What Creates Consciousness?

[dlamberth]

It doesn't enter into material, it emerges from material.

To point toward consciousness emerging from material is to suggest that consciousness is an aspect of the material. If I have that right, I completely agree. And really I like the verbiage you use way better than what I wrote. Moving forward I'll use "emerges". My questions have to do with an exploration of the emerging of consciousness from the material. For instance, is a plant following the sun across the sky a simple form of consciousness? The plant meets the criteria of being material. Or is the the forming of molecules an even simpler and the most basic form of a type of consciousness emerging from the atoms they contain. Honestly, I think the trajectory I'm heading down is the least binary of any response I've seen here.

 

[partinobodycular]

To point toward consciousness emerging from material is to suggest that consciousness is an aspect of the material. If I have that right, I completely agree.

Sorry, but I'm going to disagree, I'm going to argue that the two are simply concomitant... that they emerge from 'quantum fields' as one single entity, and that there is no material world apart from the consciousness perceiving it.

Furthermore, even the material nature of those fields is an illusion... they don't exist as anything other than a conceptual framework within which consciousness and material reality form. And that 'form' is one of coherency... cause and effect, and the 'Principle of Sufficient Reason', i.e for everything that is... there's a sufficient reason for why it is. Based upon that simple principle, reality simply emerges as one sufficient reason following upon the one before it. Beginning with the concept that 'I am' and then involuntarily creating everything that follows from the fact that I am. Which necessarily includes "What" I am, and "Where" I came from.

And voila... consciousness gives rise to everything.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What words would you use to describe that first spark of consciousness in an fetus?

Development.

 

[SelfSim]

What words would you use to describe that first spark of consciousness in an fetus?

Is there 'a first spark'?
How do you demonstrate there is one?

 

[dlamberth]

Is there 'a first spark'?
How do you demonstrate there is one?

I'm not thinking that a fetus suddenly wakes up with full consciousness, which is the bases of my question. It seems to me that somewhere in it's development a spark of consciousness begins to develop.

 

[SelfSim]

I'm not thinking that a fetus suddenly wakes up with full consciousness, which is the bases of my question. It seems to me that somewhere in it's development a spark of consciousness begins to develop.

Hmm .. a fractal pattern isn't really a fractal at all until its distinguishing features appear. Those features appearing, (or not appearing), is the result of some iterative process just blindly doing its thing. That process usually also inscribes the laws of nature recognizable only to specific, actively observing, conscious beings. In the same way, consciousness is also, demonstrably, only recognizable by those same conscious beings.

Funny thing that is ..

 

[stevevw]

It's not my field, so I would know how to test it.

You can't test it with the science method. So it fails before we even walk into the lab. The only way you can test consciousness is directly, by asking the subject.

That is why I think it is wrong to dismiss our conscious experiences as just something in the imagination or as a secondary byproduct that some physical mechanism created that doesn't itself represent knowledge about reality.

We have to rethink how we can know reality, with different kinds of questions when it comes to consciousness. Look at our experiences as real phenomena that can give us insight into a deeper level of reality. A more transcedent reality that has real effects in this world.

 

[AV1611VET]

To point toward consciousness emerging from material is to suggest that consciousness is an aspect of the material.

Does a face on a milk carton have consciousness?

 

[Hans Blaster]

You can't test it with the science method. So it fails before we even walk into the lab. The only way you can test consciousness is directly, by asking the subject.

If you're just going to declare it to be unscientific, what are you doing here? This is the science section, we deal with things from evidence and data, not "feelings".

That is why I think it is wrong to dismiss our conscious experiences as just something in the imagination or as a secondary byproduct that some physical mechanism created that doesn't itself represent knowledge about reality.

No one here has dismissed consciousness as just imagination. This is a strawman.

We have to rethink how we can know reality, with different kinds of questions when it comes to consciousness. Look at our experiences as real phenomena that can give us insight into a deeper level of reality. A more transcedent reality that has real effects in this world.

I think you might have gotten lost. This is not the theology section. If you don't want to discuss it in those terms, but insist on staying, I will add the second "woo".

 

[AV1611VET]

If you're just going to declare it to be unscientific, what are you doing here? This is the science section, we deal with things from evidence and data, not "feelings".

Is that how science "discovered" the Placebo Effect?

