If the brain is necessary to have a vision

Fervent said:

While the connection may not be obvious, consciousness beyond brain would render the project of naturalistic explanation deeply suspect especially without some teleologic explanation for how mental events coincide with physical events with such consistency. If consciousness exists beyond the reach of physics, then our entire current scientific model is undermined. At which point supernatural explanations become viable, because naturalistic explanation is impotent.

Click to expand...

You assume a priori that consciousness beyond brain would be inaccessible to a naturalistic explanation?

BCP1928 said:

You assume a priori that consciousness beyond brain would be inaccessible to a naturalistic explanation?

Click to expand...

Nothing a priori about it. Naturalistic explanation, inasmuch as it is a coherent concept in and of itself and not just a vacuous and redundant phrase, is a physical explanation. At present, there is nothing in physics that can explain consciousness beyond brains and any coherent explanation of such a thing would be outside of the current realm of naturalistic(extending from some fundamental substance) explanation.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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...

In this post you have referenced Panpsychism (again), GNWT, Holographic Principle, Zero Point Energy, Non Local Consciousness, Information Theory and does not include the your references which @Hans Blaster has responded to.
Given your have stated you do not accept panpsychism, what are the other references do you not accept but decided to post anyway?

The sheer stupidity of this is for you to think that posting references you do not accept let alone have any understanding of is somehow an effective way in making an argument.

stevevw said:

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...

So this is your take on the Maria Stromme article, I rest my case.
Let me give you some friendly advice, lying about your comprehension about any article you post will backfire as you will end up looking like a bigger idiot than what you actually are.

As I pointed out Stromme has tried to turn consciousness into a quantum field using the existing mathematical framework for QFTs.
What I didn't mention this endeavour fails for the following reasons.

A quantum field such as the electron field, photon field, Higgs field etc meets the following requirements.


At this stage the gravitational field does not conform and is a major area of research to unify general relativity with quantum mechanics.
By comparison consciousness as a quantum field fails every requirement.


Combined with quantum decoherence as mentioned in a previous post, consciousness in QM is a discussion in philosophy not science.
I wouldn't expect you to have the vaguest understanding of any of this but other readers may find it informative.

As a human interest story I use AI to tabulate my posts but I picked up an AI error in my previous post where it stated all quantum fields reduce to a classical limit which is not true.
After being severely admonished it came back with this response.

You’re right — that statement needs tightening.
In modern QFT, “classical limit” is not universal, and using it loosely causes confusion. Let’s correct it precisely and cleanly.

---

1. The precise correction​

Not all quantum fields have a well-defined, physically realizable classical limit.

Click to expand...

What is true is weaker:

All quantum fields admit a formal ℏ → 0 limit at the level of the action, but that limit may be unphysical, unstable, or never observable.

Click to expand...

That distinction matters.

---

2. Refined table (corrected)​

Below is a more accurate table distinguishing formal vs physical classical limits.

Field	Type	Gauge Field?	Formal ℏ → 0 Limit?	Physical Classical Field?	Why / Why Not
Photon (EM)	Spin-1	✅	✅	✅	Maxwell equations emerge
Higgs	Spin-0	❌	✅	✅	Classical scalar field
Dirac fermions	Spin-½	❌	✅	⚠️ Limited	Grassmann-valued; no classical particle field
Gluons	Spin-1	✅	✅	❌	Confinement, strong coupling
W / Z	Spin-1	✅	✅	❌	Massive, short-range, unstable
Neutrinos	Spin-½	❌	✅	❌	No macroscopic classical regime
Gravity (metric)	Spin-2	Gauge-like	✅	✅	Classical GR well defined
Ghost fields	Unphysical	Gauge-fixing	✅	❌	Mathematical artifacts

---

3. What “classical limit” actually means (three different senses)​

(a) Formal classical limit​

• ℏ → 0 in the action
• Exists for all quantum field theories
• Not sufficient for physical reality

(b) Effective classical field​

• Large occupation number
• Decoherence suppresses quantum interference
• Examples: EM waves, classical gravitational waves

(c) Macroscopic observability​

• Stable, long-lived configurations
• Accessible to experiments
• Very few fields qualify

➡️ Many quantum fields fail (b) and (c).

