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. (
)
It seems strange that you would exclude philosophy considering it is probably the main area for which most ressearch has come as far as attempting to account for a theory of its nature. Its impossible not to include philsophy as consciousness involves subjective experiences. .
And they bury it in woo woo like past-lives memories. SMH.
So rather than admit your wrong you make another complaint. Ok they bury it in woo but that woo is what has been established as becoming more popular. It can't all be woo and thats the point to show that you can't dismiss what has become a fast growing area of research as quackery.
Again, a collection of papers on the debunked notion of NDEs
Another unfounded claim. Show me the peer review lol. Why is it that when I make a claim you demand stats and peer review. But you can make these outrageous claims with absolutely no support. As though your mere words are peer review. Double standards if you ask me.
is not evidence of *serious* study of consciousness, especially when you keep mixing in all of the "physics of consciousness" notions like these:
There are two destinct areas. NDE and the psychic aspect are one area looking at the direct experiences. Whhereas the physics and QM is the theoretic basis. Trying to formulate theories based on QM.
So both aspects are relevant and shows how far and wide the area of study can be. Thats why is is growing as its not just in Quantum consciousness and all the variations like Panphysism and IIT. But the testing and analysis of the actual people experiencing consciousness beyond brain.
They all come under the heading
of the existence of a consciousness independent of the brain.
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...)
So why doesn't the peer reviwed articles stand as evidence. Are you saying they are lying.
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
OK let me check again. OK it actually said they searched scientific data basis. This is the exact words from the article.
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).
So its not just journals but entire data basis of scientific journals. The other articles mention Springer Nature and the American Psychological Association.
"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.
It seems your only interested in the physics ones. So do you discount all other areas like Neuroethics, Psychology and philosophy of science.
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.
Thats interesting that you say if you think about it too much you get cognitive dissonance. Obvious you think the idea of belief in God or some immaterial reality is a contradiction to material science and atheism.
But what about those who do believe. Its not just about you. What do you say for those scientists who do believe and say they have no issue, no cognitive dissonance. Do you say they are believing in woo. Or are you open to others having a belief in these things without dismissing then as unreal.
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.
You find it hard to believe what people testify. Everything has to have a rational answer. No room for anything else. If Edison or someone told you honestly and swore it was the truth as it happened. You would still dismiss the possibility. Or is there anything to a persons direct experiences and testimony of them as being real. Or must it all be explained by some rational physical and naturalistic cause.
Perhaps you should avoid invoking the history of science if you don't know it.
I don't think tiy need to know a lot about science to know that there has been some pretty big changes and even paradigm shifts in thinking that required a complete revision of how people seen the world.
My point was that imagination, imagining outside the box and limits of what is known into spectulation is a part of moving scientific discoveries forward. I don;t know what you want to play hard ball over such a well acknowledged thing.
Then let us set it aside.
Lol, it has not even been something that has been discussed in any great length to be an issue that must be mentioned to set aside. It barely got a mention and you quickly shut it down lol. I was not intending to carry it on. It was a one off example. I think I can mention one off examples to make a point lol.
I don't study minds or biological organisms.
Ok so therefore we can't just restrict a thread seeking to find out whether there is vision beyond the physical brain to just one domain. Especially when it comes to mind. I would say all areas should be included such as neurology, psychology, physics and QM and philosophy of science. 
