If the brain is necessary to have a vision

BCP1928 said:

I was responding to Steve, but it's a common occurrence, a malady which afflicts all of us from time to time. That is, the lamentable tendency to confound one's thesis with its argument, and then to regard any criticism of the argument as an attack on the thesis itself--which in these religious forums is generally an unfalsifiable proposition anyway.

Click to expand...

My apologies, I somehow saw my username in the quote...a misperception, it appears. As for Steve, I'm not sure he knows what exactly he is arguing given his endorsement of multiple mutually exclusive positions.

partinobodycular said:

I have no problem with accepting that there's been an increase in the number of articles... academic or otherwise, concerning alternative explanations for consciousness. But unless you're advocating for an argumentum ad populum, you're going to have to demonstrate that these articles actually have supporting evidence and aren't just speculative.

Click to expand...

Lol, it was Hans who demanded evidence for the increase in popularity. So I what am I suppose to do. Ignore his request lol.

But you are right it does not prove that these alternative ideas are valid. That was not my point at this stage. It was just to point out that these ideas have become more acceptable and are growing in popularity compared to even 10 years ago. In fact the last time I was debating this topic around 2 years ago I can see that even in that short time heaps more research has been added. So I would say its one of the fastest areas of growth.

But this is not about popularity as in winning the arguement. Rather evidence for an increase. Its not the most popular but its increasing. That was my only point.

partinobodycular said:

Theories about multiverses are also popular, but at least they have the support of mathematical models. What do your articles have?

Click to expand...

So do many of these ideas. But there is often spectulative talk that is more or less accepted by mainstream as true in science. Especially in QM and Cosmology. Look at the debate around something from nothing.

But when the establishment do it its all ok as its spectulation based on the physical paradigm. So if that leads to crazy ideas then thats acceptable. Remember that for the materialist scientists it has to be something counter intuitive and contradictory to our current known models.
Because the data demands such strange ideas and other dimensions.

So either way we are moving into strange realities that defy current models. Its just that the far fetched ideas from material sciences are more acceptable because its well mainstream.

But similar good arguements can be made for these alternative ideas and in fact they provide a better fit for the observations. In fact materialist and atheist will hand on to far fetched spectulative ideas that have been shown to be wrong. So it seems really when we spectulate its coming down to a persons worldview.

Fervent said:

My apologies, I somehow saw my username in the quote...a misperception, it appears. As for Steve, I'm not sure he knows what exactly he is arguing given his endorsement of multiple mutually exclusive positions.

Click to expand...

That is the best position to take if one is honest lol. But I have not said anything like this. I made it clear several times that I am not denying the science or materialism. I am saying that is one aspect of reality.

I am saying that for millenia and still today and now increasing in popularity we have this other worldview about reality that includes imaterial ideas.

I am saying I am open to both sides of the debate on this. So yes someone can be in all places and on both sides of the fense. That is why you probably cannot get it. That someone can be open to both aspects.

If someone is fixated on one side and denies the other then of course they will percieve that the person is all over the place. Because it is confusing for them to understand that someone can hold two opposing positions at the same time.

sjastro said:

Not only inane but also contradictory. He seems to forgotten he supports panpsychism

Click to expand...

Gee you blokes are making all sorts of fallacies. Where did I say I support panpsychism. Don't confuse pointing out the many alternative ideas out there to show how these ideas are becoming more popular. With actually supporting them.

BCP1928 said:

It doesn't matter whether the idea is mainstream or not, and for the most part here nobody is arguing against it. What we are trying to convey to you is that your arguments for it are lame and unconvincing.

Click to expand...

Arguement for what lol

I am pretty sure you just contradicted yourself. You say no one is arguing against my point (that its become more mainstream and popular). Then in the next sentence you say its a lame arguement.

Either you agree with it and support it or its lame. Make up your mind lol.

stevevw said:

Lol, it was Hans who demanded evidence for the increase in popularity. So I what am I suppose to do. Ignore his request lol.

Click to expand...

You did the first few times, but then you looked. It is too bad you couldn't find any appropriate data, either way.

stevevw said:

But you are right it does not prove that these alternative ideas are valid. That was not my point at this stage. It was just to point out that these ideas have become more acceptable and are growing in popularity compared to even 10 years ago. In fact the last time I was debating this topic around 2 years ago I can see that even in that short time heaps more research has been added. So I would say its one of the fastest areas of growth.