---

4. What is truly common to all quantum fields (corrected)​

Let’s restate only what survives scrutiny:

Property	Universal to quantum fields?
Operator-valued fields on spacetime	✅
Defined via an action / Lagrangian	✅
Obey relativistic causality	✅
Quantized degrees of freedom	✅
Vacuum structure	✅
Correlation functions	✅
Observer-independent dynamics	✅
Physical classical limit	❌
Macroscopic field behavior	❌

---

5. Consciousness comparison (unchanged conclusion)​

Even with this correction, the contrast remains absolute:

Criterion	Quantum Fields	Consciousness
Mathematical field definition	✅	❌
Operator algebra	✅	❌
Action principle	✅	❌
Symmetry structure	✅	❌
Renormalization	✅	❌
Predictive equations	✅	❌
Observer independence	✅	❌
Testable correlations	✅	❌

So while not all quantum fields have a usable classical limit, they still share a rigorous mathematical and empirical structure that consciousness does not.

---

6. Bottom line (precise version)​

Lack of a classical limit does not disqualify something as a quantum field — but lack of mathematics, dynamics, symmetry, and falsifiability does.

Click to expand...

Your correction is exactly right, and it sharpens — rather than weakens — the argument.

If you want, next we can:

• Classify fields by whether classicalization is possible
• Show why fermions cannot be classical fields
• Or examine how this mistake is exploited in “quantum consciousness” rhetoric

Click to expand...

BCP1928 said:

Consciousness beyond brain is not ipso facto metaphysics

Click to expand...

Of course it is. Its consciousness beyond the physical brain. Beyond the physical full stop. It implies an independent Mind seperate from the physical. It implies or is open to all the ideas such as Panphysism and other ideas that posit an alternative mnetaphysics of fundemental Mind over Matter.

BCP1928 said:

and has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of God.

Click to expand...

I never said that. Stop misrepresenting what I said. I said it is (like) belief in God. You skipped over the word (like). I was using this as an example of another aspect of reality that cannot be reduced or tested by material science. One that is well known and accepted even by scientists that science cannot prove or disprove God. Thus they cannot say anything. Just like consciousness beyond the physical.

BCP1928 said:

It's not a question of delusion. The existence of God is an unfalsifiable proposition. It can be affirmed or denied without reference to science at all. But if you make falsifiable statements about God then you will be expected to provide evidence and a coreherent chain of reasoning leading to your statement.

Click to expand...

I thought you said it had nothing to do with God and now your using my example. Please be consistent.

What is a falsifiable statements about God.

Do you think that the testimony of a Christian is evidence. Or at least cannot be defeated by falsifiable science. If not then how should we view the testimony. This testimony alone is what spread Christianity.

Is testimony a valid form of evidence. Can it be investigated to see if its genuine or not.

stevevw said:

Of course it is. Its consciousness beyond the physical brain. Beyond the physical full stop. It implies an independent Mind seperate from the physical. It implies or is open to all the ideas such as Panphysism and other ideas that posit an alternative mnetaphysics of fundemental Mind over Matter.

Click to expand...

Good grief, Steve. You were offered an olive branch by @BCP1928 (beyond brain consciousness is not necessarily metaphysics) and you just swat it away.

stevevw said:

Of course it is. Its consciousness beyond the physical brain. Beyond the physical full stop.

Click to expand...

Why beyond the physical?

Hans Blaster said:

Philosophy is not science and it doesn't interest me. If they want to claim non-biological or non-physical consciousness it needs to be built on more than philosophical noodling and bong hits.

Click to expand...

But you do realise that the issue of consciousness falls into the philosophical by its very nature. Its not physical. So it has to fall into the philosophical whether you like it or want it or not. Its not up to you.

Thus you cannot demand that it only be measured by material science. It would be like demanding that a mechanic use a knife and fork to fix a car.

Hans Blaster said:

Sorry "past lives" are spiritual woo woo, or is that part of your Christian theology now. (No? I didn't think so.)

Click to expand...

So your saying the central core of Christianity is Woo. On what basis or evidence do you declare this ontological truth. Your own belief and not science.

Hans Blaster said:

If even you find it laughable, then why should care.

Click to expand...

I don't know. Your actions seem to show you care. You persistently come to these threads and spend a lot of time on them and you are serious in your comments.

