Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
This is the second thing that you always do. You ridicule the work of anyone who disagrees with your position, no matter what their academic standing is.As for "peer reviewed" it is certainly overrated. An analysis of peer review showed many errors are allowed through in systematic testing. There is pseudoscientific hogwash that passes peer review. Not least It depends on the beliefs of the peers.
The references in this illustrate the problem.
If the stuff in your head is solely the means of your consciousness interacting with the universe, then the rest of the universe will PERCEIVE you unconscious if that stuff is removed, whether or not you are.
It isn't?
For a 'scientist' your bar for acceptable evidence is set extremely low. But that's up to you. I do note that none of your posts link to any evidence. It's all hearsay.
And that is NOT a prompt for you to bombard me with examples of Joe Blow watching his appendix being removed whilst listening to the surgeon discuss the recent Lakers game. Trust me, I've had these type of discussions many times over many years and have seen and heard all the arguments. So please don't waste your time. Or, more importantly, mine.
But when you have an example of a complete loss of brain mass whilst maintaining consciousness...then I'm your man. There are only two dots to join in that experiment. I'll let you join them yourself.
I look at the scientific evidence on how good peer review is. Did you read it?This is the second thing that you always do. You ridicule the work of anyone who disagrees with your position, no matter what their academic standing is.
This too lessens your credibility.
Absolutely true. But in the case of the AI that "brain" is only an illusion, the actual source of their consciousness is the underlying program and the device on which it's running. There's no material brain at all.
My bar for evidence is the same....
...then all losing brain mass has done is lose the ability of a consciousness to communicate cosnciousness to you. So you failed. Try again.
So how do you know whether you're an actual flesh and blood human, or a software/device generated AI?But you just said it's 'the underlying program and the device on which it's running'. Our device is the brain and the underlying programe is (for example) RAM and conditional statements stored in the neurons. Same with the AI. It's part of the entity itself. Maybe we build it with sensors and limbs. But they won't work if we remove whatever the equivalent is of its brain however it works, whatever it is comprised of and wherever it is situated.
Remove the part of the AI entity that does the thinking and it will no longer be conscious. And if you remove the same thing from us then you'll get the same result.
The limits of the ability of science to test are a problem.Do you want to suggest any tests that we can do to determine that someone who has had her head removed is actually unconscious? I'll be keen to hear them.
So how do you know whether you're an actual flesh and blood human, or a software/device generated AI?
Is it the wetware between your ears that's actually producing your consciousness or is it whatever's creating those underlying fields?
The limits of the ability of science to test are a problem.
They're opposite positions in that as to the question of whether anything can be known to exist outside of one's own mind the epistemological solipsist says no, and the metaphysical solipsist says yes. The epistemological solipsist is the epitome of an agnostic who questions the very essence of what can be known. The metaphysical solipsist on the other hand is perfectly content with holding to absolutes, that there are things beyond the existence of one's own mind that can be known with certainty.
What test do you propose for the conscious knowledge or presence of greysons patient?To test for consciousness on a headless body? Really? I didn't study medicine but I thought it would be relatively easy. Maybe someone who is medically qualified will chip in...
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.I think you are making the error of assuming that since they are opposites in one respect, then they are complete opposites. That's like saying a window is the opposite of a plate because one is round and the other is square.
What test do you propose for the conscious knowledge or presence of greysons patient?
I have asked you several times about the effects of anesthesia. Once again:Bruce Greyson is a well published professor of neurobehavioural sciences.
He set the accepted standards for analysing such experiences.
He has long list of publications. Or read his book "after"
Some of the incidents he publicises from a life time of analysing are way beyond random chance. There really was conscious experience of other places and situations the patient cannot have known otherwise, not least because in some the cortex was inactive at the time.
It is what got Greyson - who worked in ED at the time - interested in the problem.
There is a body of evidence science cannot explain but cannot discount. Science is STUCK because it can only analyse the repeatable, or that which can be made to repeat, or that which can be modelled.
This kind of "awareness" is easy for a person to visualize later, when it is all pieced together and the twin "remembers" feelings at the time of his twin's death. But of course, he may have had many similar experiences at other times, but never remember those, for they aren't important. So one must show that such experiences happen associated with a twin's death more than than what would happen by chance.I illustrated the problem. Identical Twins have remote sensed the death of the other. There is no experiment you can do to verify it. The inability of some evidence to fit in the scientific model, and that because it cannot be reporduced on demand is a problem with the limited scope of the scientific process and model. Its a problem with limitations of science, Not the evidence.
So move on. There is more to the universe than orthodoxy.
Uh, what would you put in the place of peer review?As for "peer reviewed" it is certainly overrated. An analysis of peer review showed many errors are allowed through in systematic testing. There is pseudoscientific hogwash that passes peer review. Not least It depends on the beliefs of the peers.
The references in this illustrate the problem.
Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
Too much peer review is based on protecting "orthodoxy".
People near death can be fading in and out of a state with some awareness of what is going on.
…could have easily been refuted by informed scientists
Such tests were supposedly done on human subjects.To test for consciousness on a headless body? Really? I didn't study medicine but I thought it would be relatively easy. Maybe someone who is medically qualified will chip in...
Such tests were supposedly done on human subjects.
Antione Lavoisier "The Father of Modern Chemistry" was a scientist to the very end during the days of the French revolution had made arrangements with his executioner after his head was guillotined the executioner would count the number of times Lavoisier blinked.
According to legend the executioner counted up to 15 times indicating perhaps Lavoisier experienced consciousness up to the final blink.
This depends on how seriously one takes the blinking experiment if it ever occurred.
So consciousness perhaps remains with the brain? Until it dies? Kinda depressingly spooky. But...that sort of confirms my position rather than denies it.
LOL! You seem to be forgetting whose thread this is.That Is completely irrelevant to the example I gave
The ability to sense things far from the body is not evidence that the brain does not think.which evidence suggests rare events of consciousness out of body.
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. My guess is that you will find there is nothing to this flimflam extrasensory perception you propose.science can only easily model the repeatable.
So what? Even informed scientists need to have their papers peer reviewed.Greyson is an informed scientist.
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.He didn’t refute it, nor could his peers. Nor could others of his peers who provided some of the case histories.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?