How Can Molecules Think?

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I propose an experiment. You will give a meal to a twin. Someone else will be with the other twin far away and ask them what the other twin ate.

Which is the problem with much supposed research into such as telepathy. It seeks to IMPOSE what telepathy should do, not study evidence of what actually HAPPENS.

The presumption you make is that it is repeatable at will. Sensing death is not an act of will.

It’s exactly like me saying “ I’ll believe in relativity if my watch goes bavkwards” or “ I’ll believe in dark matter if my telly doubles in weight”

But The universe does what it does. All you can do , is observe what it does, you cannot impose what you prefer.. Some events are rarely repeated. Scientific process, which demands repeatability struggles with them, so science studies a limited subset of observation.


From what I hear, his conclusion is only that people with this experience had a dramatic change in their life. Darn right! They almost died. That would make anybody have second thoughts about how he is living his life. That doesn't prove their NDE was a real experience outside their body.

There you go again. A straw man based on conflating one type of experience with a wholly different type.

There is evidence of consciousness of remote places and events, whose details are such they cannot have been imagined. Providing fraud can be ruled out, the present scientific model has a problem with them.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Which is the problem with much supposed research into such as telepathy. It seeks to IMPOSE what telepathy should do, not study evidence of what actually HAPPENS.

If you believe telepathy happens, please reference a controlled study that verifies it. Anecdotal accounts after the fact are easy to generate, and prove nothing.
There is evidence of consciousness of remote places and events, whose details are such they cannot have been imagined. Providing fraud can be ruled out, the present scientific model has a problem with them.
Again, please show me a controlled study of somebody who can sense remote places and events.
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
If you believe telepathy happens, please reference a controlled study that verifies it. Anecdotal accounts after the fact are easy to generate, and prove nothing.

Again, please show me a controlled study of somebody who can sense remote places and events.

This thread is not about telepathy. Start another if you wish to discuss that.

This is about the nature of consciousness.

It seems you ignore the fact that ALL observation is in essence anecdotal.
Science can only handle things that do repeat observation or can be repeated on demand.
Science is clearly a limited tool - which is all it is a tool.

That is the problem for analysing consciousness.
Anecdotal accounts of things that do not repeat but that DO contain detailed information the reporter CANNOT have known and no means is available for fraud are not easy to generate. Indeed cannot be generated at all.

So that is why the medical researchers like Greyson believe they happened and he has published many papers. Thats why there is so little to go on ,which is also because of those like you who prefer to ignore such incidents because of pure BELIEF they do not happen.

Greyson and others would tell you that the Evidence disagrees with you.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Rocket surgeon
Mar 11, 2017
14,645
11,691
54
USA
✟293,955.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I shall simply comment yours science is not good enough, if you think your experiment proves the case. Because if you postulate the consciousness and body may be separate entities, normally entwined, in which the body is the means to interact, then all losing brain mass has done is lose the ability of a consciousness to communicate cosnciousness to you. So your experiment was invalid - you failed. Try again.

Oh I see the brain is a receiver that consciousness uses to control the body. What is the mode of interaction? (Here's a hint the only option you have is EM.)
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,689
10,590
71
Bondi
✟248,683.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
So that is why the medical researchers like Greyson believe they happened and he has published many papers. Thats why there is so little to go on...

So little to go on? I doubt whether there are a handful of examples of patients reporting things that they should not have been able to see. Of literally tens of thousands of NDEs I'll bet we barely make double figures. Surely waaay to few to base a study on.

And I'll bet that there are no results from any so- called controlled studies. And fat chance there'd be anything positive from controlled conditions that could rule out sensory cues or memory distortions.

And you're betting the farm on this?

Edit: I thought you weren't going to discuss this, Bradskii! Well, it's a slow afternoon and I'm waiting for my missus to get ready to get out for a beer. So...
 
  • Agree
Reactions: doubtingmerle
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
So little to go on? I doubt whether there are a handful of examples of patients reporting things that they should not have been able to see. Of literally tens of thousands of NDEs I'll bet we barely make double figures. Surely waaay to few to base a study on.