Hans Blaster said:

Psychics and psychic powers are also "woo woo" nonsense. You are not helping your self or your credibility.

Click to expand...

This is a good example of dogmatic forcing of your belief onto others. You have no empiricle data fullstop to make such a claim. So its a belief and not science. Thus proving exactly what I said that when science is used to declare that all other ideas are Woo that this is a metaphysical belief and not science itself.

Hans Blaster said:

For what? You posted a paper a few days ago where some nano-materials researcher "created" some "consciousness" field and wrote a basic quantum field formulation, but it was meaningless. There were no justifications given for the forms of the potential or operators.

Click to expand...

Yes there were.

Hans Blaster said:

And certainly no connection to any experimental data regarding minds. If that's the "best" physics and QM formulations of mind have, then they are worthless too.

Click to expand...

Yes it was. It was based on the observations from QM. You know very well that interpretations of conscious observers influencing reality is just as valid as any other interpretations. She argued her case.

Hans Blaster said:

These things are *not* like NDEs or ghost studies. I think both are unlikely, but these things above are at least not "woo".

Click to expand...

You have no justification to declare them Woo. Your imposing your belief onto others.

Hans Blaster said:

This was a non-sequitor. I was talking about the sources you claimed were "peer reviewed" that were not. I'm asking you again to know what you are posting. Misused sources are just as useless as junk sources.

Click to expand...

But those sources are in the minority. The vast majority have been peer reviwed science. Why are you targetting the exceptions and not the rule. This is a misrepresentation of what I have been posting.

Hans Blaster said:

I'm not interested in catalogs of psyschic phenomena. We're not going to discuss a catalog of "studies" of reincarnations.

Click to expand...

Then you should not participate because the fact is they will come up and have already. This is a natural part of this thread considering that vision beyond brain invites such ideas. Your more or less closing the thread down with this attitude. The only evidence you demand is your kind of evidence. So everyone else can shut up as I won;t listen lol.

Hans Blaster said:

Discount and disinterest are not the same word, Steve.

Click to expand...

Your very actions show its dismissing.

Hans Blaster said:

Atheism is the non-belief in gods. It is not anti-supernaturalism and it is not relevant.

Click to expand...

Then if it supports supernaturalism it has to support God lol. Is not God within the supernatural as far as how He acts in the world. It would be an inconsistent position to take because as soon as an atheist claims they are open and believe in the supernatural it invites ideas like God.

Hans Blaster said:

I'm not them, but I will tell you that scientists do not sit around discussing religion with each other. I frankly think some of that is compartmentalization, keeping the two separate in their minds. It functioned that way for me, but then, find religion boring and it never held much interest for me. It wasn't something I wanted to spend time thinking about.

Click to expand...

Yes thats what I just said. That scientists would rarely express their beliefs in such an environment.

Hans Blaster said:

I don't care what tiy think about "innovation" and how it works. The nature of innovation is not the subject of our discussion. Bring some hard evidence or go home.

Click to expand...

I like how you keep buying in to this and when I show you are wrong you then declare you don't care.

Hans Blaster said:

It was an extraneous thing you didn't want to spend time discussing.

Click to expand...

Thats right. It was just an example to the point I was making which was relevant. But you then ran with that example yourself and made it into something it wasn't.

Hans Blaster said:

The problem with threads you start or take over is that you want to discuss all possible things, in the same thread, at the same time and IN THE SAME POST. It is not a good way of conversing and like the bit just above, you lose track of what your wrote to get a particular response.

Click to expand...

No I just like to establish the parameters before getting into a debate over specific. I think it important to show that like you are doing in saying you don't care whenever something comes up that does not meet your beliefs that this is exposed. So that we know much of what is being used to beat down the possibilities is actually a belief and not science itself.

Hans Blaster said:

Good grief, Steve. You were offered an olive branch by @BCP1928 (beyond brain consciousness is not necessarily metaphysics) and you just swat it away.

Click to expand...

Then explain how its not a metaphysical position to take. I am disagreeing with this. Now your ganging up trying to make me agree lol.

Show how belief in consciousness beyond the physical is not a metaphysical position or opens the door for such.

BCP1928 said:

Why beyond the physical?

Click to expand...