Click to expand...

But you don't have the data to make that claim "fastest area of growth" or "growing in popularity".

stevevw said:

But this is not about popularity as in winning the arguement. Rather evidence for an increase. Its not the most popular but its increasing. That was my only point.

Click to expand...

Your point, which is unsupported by evidence you can find, is still just an argument from popularity. Since you are fond of referring to them, you are committing a "bandwagon fallacy".

stevevw said:

So do many of these ideas. But there is often spectulative talk that is more or less accepted by mainstream as true in science. Especially in QM and Cosmology. Look at the debate around something from nothing.

Click to expand...

There is a weird obsession among a few physicists to find the "meaning" of QM. It seems rather pointless to me. As for cosmology, anything about how or before "the big bang" is inherently speculative, so again I find it pointless. At least with the cosmology stuff we are operating beyond what is experimentally detectable. Consciousness everywhere or as a fundamental is operating with matter at the most familiar state -- our own flesh. That kind of interaction should be very accessible/detectable.

stevevw said:

But when the establishment do it its all ok as its spectulation based on the physical paradigm. So if that leads to crazy ideas then thats acceptable. Remember that for the materialist scientists it has to be something counter intuitive and contradictory to our current known models.
Because the data demands such strange ideas and other dimensions.

So either way we are moving into strange realities that defy current models. Its just that the far fetched ideas from material sciences are more acceptable because its well mainstream.

But similar good arguements can be made for these alternative ideas and in fact they provide a better fit for the observations. In fact materialist and atheist will hand on to far fetched spectulative ideas that have been shown to be wrong. So it seems really when we spectulate its coming down to a persons worldview.

Click to expand...

You seem confused about where speculation is reasonable and where it isn't.

stevevw said:

Showing how mainstream this has become. Because as she says there material paradigm offers no way forward but such ideas like these do.

By the way I am interested in what sort of experimentation would need to show consciousness beyond brain. What sort of experiments do you think would show this.

Here is the mathmatical framework for her theory.

https://pubs.aip.org/aip/adv/article/15/11/115319/3372193/Universal-consciousness-as-foundational-field-A

Click to expand...

I seem to spend a lot of my time commenting on your dishonesty and lack of comprehension, this part of your post encapsulates both.
The dishonesty part is for you post links like this which is clearly beyond your level of comprehension, but ironically if the comprehension was there you would have never posted it because it adds nothing to your argument.

I had the look at your link and the mathematics for QM and QFT I am familiar with from my undergraduate and honours level in applied mathematics at Uni.
Here is what she is doing, she is taking an existing mathematical framework and providing an interpretation, there is nothing wrong with this as there are multiple interpretations of the mathematics of QM.
As @Hans Blaster has pointed out QM and QFT are examples of model based realities which explains and makes predictions of what happens in the 'real' world as perceived by our own sense of reality.
The interpretations are attempts to make sense of the mathematics.

Where you go completely off the rails is to use links like this to suggest we are on the eve of paradigm change or there is widespread support for the role of consciousness in QM which is complete BS.

This year there was a survey conducted by Nature of approximately 1,100 quantum physicists and physicists working in applied fields such as particle physics of their preferred interpretation of QM.

Interpretation	Core Idea	Approx. Support	Notes
Copenhagen Interpretation	Wavefunction collapses upon measurement; quantum properties are not definite until observed.	~36%	Most common single choice in recent surveys; broad, historically default view. (The Debrief)
Many Worlds / Everett	No collapse; all possible outcomes occur in branching parallel worlds.	~15%	Significant minority but not majority. (The Debrief)
Bohmian Mechanics (Pilot Wave)	Particles have definite positions guided by a “pilot wave.”	~7%	Deterministic hidden-variables theory. (The Debrief)
Spontaneous Collapse (e.g., GRW)	Wavefunction collapses randomly without measurement.	~4%	Objective collapse models; small faction. (The Debrief)
Epistemic / Information-based (e.g., QBism)	Wavefunction encodes knowledge or information, not reality.	~17%	Some treat this as separate from Copenhagen. (The Debrief)
Relational QM	Quantum states exist only relative to other systems.	~4%*	Often grouped under “other” in surveys. (Portside)
Consistent / Decoherent Histories	Logically consistent sets of histories explain classicality.	~1–2%*	Rarely chosen as primary. (Universitat de Barcelona)
Statistical / Ensemble	QM describes statistical ensembles, not individual systems.	~3%*	Minor support. (Universitat de Barcelona)
Transactional Interpretation	Time-symmetric handshake of waves for outcomes.	~0–1%*	Very small representation. (Universitat de Barcelona)
No Preference / “Shut Up and Calculate”	No strong commitment to any interpretation.	~36%	Many physicists are agnostic or pragmatists. (Universitat de Barcelona)