And I'll bet that there are no results from any so- called controlled studies. And fat chance there'd be anything positive from controlled conditions that could rule out sensory cues or memory distortions.

And you're betting the farm on this?

Edit: I thought you weren't going to discuss this, Bradskii! Well, it's a slow afternoon and I'm waiting for my missus to get ready to get out for a beer. So...
That is another straw man.
Frequency.

Just ONE conscious experience away from the body ( if sufficiently detailed to be beyond Chance, and in absence of fraud) destroys the present paradigm of consciousness as a chemical process.

Greyson has more.
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Oh I see the brain is a receiver that consciousness uses to control the body. What is the mode of interaction? (Here's a hint the only option you have is EM.)
The only option you have in the present model is EM.

But then. It would be arrogance to assume our senses can detect all that exists in the universe.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,689
10,590
71
Bondi
✟248,683.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
That is another straw man.
Frequency.

Just ONE conscious experience away from the body ( if sufficiently detailed to be beyond Chance, and in absence of fraud) destroys the present paradigm of consciousness as a chemical process.

Greyson has more.

Then I'd guess he'd give you an example of a controlled study that he considers to be sufficient. This is your opportunity to present one that the guy considers a slam dunk.

Whenever you're ready...
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
It seems you ignore the fact that ALL observation is in essence anecdotal.

Science can only handle things that do repeat observation or can be repeated on demand.
Science is clearly a limited tool - which is all it is a tool.

That is the problem for analysing consciousness.
Anecdotal accounts of things that do not repeat but that DO contain detailed information the reporter CANNOT have known and no means is available for fraud are not easy to generate. Indeed cannot be generated at all.

So that is why the medical researchers like Greyson believe they happened and he has published many papers. Thats why there is so little to go on ,which is also because of those like you who prefer to ignore such incidents because of pure BELIEF they do not happen.

Greyson and others would tell you that the Evidence disagrees with you.
Sir, controlled scientific studies are not anecdotal. So no, it is not true I am ignoring that all evidence is anecdotal evidence. All evidence is not anecdotal. I am declaring to you for a fact that controlled scientific studies are built on something other than anecdotal evidence.

Anecdotal evidence is extremely unreliable. For years people were pitching snake oil and all kinds of claims based on anecdotal evidence. But guess what? People see what they want to see. So, if they invest in snake oil, they think they see fantastic things happen with snake oil. And they tell stories of the success of snake oil. That is why scientists got away from trusting anecdotal evidence, and look for the results of controlled studies instead.

Can you name one controlled study that verifies that a soul leaves a person to observe something far away?

Are you suggesting we go back to the days where all sorts of flimflam cures were promoted on nothing more than anecdotal evidence? Are you suggesting that we abandon modern medicine based on controlled studies, and that we should trust anecdotes instead? If we allow your anecdotal evidence, why we would then disallow all the anecdotal claims for flimflam cures?

People who claim they heard from a dying twin can be reporting what they want to hear. In such circumstances, the mind can easily be fooled into thinking it saw what it wanted to see. How can that be evidence?

Even if twins are shown to consistently know when a distant twin dies, how would that prove that a soul left a body? How would you know that is not just some yet unknown sense such as a bat's radar that can sense things from a distance?

There is much evidence that it is the brain that thinks. I gave you one evidence: the complete loss of consciousness under anesthesia. You simply ignore that evidence.

And I give other evidence at Is There Life after Death? - The Mind Set Free. Are you going to ignore all that also?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hans Blaster

Rocket surgeon
Mar 11, 2017
14,645
11,691
54
USA
✟293,955.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
The only option you have in the present model is EM.

But then. It would be arrogance to assume our senses can detect all that exists in the universe.

Oh, what is this new as yet unknown physics that can serve as consciousness and interact with the flesh of the body?
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Rocket surgeon
Mar 11, 2017
14,645
11,691
54
USA
✟293,955.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
  • Like
Reactions: doubtingmerle
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,710.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Please note that I originally stated that they are "almost" opposite positions, so I recognized the limitations of the comparison. But hopefully now you understand what I was talking about, one position...metaphysical solipsism, allows for accepting as fact things that cannot be known to be true. Something which goes against the very core of an epistemological solipsist's position.