Because the idea of consciousness beyond the physical brain. The important words here are "beyond the physical" ontologically. The physical brain is not the cause or origin of consciousness. Its proposing consciousness is a seperate entity beyond the physical. Cannot be reduced to the physical. Its quite simple really.

partinobodycular said:

Yes, it can all be woo, and popularity doesn't equate to substance... woo is still woo.

Click to expand...

So your saying major journals like Nature who have featured and promoted these ideas is promoting woo. Why would a major scientific journal promote woo. If it was woo it would not get past the reviewers and yet they approved this.

How do you know its woo. Have you done tests to show its woo.

I doubt you have even investigated the basis for these ideas. Some have sound scientific arguements with tests and the maths incorporated. You obviously have not researched this that you make such unsupported claims.

I assume you believe that belief in God is woo. Can you show the scientific tests that show this. Or is this your belief.

stevevw said:

So your saying major journals like Nature who have featured and promoted these ideas is promoting woo.

Click to expand...

Could you cite one of these Nature articles please? I've done my own Google search but perhaps you know of something that I missed.

stevevw said:

Why would they even support it.

Click to expand...

The Nature articles that I did find were more concerned with explaining NDE's neurobiologically, rather than supporting any alternative explanations. I fail to see how they're supportive of your position as they're simply doing what scientific journals are designed to do... publish the results of scientific studies. Even when the focus of those studies involve fertile ground for woo.

stevevw said:

I doubt you have even investigated the basis for these ideas.

Click to expand...

In this instance you're way off. Having wasted countless hours chasing down @Mountainmike's claims of 'indisputable evidence' for NDE's I can say with fairly high confidence that they're just woo.

stevevw said:

I assume you believe that belief in God is woo.

Click to expand...

Let's be specific... do I think that belief in God is woo... no. Do I think that claims of NDE's constituting evidence thereof is woo... yes.

stevevw said:

But you do realise that the issue of consciousness falls into the philosophical by its very nature. Its not physical. So it has to fall into the philosophical whether you like it or want it or not. Its not up to you.

Click to expand...

Then why do you bring it up on this board? The topic is physical science, not philosophy.

stevevw said:

So your saying the central core of Christianity is Woo. On what basis or evidence do you declare this ontological truth. Your own belief and not science.

Click to expand...

Past lives are a part of Christianity now? What are you the reincarnation of Gomer Pyle?

stevevw said:

I don't know. Your actions seem to show you care. You persistently come to these threads and spend a lot of time on them and you are serious in your comments.

Click to expand...

Don't shrink me. Stick to the topic. I was speaking of one specific item you brought up.

stevevw said:

This is a good example of dogmatic forcing of your belief onto others. You have no empiricle data fullstop to make such a claim. So its a belief and not science. Thus proving exactly what I said that when science is used to declare that all other ideas are Woo that this is a metaphysical belief and not science itself.

Click to expand...

Really? Pyschics are widely regarded as con artists and nonsense. Your argument doesn't depend on their existence.

stevevw said:

Yes there were.

Click to expand...

This must be based on your vast knowledge of quantum field theory. lol.

stevevw said:

Yes it was. It was based on the observations from QM. You know very well that interpretations of conscious observers influencing reality is just as valid as any other interpretations. She argued her case.

Click to expand...

The potential of the consciousness field, how do we measure that?

stevevw said:

You have no justification to declare them Woo. Your imposing your belief onto others.

Click to expand...

Ghosts are well known to be not real.

stevevw said:

But those sources are in the minority. The vast majority have been peer reviwed science. Why are you targetting the exceptions and not the rule. This is a misrepresentation of what I have been posting.

Click to expand...

I was talking about the bad sources you used. It's not my fault your sources keep coming up faulty.

stevevw said:

Then you should not participate because the fact is they will come up and have already. This is a natural part of this thread considering that vision beyond brain invites such ideas. Your more or less closing the thread down with this attitude. The only evidence you demand is your kind of evidence. So everyone else can shut up as I won;t listen lol.

Click to expand...

When have you written of "vision" outside the brain? That's what I thought.

stevevw said:

Your very actions show its dismissing.

Click to expand...

I'm dismissing this comment.

stevevw said:

Then if it supports supernaturalism it has to support God lol. Is not God within the supernatural as far as how He acts in the world. It would be an inconsistent position to take because as soon as an atheist claims they are open and believe in the supernatural it invites ideas like God.