Click to expand...

Not one physicist advocated the role of consciousness in QM, "the Shut Up and Calculate" brigade are those that are not into any form of navel gazing and the issue is a philosophical not a scientific argument.
A sample size of around 1,100 individuals is large enough to be a statistically significant survey when it represents a population of around ~10,000 - 50,000 of physicists in the relevant fields.

As much as it is hard for you to accept only a tiny percentage of physicists believe in the role of consciousness in QM, the apparent surge in reports assuming this is even true, is due to the low base numbers of supporters to start with.

stevevw said:

Arguement for what lol

I am pretty sure you just contradicted yourself. You say no one is arguing against my point (that its become more mainstream and popular). Then in the next sentence you say its a lame arguement.

Either you agree with it and support it or its lame. Make up your mind lol.

Click to expand...

What is your point? That there is consciousness independent of the brain? Nobody is arguing against that because at present it is unfalsifiable. But you have a tendency of accusing science of denying what it cannot affirm. In thos particular thread you are trying to convince us that science is still looking for something you claim that science denied. Don't you see the contradiction in that?

Hans Blaster said:

You did the first few times, but then you looked. It is too bad you couldn't find any appropriate data, either way.

Click to expand...

This is the silly games I have to play with skeptics. On the one hand its a silly arguement of popularity. Yet at the same time the evidence for its popularity is demanded or else it fails lol. Talk about jumping through moving hoops lol.

PS I disagree that I did not find the appropriate data. Another example of the chopping and changing goal posts. On the one hand Peer Review is the gold standard and demanded as support. But then you suddenly deny its value when it doesn't suit and want only a specific kind of evidence and if it is not met all else is disregarded.

Hans Blaster said:

But you don't have the data to make that claim "fastest area of growth" or "growing in popularity".

Click to expand...

Can you not read English or are you purposely avoiding certain evidence. What does the following say and show me how this is not support that these ideas have ioncreased in popularity.

Over the decades, there was an evident increase in the number of articles on all the areas of the field, with the exception of studies on mediumship that showed a decline during the late 20th century and subsequent rise in the early 21st century.

Hans Blaster said:

Your point, which is unsupported by evidence you can find, is still just an argument from popularity. Since you are fond of referring to them, you are committing a "bandwagon fallacy".

Click to expand...

Then why demand evidence for its popularity lol. You were adament about me proving such an increase as though it was important. Are you playing games.

Was it really about popularity. Or were you wanting evidence to show the increase within the field itself. Sometimes popularity is evidence that something has increased. So you are creating a false analogy anyway.

Hans Blaster said:

There is a weird obsession among a few physicists to find the "meaning" of QM.

Click to expand...

That you say its weird says a lot. Are these scientists regarded as weird. What about the scientists that believe in showing Gods creation. Are they weird as well.

Hans Blaster said:

It seems rather pointless to me.

Click to expand...

I am glad you said its pointless for you as this is your belief. Others find it very much on point.

Hans Blaster said:

As for cosmology, anything about how or before "the big bang" is inherently speculative, so again I find it pointless.

Click to expand...

But is it not that spectulation that can lead to new hypothesis. You have to spectulate outside the standard box to discover new possibilities. Especially if everything you try within the current model doesn't work or you hit dead ends. Thats how Inflation was hypothesied.

Hans Blaster said:

At least with the cosmology stuff we are operating beyond what is experimentally detectable. Consciousness everywhere or as a fundamental is operating with matter at the most familiar state -- our own flesh. That kind of interaction should be very accessible/detectable.

Click to expand...