Because their names are so similar, or rarely differentiated at all, people rightly assume that they're essentially the same. I'm just trying to point out that they're actually quite different.

From my (admittedly inexperienced) understanding, it sounds like they are similar in most respects, and are only opposites in one aspect.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,953
✟174,600.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Kylie said:
partinobodycular said:
Please note that I originally stated that they are "almost" opposite positions, so I recognized the limitations of the comparison. But hopefully now you understand what I was talking about, one position...metaphysical solipsism, allows for accepting as fact things that cannot be known to be true. Something which goes against the very core of an epistemological solipsist's position.

Because their names are so similar, or rarely differentiated at all, people rightly assume that they're essentially the same. I'm just trying to point out that they're actually quite different.
From my (admittedly inexperienced) understanding, it sounds like they are similar in most respects, and are only opposites in one aspect.
Both are entirely beliefs of no utility value. Both render 'fact' and 'truth' as meaningless ... (a common failing with Solipisism).
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Then I'd guess he'd give you an example of a controlled study that he considers to be sufficient. This is your opportunity to present one that the guy considers a slam dunk.

Whenever you're ready...

"Controlled" studies are only possible with events that repeat or can be repeated at will.
Scientific process is limited as therefore must be the scientific model.

Tell me. How do you do a "controlled" study on a twin experiencing the death of another twin?
Explain your process. And how you avoid a life jail term.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,689
10,590
71
Bondi
✟248,683.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
"Controlled" studies are only possible with events that repeat or can be repeated at will.
Scientific process is limited as therefore must be the scientific model.

Tell me. How do you do a "controlled" study on a twin experiencing the death of another twin?

You can't. But I guess if that's the only experiment that you can think of then you don't have anything to offer. The guy you mentioned has done some. Perhaps you need to study what he's done and the results he has achieved before using him as a basis for your claims.
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Sir, controlled scientific studies are not anecdotal. So no, it is not true I am ignoring that all evidence is anecdotal evidence. All evidence is not anecdotal. I am declaring to you for a fact that controlled scientific studies are built on something other than anecdotal evidence.

Anecdotal evidence is extremely unreliable. For years people were pitching snake oil and all kinds of claims based on anecdotal evidence. But guess what? People see what they want to see. So, if they invest in snake oil, they think they see fantastic things happen with snake oil. And they tell stories of the success of snake oil. That is why scientists got away from trusting anecdotal evidence, and look for the results of controlled studies instead.

Can you name one controlled study that verifies that a soul leaves a person to observe something far away?

Are you suggesting we go back to the days where all sorts of flimflam cures were promoted on nothing more than anecdotal evidence? Are you suggesting that we abandon modern medicine based on controlled studies, and that we should trust anecdotes instead? If we allow your anecdotal evidence, why we would then disallow all the anecdotal claims for flimflam cures?

People who claim they heard from a dying twin can be reporting what they want to hear. In such circumstances, the mind can easily be fooled into thinking it saw what it wanted to see. How can that be evidence?

Even if twins are shown to consistently know when a distant twin dies, how would that prove that a soul left a body? How would you know that is not just some yet unknown sense such as a bat's radar that can sense things from a distance?

There is much evidence that it is the brain that thinks. I gave you one evidence: the complete loss of consciousness under anesthesia. You simply ignore that evidence.

And I give other evidence at Is There Life after Death? - The Mind Set Free. Are you going to ignore all that also?

Sounds like you do not understand the nature of observation.

I will ignore the many straw men and many false comparisons in what you said.

Consciousness is the ability to experience.
Experiences are documented as anecdotes - a recording of what took place.
All observation is indeed anecdotal.

An observation is not "3.5" on a meter, or "yes/no" or "red"
All observation is an anecdotal statement of context and outcome.