Click to expand...

How thick are you? I literally told you something I've probably told you a dozen times at least and others have written endlessly on ths board.

A/theism is about belief in some sort of god or gods.

That is all it is. Not believing in a "god" does not mean not believing in the supernatural, but it certainly doesn't mean believing in it either. The two are uncorrelated. It also works the other way around. I didn't believe in any of the at supernatural stuff like psychics, ghosts, ESP, clairvoyance, mind melds, telekinesis, etc., when I believed in God.

stevevw said:

Yes thats what I just said. That scientists would rarely express their beliefs in such an environment.

Click to expand...

Because we are professionals and such things are irrelevant.

stevevw said:

I like how you keep buying in to this and when I show you are wrong you then declare you don't care.

Thats right. It was just an example to the point I was making which was relevant. But you then ran with that example yourself and made it into something it wasn't.

Click to expand...

I'm also not interested in the meta-discussion of your distractions.

stevevw said:

No I just like to establish the parameters before getting into a debate over specific. I think it important to show that like you are doing in saying you don't care whenever something comes up that does not meet your beliefs that this is exposed. So that we know much of what is being used to beat down the possibilities is actually a belief and not science itself.

Click to expand...

You know this is exactly why I want your claims of wide spread or growing interest to be backed by facts before I even consider responding to the specific claims.

stevevw said:

So your saying major journals like Nature who have featured and promoted these ideas is promoting woo. Why would a major scientific journal promote woo. If it was woo it would not get past the reviewers and yet they approved this.

Why would they even support it. How do you know its woo. Have you done tests to show its woo.

I doubt you have even investigated the basis for these ideas. Some have sound scientific arguements with tests and the maths incorporated. You obviously have not researched this that you make such unsupported claims.

I assume you believe that belief in God is woo. Can you show the scientific tests that show this. Or is this your belief.

Click to expand...

You just can't resist lying can you?
This time using AI as a search engine....

Yes — Nature and its associated journals regularly publish scientific articles and commentaries about consciousness, but not as mystical “quantum consciousness” or paranormal interpretations. Instead, the focus is on empirical, neuroscientific, psychological, and theoretical aspects of consciousness as a biological and cognitive phenomenon.

Here are examples of recent Nature-family publications on consciousness:

Neuroscience and measurement of consciousness​

• A review of covert physiological measures of consciousness (e.g., eye, heart, respiration signals that correlate with conscious states) was published in Nature Reviews Neuroscience. (Nature)

Critique of unscientific theories​

• Nature Neuroscience published a commentary discussing when theories of consciousness become untestable or unscientific, such as claims made about integrated information theory being labeled pseudoscientific by some scholars. (Nature)

Major theoretical overviews​

• Nature Reviews Neuroscience published a review of leading neuroscience theories of consciousness (e.g., global workspace, integrated information, re-entry models), clearly situating them as scientific frameworks for comparison. (Nature)

Empirical brain studies linked to consciousness​

• Nature Communications and Nature Human Behaviour and other Nature-associated journals publish research on:
  • cortical dynamics linked to states of consciousness, including interplay of brain networks during wakefulness vs unconscious states. (Nature)
  • studies related to neural correlates and altered states of consciousness. (Nature)

Foundational essays and overviews​

• Nature and its editorial pages have featured essays on consciousness, its scientific study, and its challenges, such as “What Is Consciousness?” discussing neuronal correlates and empirical approaches. (Nature)

Broader interdisciplinary coverage​

While Nature proper is a general science journal and Nature Neuroscience focuses on brain systems, other Nature titles like Nature Human Behaviour also cover consciousness as a scientific topic. (Nature)

---

What Nature doesn’t publish​

• Nature does not publish papers claiming that consciousness causes quantum collapse, or that consciousness is a fundamental quantum field — those concepts are generally not part of mainstream scientific research because they lack testable mechanisms and predictive frameworks.
• Publications focus on neuronal correlates, brain network dynamics, measurable physiological markers, computational theories, and rigorous comparisons of scientific theories. (Nature)

---

In summary​

Yes — Nature and its family of journals publish research and commentary on consciousness, but in a scientific, empirical, and testable context (neuroscience, physiology, cognition). They do not support or provide evidence for consciousness as a fundamental physical field or a special agent in quantum measurement. (Nature)

If you want, I can point you to specific high-impact critique papers that argue against or clarify why consciousness-based interpretations of quantum mechanics are considered unscientific within the physics community.