Maybe it is but the wrong lens or paradigm is being applied. If you assume naturalistic causes then thats all you will look for. Under Behaviouralism where all behaviour was assumed to be physically conditioned the mental aspect was assumed to be the physical conditioning.

Then we discovered that the Mind was like the control center for the body and this completely changed the basis for human behaviour.

The same with consciousness. Physics and cosmology may be at the point the Behaviourist were at where they were blind to the mental lives of humans. A complete paradigm shift may be required to even be open to see the evidence for consciousness beyond brain.

Because when you think about it there may be ample evidence all around us that is being dismissed as coincident, imagination, delusion ect. In fact there is some work on this that is showing there may be some truth to some of this being more than coincident or imagination.

But the first thing to do is to be open to such possibilities rather than keep dismissing everything as imagination and delusion.

Hans Blaster said:

You seem confused about where speculation is reasonable and where it isn't.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

This is the silly games I have to play with skeptics. On the one hand its a silly arguement of popularity. Yet at the same time the evidence for its popularity is demanded or else it fails lol. Talk about jumping through moving hoops lol.

PS I disagree that I did not find the appropriate data. Another example of the chopping and changing goal posts. On the one hand Peer Review is the gold standard and demanded as support. But then you suddenly deny its value when it doesn't suit and want only a specific kind of evidence and if it is not met all else is disregarded.

Click to expand...

I suspected the data didn't exist, but you were making claims about the prominence of these ideas. Since some of those claims overlapped with my own field where I saw *zero* evidence of your claim, I wanted evidence. I wish there had been a study, but unfortunately, there wasn't.

stevevw said:

Can you not read English or are you purposely avoiding certain evidence. What does the following say and show me how this is not support that these ideas have ioncreased in popularity.

Over the decades, there was an evident increase in the number of articles on all the areas of the field, with the exception of studies on mediumship that showed a decline during the late 20th century and subsequent rise in the early 21st century.

Click to expand...

This is in reference to this article, right?


This paper is catalogs papers enumerated here: 598 near-death experiences, 223 out-of-body experiences, 56 end-of-life experiences, 224 possession, 244 memories suggestive of past lives, 565 mediumship, 44 others.

None of this is about fundamental consciousness, pansychism, neurobiology on dualism, etc. It is a bunch of woo woo.

The paper you posted from the nano-materials researcher with the wavefunctions for consciousness is far more relevant than the entire pile of papers cataloged in that bibliographic study.

stevevw said:

Then why demand evidence for its popularity lol. You were adament about me proving such an increase as though it was important. Are you playing games.

Was it really about popularity. Or were you wanting evidence to show the increase within the field itself. Sometimes popularity is evidence that something has increased. So you are creating a false analogy anyway.

Click to expand...

I'm trying to figure out if I should waste any time on this at all. You have raised as a reason to care about these claims that they are taken seriously in the relevant scientific communities. I think that claim deserves evidence.

stevevw said:

That you say its weird says a lot. Are these scientists regarded as weird. What about the scientists that believe in showing Gods creation. Are they weird as well.

Click to expand...

I've never heard any physcists, even those interested in QM interpretations or in a god to connect the two.

stevevw said:

I am glad you said its pointless for you as this is your belief. Others find it very much on point.

But is it not that spectulation that can lead to new hypothesis. You have to spectulate outside the standard box to discover new possibilities. Especially if everything you try within the current model doesn't work or you hit dead ends. Thats how Inflation was hypothesied.

Click to expand...

Are you sure about inflation?

stevevw said:

Maybe it is but the wrong lens or paradigm is being applied. If you assume naturalistic causes then thats all you will look for. Under Behaviouralism where all behaviour was assumed to be physically conditioned the mental aspect was assumed to be the physical conditioning.

Then we discovered that the Mind was like the control center for the body and this completely changed the basis for human behaviour.

The same with consciousness. Physics and cosmology may be at the point the Behaviourist were at where they were blind to the mental lives of humans. A complete paradigm shift may be required to even be open to see the evidence for consciousness beyond brain.

Click to expand...