An observation is
"I sampled such (whatever) and did a southern blot test, on and found a band at a location that corresponds to such and such molecular weight"
Or
"I looked up in the sky on such and such a day and time and saw trails of meteorites shoot across the sky here is a photograph
Or
"I looked up in the sky on such a day and time and saw trails of meteorites shoot across the my camera was not responsive enough to catch a photo"
Or
"At the time specified, I looked up and saw multicoloured streaks emerging from the sun - I have never seen it before or since, but others certainly did - it was reported all over the newspapers at the time even by those far away not expecting anything would happen"
Or
" I saw a lady on top of a building at such a time who appeared progressively and disappeared progressively.. Others saw her too. Millions of them. I do not have a photograph, others did. It cannot have been a projection because the authorities turned all the power off"
Or
" I span a black and white disk but I saw coloured bands"
Or
" We observed the lady for 20 days , she did not eat , drink or go to the toilet. She could not have done so. She was paralysed. We thought it was fraud so we tightened security and all the personnel were changed. Nobody except two new officials were allowed to enter or leave. All interactions were closely watched by other personell.
Yet she still did not eat , drink , defecate or urinate her body weight did not change. Science has no explanation for this."

I wager your willingness to accept any of those is based on prejudice not observation.



Science can only handle it if the events can be repeated or repeat naturally.
That does not invalidate the rest, it makes it harder to test.

Which is only a subset of experience and generally can only apply to inaminate objects. Beings are not nearly so controllable.

In this case Medical doctor Greyson is convinced on the basis of both his and other case histories.

You are letting your faith and or prejudice run away with what you will or will not accept.

I have little doubt you accept abiogenesis, yet you have no "controlled trial" of what happened for the first living cell. You cannot say when where or how it happened. All you have to coin your phrase is "flim flam".

There is plenty of testimony of how eucharistic miracles happened and pathology evidence of what they are. Cardiac tissue which a pathologist states is "compelling evidence of creation of heart tissue".
So not "flim flam" like your kind of abiogenesis then!

But as a scientist I am happy to be convinced by a structure for the first living cell and the demonstration of some process to it from non living chemicals - also how it got from there to our hideously complicated minimum cells.

FYI there are controlled trials of some types of telepathy in peer reviewed journals showing way beyond statistical significance.

But this is about consciousness.

Which evidence is in essence anecdotal as is all observation. An observer describing experiences. If the experiences can be repeated science can try to find patterns.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
A link to a book review by the author of the book? Seems credible.

A far more pertinent book is "after" by Greyson himself.
Explains the evidence that persuaded him to pursue the phenomena.


"twin telepathy" playfair is an interesting book - in which the author is annoyed by the refusal of academia to investigate because of prejudice.

It has always struck me as fascinating that those with clearly defined negative views never want to take up the challenge to rebut phenomena which should be easy if it is such a slamdunk in their view!

Tesoriero lists at least 3 academic institutions that refused to investigate eucharistic miracle samples (in this case just to do routine DNA or rissue morphology and pathology studies) having told him they "must be fraud"!!!,
one university noted "this department is founded on Darwinian thought, we might have to close if you are right!"

Others tried to gag scientists who had commented positively on them.
I am guessing it is a blight on a career JUST to get involved.
My conclusion is academia is scared of what it might find .
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
You can't. But I guess if that's the only experiment that you can think of then you don't have anything to offer. The guy you mentioned has done some. Perhaps you need to study what he's done and the results he has achieved before using him as a basis for your claims.

I simply pointed out that many telepathic and/or OB experiences cannot be subject to controlled trial since they cannot be repeated and do not repeat naturally.

Trying to "force" a "nature" on to telepathy ( or OB) and then demonstrating that "nature" does not apply shows nothing - it demonstrates no more than my postulating "I will only believe in dark matter if my television doubles weight one day". I will be left disappointed. I have certainly not disproven dark matter.

Some aspects of telepathy have shown substantial significance . But that is off topic here.
Conscious experience outside the body is clearly rare, and has no obvious profile. Only one case that is far too unlikely to be coincidence and no fraud mechanism can be found is enough to cause a problem for present belief on consciousness. Greyson accepts that in his conclusions
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0