Click to expand...

Note Nature publishes articles on consciousness from a scientific lens not from your bogus metaphysical aspect.

Hans Blaster said:

Past lives are a part of Christianity now? What are you the reincarnation of Gomer Pyle?

Click to expand...

Lol. Are you saying you don't believe in Gomer. Whatever Gomer says is true, I tell you.

Hans Blaster said:

Don't shrink me. Stick to the topic. I was speaking of one specific item you brought up.

Click to expand...

I wasn't. I was making a legitmate observation. You made a truth claim about my link. I asked where was the peer reviewed support or stats that you demanded of me. I laughed because I find it amusing that I am pointing out the double standards.

Hans Blaster said:

Really? Pyschics are widely regarded as con artists and nonsense. Your argument doesn't depend on their existence.

Click to expand...

Lol now your using popularity. Yet there were objections my logic was based on popularity. Please be consistent.

Its not just about Pyschics but a wide range of phenomena. So you are misrepresenting the papers. Second there is valid evidence on the Pyschic phenomena. So this is once again tarring good science as nonsense.

Hans Blaster said:

This must be based on your vast knowledge of quantum field theory. lol.

Click to expand...

Actually as I said the papers basic idea of consciousness interacting as some sort of field is a common theme through all these ideas and papers I have been submitting. So its repeated science. Independent researchers are coming to the same basic idea.

Whats different is that unlike the physical evidence that can provide no theory at all. These theories are at least attempting to account for the nature of consciousness. QM can at least bridge the gap, the Hard Problem as it fits well with how consciousness works being non local and yet still some sort of influence on the physical world.

Hans Blaster said:

The potential of the consciousness field, how do we measure that?

Click to expand...

This is the thing. If its something that trannscends the physical and yet interacts some way with it. Then the obvious place to start is with the direct experiences. Not assuming these experiences are unreal but real. What is reported actually happened. Then its a case of getting to understand what is happening.

It may be that within these experiences are clues to how the mind and consciousness works and relates to the physical world. It could be that at least some of what people dismiss as coincident or accidental are real. If you consider all the experiences theres a lot of data to sift to work out what is real or not.

Hans Blaster said:

Ghosts are well known to be not real.

Click to expand...

Well known by whom lol. This is what I mean. We have a growing data base of testimony of people who sware the truth. Whose lives are changed. But skeptics have to force them to be deluded or imagining things to be right on this. Its always the way. Peoples testimonies and the evidence is dismissed as not real.

How can you say to someone that their sincere testimony is not real when they tell you it was definitely real and they know that they are not dreaming or deluded. What then. You just double down and say theres no evidence and their deluded.

Hans Blaster said:

I was talking about the bad sources you used. It's not my fault your sources keep coming up faulty.

Click to expand...

I don't think there were any bad sources. Thats your misrepresentation.

If you actually look at them the ones that were not peer review they either had a link to peer review or stated the same idea as what was proposed in peer reviewed science. So in fact this is good science as we have many independent articles all converging on the same idea. All coming to the same findings.

Hans Blaster said:

When have you written of "vision" outside the brain? That's what I thought.

Click to expand...

Your changing the goal posts. I said the thread opens the door for philosophy and alternative metaphysics because it asks the question about 'Vision beyond the physical brain'.

Proving there is vision or not beyond brain does not change the fact that this thread naturally leads to philosopy and the debate about proving such. We are doing it right now in discussing whether its possible lol.

Hans Blaster said:

How thick are you? I literally told you something I've probably told you a dozen times at least and others have written endlessly on ths board.

A/theism is about belief in some sort of god or gods.

That is all it is. Not believing in a "god" does not mean not believing in the supernatural, but it certainly doesn't mean believing in it either. The two are uncorrelated. It also works the other way around. I didn't believe in any of the at supernatural stuff like psychics, ghosts, ESP, clairvoyance, mind melds, telekinesis, etc., when I believed in God.

Click to expand...

Well there you go I learnt something new. I assumed that it was about not just belief in God but belief in supernaturalism. So why disbelief in God if its not about supernaturalism.