 

[stevevw]

If you're just going to declare it to be unscientific, what are you doing here? This is the science section, we deal with things from evidence and data, not "feelings".

Ok so we can use the science method, logic and rationalism to know that science doesn't fit here, that its not a method we can use to determine consciousness. Science is not just about everything empiricle. Its also about knowing when science cannot be used to make fact or truth claims.

But its a fallacy to say that because its unscientific according to a narrow parameter and certain assumptions about reality that it cannot be verified in other ways objectively. I have linked several ideas being proposed scientifically that support consciousness as something beyond the physical.

Another way we can use science is by testing and studying how humans behave when it comes to consciousness. For example with NDE or other tests that look at how consciousness can still exist despite a lack of brain activity or with ideas like blindsight. That can at least show that the physical basis (brain creates consciousness through neural correlates) is wrong.

No one here has dismissed consciousness as just imagination. This is a strawman.

Yes they have. The basis for consciousness being an epiphenomena is that its a by product of the physical. So any imaginations, experiences, or ideas that posit consciousness as fundemental are dismissed as false, as something that is created by the physical for a secondary purpose such as survival.

So yes when someone claims consciousness is produced by the physical brain they are relegating all alternative ideas such as direct experiences as unreal in the sense they don't reveal anything fundemental about reality.

I think you might have gotten lost. This is not the theology section. If you don't want to discuss it in those terms, but insist on staying, I will add the second "woo".

This is a good example of how you dismiss alternative ideas as imagination like subjective experiences when it comes to fundemental reality. You equate it with belief alone, the unreal and hocus pocus by insisting it doesn't belong.

I linked support for these alternative ideas and they are either based on evidence or have well argued and logical explanations that fit the data and observations. They might not prove consciousness may be fundemental but they do support good reasons why the evidence points to something beyond the physical or at least that the current scientific method is incapable to accounting for.

When I say a paradygm shift in thinking I am not talking about woo but similar to how there was a shift in physics thinking with QM compared to the classical conceptions. Many called those proposing that fundemental reality was indeterminant were also called woo. Like I said Behaviouralist use to say Mentalists were quacks as well.

The same with most scientific ideas. They have completely changed from the original conceptions about what is reality and there were those who claimed these new ways of thinking was pseudoscience when it proved to be correct all along.

Many of the ideas I have linked like Chalmers alluded to are good ideas within the realm of what kind of thinking we need to explore beyond the materialist paradygm. Not necessarily because they are right but because they are at least exploring and expanding the possibilities.

In some ways you could say that science dables in the imagination because it takes ideas that lie outside the traditional to push things forward.

It may be in a 100 years that science itself is supporting consciousness beyond brain because they discover that it does independently have an influence fundementally. That doesn't mean that the supernatural is verified. It just means they have discovered a new type of influence that fits observations.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ok so we can use the science method, logic and rationalism to know that science doesn't fit here, that its not a method we can use to determine consciousness. Science is not just about everything empiricle. Its also about knowing when science cannot be used to make fact or truth claims.

But its a fallacy to say that because its unscientific according to a narrow parameter and certain assumptions about reality that it cannot be verified in other ways objectively. I have linked several ideas being proposed scientifically that support consciousness as something beyond the physical.

You're babbling.

Another way we can use science is by testing and studying how humans behave when it comes to consciousness.

Ah, yes, finally a scientifically plausible method. Study behavior of conscious beings.

For example with NDE or other tests that look at how consciousness can still exist despite a lack of brain activity or

Never been demonstrated.

with ideas like blindsight. That can at least show that the physical basis (brain creates consciousness through neural correlates) is wrong.

Not supernatural

On consciousness being dismissed as "imagination":

Yes they have.

Point to the claims that consciousness is "imagination", particularly on this thread.

The basis for consciousness being an epiphenomena is that its a by product of the physical. So any imaginations, experiences, or ideas that posit consciousness as fundemental are dismissed as false, as something that is created by the physical for a secondary purpose such as survival.

So yes when someone claims consciousness is produced by the physical brain they are relegating all alternative ideas such as direct experiences as unreal in the sense they don't reveal anything fundemental about reality.

This is a good example of how you dismiss alternative ideas as imagination like subjective experiences when it comes to fundemental reality. You equate it with belief alone, the unreal and hocus pocus by insisting it doesn't belong.