We know an awful lot about cosmology. What I think is pointless is to try to figure out what came before the expansion. There is little hope of finding any testable hypothesis about the origin of the big bang and I don't expect to ever hear any in my lifetime (and, of course, I won't hear any afterward), so I have no need to worry about it and I move on with my life and my work studying things that are *in* our visible Universe (a plenty vast region of things to study). It's fine for some to study and speculate, but I don't bother keeping up with it. It would be cool to know, but I'm not loosing sleep over it.

stevevw said:

Because when you think about it there may be ample evidence all around us that is being dismissed as coincident, imagination, delusion ect. In fact there is some work on this that is showing there may be some truth to some of this being more than coincident or imagination.

But the first thing to do is to be open to such possibilities rather than keep dismissing everything as imagination and delusion.

Click to expand...

Delusions, , quit injecting words into my statements that I didn't include. This is not one of your endearing habits.

Hans Blaster said:

(and, of course, I won't hear any afterward),

Click to expand...

Something you are so sure of, despite your complete lack of ever experiencing death or encountering anyone who has and could convey their experience.

Fervent said:

Something you are so sure of, despite your complete lack of ever experiencing death or encountering anyone who has and could convey their experience.

Click to expand...

Never met anyone who was dead.

Hans Blaster said:

Never met anyone who was dead.

Click to expand...

Kind of my point, yet despite your ignorance you say something like "of course" as if you know.

stevevw said:

Gee you blokes are making all sorts of fallacies. Where did I say I support panpsychism. Don't confuse pointing out the many alternative ideas out there to show how these ideas are becoming more popular. With actually supporting them.

Click to expand...

As if your posts are not confusing enough for the poor grammar and incoherency, we now have to doubt anything you post as being supportive of your arguments.
What a farcical situation.

Fervent said:

Kind of my point, yet despite your ignorance you say something like "of course" as if you know.

Click to expand...

why should I even entertain such notions without some evidence first?

Fervent said:

and those who are untaught are immediately struck by the opposite inclination.

Click to expand...

Because people need to be taught that which is already known rather than having to relearn everything each generation.

That is called culture. The transmission of information through generations.

Smh

Hans Blaster said:

I suspected the data didn't exist, but you were making claims about the prominence of these ideas. Since some of those claims overlapped with my own field where I saw *zero* evidence of your claim, I wanted evidence. I wish there had been a study, but unfortunately, there wasn't.

Click to expand...

The problem is your applying a limited view from your position. We are talking about all sciences and philosophy. Now it may be specifically in physics is not as popular. But overall it is and thats really the point. That there are a lot of people who have different beliefs on this and we should not limit it to one part.

Hans Blaster said:

This is in reference to this article, right?

Research on Experiences Related to the Possibility of Consciousness Beyond the Brain: A Bibliometric Analysis of Global Scientific Output - PubMed

This study aims to conduct a search of publications investigating experiences commonly associated with the possibility of the existence of a consciousness independent of the brain held on the main scientific databases (Pubmed, Web of Knowledge, PsycINFO, Science Direct, and Scopus). Of the 9065...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

This paper is catalogs papers enumerated here: 598 near-death experiences, 223 out-of-body experiences, 56 end-of-life experiences, 224 possession, 244 memories suggestive of past lives, 565 mediumship, 44 others.

None of this is about fundamental consciousness, pansychism, neurobiology on dualism, etc. It is a bunch of woo woo.

Click to expand...

Of course its about the idea of dualism or fundemental consciousness or Mind. The paper specifies this

This study aims to conduct a search of publications investigating experiences commonly associated with the possibility of the existence of a consciousness independent of the brain

Thats what is was about consciousness beyond brain increasing in popularity as a area of research. A natural extention of this is other ideas that propose consciousness as fundemental. Either way its still showing an increase in the idea of consciousness beyond brain.

Hans Blaster said:

The paper you posted from the nano-materials researcher with the wavefunctions for consciousness is far more relevant than the entire pile of papers cataloged in that bibliographic study.

Click to expand...

Yes and there are many like this and others with completely different approaches. This example is just one in recent times and if you notice its basically proposing that consciousness is like radio waves or the light waves that humans can consciously percieve and even though their brains may die these waves still go on. The same with consciousness.

Which is basically the same thing as the other theories like panpsychism, GNWT and Holographic Principle/Higher Dimensions, Zero-Point Field, Non-Local Consciousness and Information Theory (Integrated Information Theory - IIT).

But there are many other ideas in from across all areas of psychology, neuroethics, and philosophy. Too many to name.