Belief is about believing something without the evidence. Is that atheism. A belief that requires physical evidence. I am not sure what the basis for atheism is.

Hans Blaster said:

Because we are professionals and such things are irrelevant.

Click to expand...

But what about in the lunch room or private time. I would imagine this may come up sometimes. I know in my work its not always conducive to talk religion.

I think from memory the Phil paper survey showed a high support for materialism and atheism.

Hans Blaster said:

I'm also not interested in the meta-discussion of your distractions.

Click to expand...

But if this is evidence for say showing that these alternative ideas are not just psuedoscience but are being taken serious. Does not these kinds of analysis help support that and be important evidence.

It seems that this is dismissing important evidence and the very thing I am talking about where sometimes the evidence is dismissed as a priori due to a belief rather than the science. How can anyone present evidence if its dismissed.

I would imagine if there was analysis for NDE or Psychic research you would also dismiss that.

Hans Blaster said:

You know this is exactly why I want your claims of wide spread or growing interest to be backed by facts before I even consider responding to the specific claims.

Click to expand...

I thought I had already done this. Does not peer review papers count. I must have linked at least 10 papers or articles all saying that these ideas are increasing. The longitude research shows they are increasing. These ideas are making featured articles in all the top journals like Nature.

It is a fact that even 10 years ago this would not have happened. That in the everday sense of the meaning is an increase. How about you now counter this with some peer review and support that shows it has not increased. Instead of knocking down everything I link.

I mean not just in your field but across all fields associated with the study of consciousness.

sjastro said:

You just can't resist lying can you?
This time using AI as a search engine....


Note Nature publishes articles on consciousness from a scientific lens not from your bogus metaphysical aspect.

Click to expand...

And you are making false representations of what I said. I never said that Nature is promoting mystical stuff. Thats your version. I said that mainstream journals like Nature have become open to publishing on ideas about consciousness beyond brain.

There are legitimate scientific theories on consciousness beyond brain. Two examples published in mainstream journals are Integrated Information theory and Global Neuronal Workspace Theory (GNWT).

These both posit consciousness and information which creates consciousness beyond the brain. In the case of IIT all things have some form of consciousness based on the level of Information and Integration. Which is more or less similar to Panpsychism and other Mind as fundemental theories.

Hans Blaster said:

Then why do you bring it up on this board? The topic is physical science, not philosophy.

Click to expand...

Ah the question asks whether the brain is necessary to have vision. Thats an obvious philosophical question. Or invites philosophy. How could you even investigate whether there is vision beyond brain without philosophy of science.

Discussing the makeup of reality itself rather than assuming its just all physical brain. That would close the thread down immediate by barring everything except the physical sciences. Which cannot show if vision is beyond brain.

Its more or less handicapping any discussion about the possibility. Which I think can still be science. But rather philsophy of science. Would someone Like Chalmers a Professor of Philosophy and Neuro science be allowed to comment. He would certainly bring in philsophy. He revolutionised consciousness studies by identifying the 'Hard Problem of Consciousness' Which is a philsophical problem.

Anyway I think thats all I am going to say on this as I know you would like to move onto specific examples of consciousness beyond brain. Otherwise exactly what sort of evidence do you think is valid for vision and consciousness beyond brain.

stevevw said:

Because the idea of consciousness beyond the physical brain. The important words here are "beyond the physical" ontologically. The physical brain is not the cause or origin of consciousness. Its proposing consciousness is a seperate entity beyond the physical. Cannot be reduced to the physical. Its quite simple really.

Click to expand...

No, the important words are beyond the brain., "physical" or not.

BCP1928 said:

No, the important words are beyond the brain., "physical" or not.

Click to expand...

What does this even mean. The brain is physical. It seems even more ambiguious than proposing theres a destinct Mind and physical brain. Like theres some inbetween place where the mind exists. It could be beyond the physical brain or it could not. Who knows.

I think when most people understand this theres a destinct seperation ontologically. Its either mind as fundemental or its physical. The papers I linked mentioned the destinct idea of consciousness beyond the physical brain.

But even if you want to propose it could be beyond the brain or not. The idea of a mind is not reducible to the physical and I guess thats why its regarded as beyond the physical. Either way its a Mind concept and not physical.