Y'know what, I had a thorough response drafted .. then I realised, similar to @Has Blaster, I just don't what you have to say any more either .. sorry, (FWIW).Wrong. just focus last paragraph.
Science models are not the objective thing. They are abstract.
The closest you get is observations.
And they are through a subjective filter.
The only objective “ reality” is the underlying universe itself.
And we only have a blurred and limited view of it.
The models are an attempt to make sense of patterns in the view.
But the models are just abstract. Not objective, they live on paper and computers not in the world.
In philosophical terms it is a nonsense to believe that because some observations don’t conform to the model ( or materialist view of the world) , the observations are wrong.
The real world is king, but in absence of complete knowledge , observed evidence is king, accepting the limitations of observations. The model is a poor third and is dispensable if it doesn’t fit. Projections of the model are a distant fourth.
read val lommels book on NDE.
It goes a lot deeper into discussing neurologists viewpoints on consciousness.
Many now openly state that the hypothesis that the mind ie consciousness as a process of the brain is no longer supportable. The evidence doesn’t fit.
The mind controls the brain, and indeed can restructure it.
@Hans Blaster: Hope its ok by you to quote you here(?):
Hans Blaster said:I don't know why you continue to write long messages at me. I don't care enough about what you have to say to read them anymore.
Upvote
0