Hans Blaster said:

I'm trying to figure out if I should waste any time on this at all. You have raised as a reason to care about these claims that they are taken seriously in the relevant scientific communities. I think that claim deserves evidence.

Click to expand...

Lol I just gave that evidence. The evidence being that the idea of consciousness beyond brain in its many forms and variations that are becoming more popular and mainstream. That its gone beyond just a fringe psuedoscience and is now being taken more serious;y.

The fact that mainstream journals like Nature, PubMed, SciAm ect are dedicating space even as main features shows the growing popularity.

Hans Blaster said:

I've never heard any physcists, even those interested in QM interpretations or in a god to connect the two.

Click to expand...

Obviously those scientists who believe in God or consciousness beyond brain are not going to declare this at work lol. But how can a scientist who believes in God for example not connect the two.

Phenomenal belief requires consciousness beyond brain to even work. Afterall what do you think spirituality or the soul that goes on after death. They just don't speak their beliefs too loudly in a culture that is meant not to introduce religion or non material ideas.

Hans Blaster said:

Are you sure about inflation?

Click to expand...

No, I was just trying to think of a quick example that required thinking outside the box. I think it was Edisen that said his investions often came to him from the universe. Like a gift as he could not have thought of them himself.

All I know is at one point there was the BB and this was upgraded to Inflation. I know with QM there were counter intuitive ideas that were not expected. They had to imagine strange conclusions outside the box to move forward.

Analysis of the Scientific Imagination Process

Hans Blaster said:

We know an awful lot about cosmology. What I think is pointless is to try to figure out what came before the expansion. There is little hope of finding any testable hypothesis about the origin of the big bang and I don't expect to ever hear any in my lifetime (and, of course, I won't hear any afterward), so I have no need to worry about it and I move on with my life and my work studying things that are *in* our visible Universe (a plenty vast region of things to study). It's fine for some to study and speculate, but I don't bother keeping up with it. It would be cool to know, but I'm not loosing sleep over it.

Click to expand...

I agree. I was not intending for such discussion. Only if it comes up in the form of something from nothing as far as life or consciousness after death.

Hans Blaster said:

Delusions, , quit injecting words into my statements that I didn't include. This is not one of your endearing habits.

Click to expand...

BUt don't you assume that say belief in God, or in other transcedent aspects of reality are some sort of mind trick evolution created in the guise of survival or humans cooperating to get along to survive.

That free will and agency are not a real force as far as being fundemental in altering physical reality. Meaning that mind over matter. If you acknowledge that Mind can change matter then that would put a spanner in the standard model because there is a force it has not accounted for.

Hense all this talk about mind beyond brain and Gods and spirits is just a trick and illusion that has been created as a byproduct of the physical reality and processes. Is that correct. Or close to your position.

stevevw said:

Is that correct.

Click to expand...

Nope.

Larniavc said:

Nope.

Click to expand...

Then are you open to the possibility of consciousness beyond brain.

stevevw said:

The problem is your applying a limited view from your position. We are talking about all sciences and philosophy. Now it may be specifically in physics is not as popular. But overall it is and thats really the point. That there are a lot of people who have different beliefs on this and we should not limit it to one part.

Click to expand...

This is not "all sciences" and I am certainly not talking about philosophy. I don't know how clear it is to you (but it should be). I am carefully *not* discussing philosophy with you. I've told you before that I have no interest in discussing philosophy or your pointless invocation of "worldview" on this subject (consciousness) or any other science topic. (And as has been posted here by others, even the philosophers are not particularly supportive of the dualistic types of mind.)

Physics (because people claim consciousness is fundamental or tied to QM), neurobiology, and psychology are the only fields of relevance to me (and I think in general). You can take any talk of mind-rock duality to a geo-psychic thread. ( )

stevevw said:

Of course its about the idea of dualism or fundemental consciousness or Mind. The paper specifies this

This study aims to conduct a search of publications investigating experiences commonly associated with the possibility of the existence of a consciousness independent of the brain

Click to expand...

And they bury it in woo woo like past-lives memories. SMH.

stevevw said:

Thats what is was about consciousness beyond brain increasing in popularity as a area of research. A natural extention of this is other ideas that propose consciousness as fundemental. Either way its still showing an increase in the idea of consciousness beyond brain.

