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.
I looked at the NDE studies journal. It's from the NDE society. In their documents, they talked about "what skeptics say". They are not scientific, but instead pretend to be. Their credibility, always a tenuous notion for a journal on a marginal topic, is null.
Please, when you say things like this is it too much to ask that you just post the link?
Can you at least give give me the post number, if it was post #263 it doesn't lead to any articles directly.
So why should I believe it to be true?
So what? If you believe to be true, it still up to you to present the evidence or argument that convinced you.
What does "taken on a meta basis" mean? I see no reason to regard the evidence as strong. If YOU claim something YOU prove it, it is as simple as that.
You made repeated claims that the ideas you like are common, popular, or growing in usage in physics and science fields that actually intersect with mind. I picked off this claim like the wounded gazelle in the herd and began my attack on your weakest claim. I have not stopped my hunt, but it certainly looks like my pride are having a nice snack of gazelle.
Nope. It's almost like Stapp was an obscure researcher. Even within his own work, his work on QM fundamentals is less well cited than his experimental work. And his work connecting mind to QM is even less well cited than the rest of his work on QM fundamentals.
You've just made my point for me. Here is this "great" (I'll have to take your word for it.) on QM and mind and I've never even heard of him. Then there are the mind/consciousness ideas (opinions?) of well known giants of quantum physics and I had no idea they considered such stuff. It's like what I stated early in this thread (and in several other prior threads) this business of QM and consciousness is not prominent in physics.
Since you have not demonstrated the requisite knowledge to understand the physics why should I bother trying to figure out what Stapp was getting on about. (This is what I mean by "I'm not discussing the physics with you.")
I did.
Yes thats the link. It leads to as much info as you want on this. All the peer reviewed tests and studies and testimonies.
iands.org
iands.org
iands.org
iands.org
iands.org
Because of what I am showing you. What I have linked. Do you honestly think that these ideas and journals would have been a thing even 20 years ago. Now we see entire journals, university departments and many new theories positing consciousness and mind as fundemental.
Sort of which I have done above. But its also up to the skeptic to open their mind and research it. Get to know what it is they are rejecting. Rather than some misplaced assumption.
Meta analysis is about looking at the overall evidence or human behaviour and thinking. Rather than specific. Especially when it comes to social issues or human experiences. Because they are subjective and yet real. So your trying to gather some common features that may give support for subjective experiences being real.
How ironic you are now playing dumb.
It is understandable to react negatively to being called an idiot or dumb or a liar, so what do you do, you reinforce these very perceptions!!Another strawman. No one said that. The article said it draws on aspects of Anderson’s theory namely the theory for judgment and decision-making, explaining how people combine weighted information (adding or averaging) for single judgments.
Anderson first came up with Information integration theory and Tononi built upon this. In fact here this articles shows the latest version of IIT (4) that IIT metaphysics is based on the Mind and consciousness being fundemental over the physical. IIT is regarded as Realist Idealism. Meaning the Mental is fundemental over Matter.
The Fundamental Tension in Integrated Information Theory 4.0’s Realist Idealism
The Fundamental Tension in Integrated Information Theory 4.0’s Realist Idealism - PMC
Integrated Information Theory (IIT) is currently one of the most influential scientific theories of consciousness. Here, we focus specifically on a metaphysical aspect of the theory’s most recent version (IIT 4.0), what we may call its idealistic ...pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Oh boy. Eyewitness testimony is the worst sort of evidence. In court and in science. Here specifically we are talking testimony about an internal emotional experience.
Oh, no. Not JW Wallace. He's one of the worst apologists out there and his arguments make me wonder how the DA ever got any convictions from his cases. He seems almost oblivious to the rules of evidence (probably intentionally).
Not in science. (and preferably not in court either.)
It kind of has to be, since the video demonstrated the UAPs were things like sea birds.
Believing you are telling an accurate version of an experience does not make you correct.
This evidenxe stacks like bowling balls.
why would we need to separate them? There's a whole field dedicated to altering brain matter through addressing semantic content and a slew of demonstration that changing how we think changes the make-up of the brain. It's the entire basis of several therapy paradigms which have seen a good deal of documented success.
The options are epiphenomenalism of the mental or dualism. If you think your thought life to be an inert byproduct of the physical structures is more compelling than that there is a genuine distinction between mind and brain, that's your prerogative. Though it appears self-refuting to me.
The majority of philosophers of mind desperately try to establish their presuppositions to be true by finding some way that doesn't either entail dualism or eliminate mental causation entirely. They're trying to have their cake and eat it, too. So while dualism is not a foregone conclusion, the objections to it are based on a priori beliefs rather than making sense of the available information. Panpsychism isn't dualist at all, btw. It's a monist theory that holds that there is a fundamental physical attribute of consciousness in all matter.
Show me where I said people are no bodies. Stop making stuff up.
Show me how I have done this. Stop making stuff up.
What views are contrary to mine lol. Do you even know my views. You seem to think that pointing out the popularity of these ideas somehow means I support them. I think anyone with commonsense would agree that these ideas have become more popular.
Ok so if you think that then rather than resort to personal attacks which shows a weak arguement that you need to resort to such. Just use ordinary language. But quite often your objections are fallacious anyway. Like above you seem to think that pointing out these ideas is somehow supporting ot believing them. Then you attack me for that when that was not even my position. So perhaps also try and clarify my position rather than assume it.
Show me an example so I can see what you mean. Don't mistake disagreeing with willful failure to understand.
