're missing my point. Am I supposed to supply a story like you haven't already heard before in your life? 

Edited July 24, 2020 by papageorge1

[psyche101]

4 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

You're missing my point. Am I supposed to supply a story like you haven't already heard before in your life? 

You could just say you got nothing instead of endlessly blathering on about nothing.

[papageorge1]

Just now, psyche101 said:

You could just say you got nothing instead of endlessly blathering on about nothing.

Haven't heard ghost stories from regular people before?

[psyche101]

Just now, papageorge1 said:

Haven't heard ghost stories from regular people before?

I've heard lots of fables. Who hasn't?

[papageorge1]

Just now, psyche101 said:

I've heard lots of fables. Who hasn't?

So why present one more story you'll call 'fable''?

[psyche101]

Just now, papageorge1 said:

So why present one more story you'll call 'fable''?

Because you claim that fables are more than they are. Posters expect you to support your statements when you make them.

See how I've done that with the view I presented above?

Something like that. Supporting links, evidences, science.

[papageorge1]

1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

Because you claim that fables are more than they are. Posters expect you to support your statements when you make them.

See how I've done that with the view I presented above?

Something like that. Supporting links, evidences, science.

So you have no answer to my question: So why present one more story you'll call 'fable''?

[psyche101]

23 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

So you have no answer to my question: So why present one more story you'll call 'fable''?

Because you claim they are more than that, but never provide any evidence or reasoning. You just make stuff up.

Again, see how I followed up my claim above? That's expected of a claim.

There's thousands of stories about Mickey Mouse too. None of them are true stories.

Edited July 24, 2020 by psyche101

[SeekTruth]

9 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

You're missing my point. Am I supposed to supply a story like you haven't already heard before in your life? 

I'm just asking you to supply a story that you find convincing. I'm not sure why you won't do this. If you want to share it with my in private, that's fine. I will keep it to myself.  I hope you aren't assuming that I'll dismiss the story out of hand. At the very least, perhaps I would have heard an interesting story. 

[XenoFish]

24 minutes ago, SeekTruth said:

I'm just asking you to supply a story that you find convincing. I'm not sure why you won't do this. If you want to share it with my in private, that's fine. I will keep it to myself.  I hope you aren't assuming that I'll dismiss the story out of hand. At the very least, perhaps I would have heard an interesting story. 

Don't ask him for anything. He has yet to back anything up. 

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, SeekTruth said:

I'm just asking you to supply a story that you find convincing. I'm not sure why you won't do this. If you want to share it with my in private, that's fine. I will keep it to myself.  I hope you aren't assuming that I'll dismiss the story out of hand. At the very least, perhaps I would have heard an interesting story. 

Let me try another analogy. I am convinced by the huge pot of soup and not attention fixed on any one teeny potato chunk in that soup.

But as I am a nice guy here's something I posted before on this forum:

I doesn't seem we have to travel far to find a good ghost story. Your mentioning Fort Washista rustled up a memory from my visit to a local fort, Fort Wayne, in Detroit. I took a guided tour of the fort with a guide who has been involved as a worker there for some time. But anyway towards the end of the tour I, being interested in the paranormal, asked if he ever experienced any paranormal activity at the fort as it has quite a history. He said they were restoring a building one day and he saw a guy in the window well-dressed from a bygone era. My guide went in the building to introduce himself assuming it was a modern reenactor in period clothes. My guide said he stood face to face with  the gentleman. My guide gave his name and outstretched his hand for a shake and the gentleman disappeared. He said the guy looked perfectly normal except his hair was particularly well groomed (whatever that means). 

As the guide seemed perfectly normal and did not offer the story but only gave me the story from my request it gets a 90% on the Papameter.

 

Notice I gave the story only 90% as I acknowledge the guy could be delusional or lying too. But if you are a man of math, after millions of cases what are the mathematical chances the 10% (or whatever percent)  comes up every single time?

[SeekTruth]

Thanks for sharing. 

Is it your position that a large body of weak cases can nevertheless amount to a strong argument?

[papageorge1]

2 hours ago, SeekTruth said:

Thanks for sharing. 

Is it your position that a large body of weak cases can nevertheless amount to a strong argument?

No, my position is that a large body of weak, mid-range and strong cases amounts to a strong argument.