Yes and there are many like this and others with completely different approaches. This example is just one in recent times and if you notice its basically proposing that consciousness is like radio waves or the light waves that humans can consciously percieve and even though their brains may die these waves still go on. The same with consciousness.

Click to expand...

Again, a collection of papers on the debunked notion of NDEs is not evidence of *serious* study of consciousness, especially when you keep mixing in all of the "physics of consciousness" notions like these:

stevevw said:

Which is basically the same thing as the other theories like panpsychism, GNWT and Holographic Principle/Higher Dimensions, Zero-Point Field, Non-Local Consciousness and Information Theory (Integrated Information Theory - IIT).

Click to expand...

which

stevevw said:

But there are many other ideas in from across all areas of psychology, neuroethics, and philosophy. Too many to name.

Lol I just gave that evidence. The evidence being that the idea of consciousness beyond brain in its many forms and variations that are becoming more popular and mainstream. That its gone beyond just a fringe psuedoscience and is now being taken more serious;y.

Click to expand...

you just simply have failed to demonstrate are major or serious areas of study. Can you even find a survey in the professional magazine of some neurobiology society. (Or in Physics Today or Physics World to cover the "other side"? I've got a recent copy of PT right here. No mentions. We'll have to keep looking...)

stevevw said:

The fact that mainstream journals like Nature, PubMed, SciAm ect are dedicating space even as main features shows the growing popularity.

Click to expand...

Part of the problem is that you seem unfamiliar with scientific journals. Your list of 3 contains only 1 actual scientific journal (OK, Nature has metasticized into a family).

SciAm is a popular science magazine. It is not a publisher of scientific results. PubMed is an online LIBRARY (literally the

"National Library of Medcine" from the NIH) containing thousands of journals (of various quality) and other articles. I'm not sure how things get in there. (I did a search on my name w/initials and it found 6 entries. One was from me [the other five had the same initials and were *definitely* not me] and I'm not sure how it got in their. It is about as far from medicine as I can imagine, even under a list of my own work. A properly indexed physics collection returns about 100 items from me.)

"research gate" is even worse, as it is clear that any old thing can be uploaded there.

stevevw said:

Obviously those scientists who believe in God or consciousness beyond brain are not going to declare this at work lol. But how can a scientist who believes in God for example not connect the two.

Phenomenal belief requires consciousness beyond brain to even work. Afterall what do you think spirituality or the soul that goes on after death. They just don't speak their beliefs too loudly in a culture that is meant not to introduce religion or non material ideas.

Click to expand...

I tried not to think about it "seriously". Doing so caused cognitive dissonance. Seriously, I think I only got through 10 years of science education and study and maintaining my faith at university by not caring that much about church and religion. (Not to mention the prior decade of being a voracious reader and viewer of popular science content like Cosmos and NOVA.) Mental separation of church and science is the best way to maintain support for both.

stevevw said:

No, I was just trying to think of a quick example that required thinking outside the box. I think it was Edisen that said his investions often came to him from the universe. Like a gift as he could not have thought of them himself.

Click to expand...

The reality is that Edison had a team of inventors working for him at his lab. They were not quite "the universe" but they were external to his mind.

stevevw said:

All I know is at one point there was the BB and this was upgraded to Inflation. I know with QM there were counter intuitive ideas that were not expected. They had to imagine strange conclusions outside the box to move forward.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you should avoid invoking the history of science if you don't know it.

stevevw said:

Analysis of the Scientific Imagination Process

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1871187113000217

I agree. I was not intending for such discussion. Only if it comes up in the form of something from nothing as far as life or consciousness after death.

Click to expand...

Then let us set it aside.

stevevw said:

BUt don't you assume that say belief in God, or in other transcedent aspects of reality are some sort of mind trick evolution created in the guise of survival or humans cooperating to get along to survive.

That free will and agency are not a real force as far as being fundemental in altering physical reality. Meaning that mind over matter. If you acknowledge that Mind can change matter then that would put a spanner in the standard model because there is a force it has not accounted for.

Hense all this talk about mind beyond brain and Gods and spirits is just a trick and illusion that has been created as a byproduct of the physical reality and processes. Is that correct. Or close to your position.

Click to expand...

I don't study minds or biological organisms.