This is false. We are not making such claims, nor is it necessary to make them.

I linked support for these alternative ideas and they are either based on evidence or have well argued and logical explanations that fit the data and observations.

There are no links in this post.

They might not prove consciousness may be fundemental but they do support good reasons why the evidence points to something beyond the physical or at least that the current scientific method is incapable to accounting for.

When I say a paradygm shift in thinking I am not talking about woo but similar to how there was a shift in physics thinking with QM compared to the classical conceptions. Many called those proposing that fundemental reality was indeterminant were also called woo. Like I said Behaviouralist use to say Mentalists were quacks as well.

Mentalists are either entertainers or con-men (or perhaps in some cases self-deluded). (And don't try to equivicate based on your poor understanding of QM to generate some woo woo.)

The same with most scientific ideas. They have completely changed from the original conceptions about what is reality and there were those who claimed these new ways of thinking was pseudoscience when it proved to be correct all along.

Many of the ideas I have linked like Chalmers alluded to are good ideas within the realm of what kind of thinking we need to explore beyond the materialist paradygm. Not necessarily because they are right but because they are at least exploring and expanding the possibilities.

In some ways you could say that science dables in the imagination because it takes ideas that lie outside the traditional to push things forward.

You have no demonstrated conception of how science works. Stop trying to pretend you do.

It may be in a 100 years that science itself is supporting consciousness beyond brain because they discover that it does independently have an influence fundementally. That doesn't mean that the supernatural is verified. It just means they have discovered a new type of influence that fits observations.

If they have, they need to demonstrate a physical mechanism, but frankly, I don't see any reason to think that they have either.

 

[stevevw]

You're babbling.

Its not babbling because even mainstream science spectulates about ideas beyond what can be verified like Multiverses and the beginnings of our universe and what came before this. QM opens the door for such spectulations because of its nature and the possible interpretations of QM.

Ah, yes, finally a scientifically plausible method. Study behavior of conscious beings.

But how is that just about science. Behaviour cannot be reduced to the physical workings of the body no more than consciousness can be reduced to nuerons.

The reason I posited human behaviour was because it involves non scientific measures such as subjective beliefs and perceptions which have a physical effect on the body and reality and yet cannot be reduced to the physical.

Never been demonstrated.

What do you mean never been demonstrated. Are you saying we need to somehow bring the NDE world into a lab so we can directly see it.

This is what I mean by expanding our measure of how we can know reality. The only way to understand NDE and consciousness beyond brain is to ask the subject who is experiencing the phenomena.

There is plenty of evidence from 1st hand testimony of those who have had out of body experiences and many have been independently verified. Thats not including other controlled tests which have shown brain activity in the conscious regions of the brain when the brain is either near dead or deminished. Or the other tests such as Blind sight and minds ability to predict beyond chance.

Not supernatural

I am not saying it has to be supernatural but also that it points to something beyond the current reductionist and material paradygm. Some of the ideas I have linked are still based on the physical but propose new ways of looking at the data, new dimensions or forces.

Point to the claims that consciousness is "imagination", particularly on this thread.

You just did above when you said that ideas that consciousness beyond brain is Woo.

But I was referring to the general view that consciousness is an epiphenomena and therefore any notion about self or conscious experiences revealing knowledge about fundemental reality especially influencing reality through free will or agency is a sort of trick that physical causes like evolution have produced for survival.

This is false. We are not making such claims, nor is it necessary to make them.

What, you just said these ideas are Woo and there is no evidence. If as you say that you agree that conscious experiences can reveal knowledge about fundemental reality then it follows that conscious experience should be taken as evidence about fundemental reality. That means ideas like NDE, free will and agency are evidence for consciousness beyond brain.

There are no links in this post.

You obviously didn't read the links or bother to research the reasoned arguements given based on the data. For example IIT is a mathmatical theory so its based on the same kind of evidence as other theorectical physics ideas. Or Stapp or Wheelers arguements that the data from QM points to consciousness and mind being fundemental.

Mentalists are either entertainers or con-men (or perhaps in some cases self-deluded).

There you go, once again making truth claims that the mind and consciousness is a figment of the imagination and Woo. This even equates the entire area of psychology as woo because much of psychology is about mind over matter, that mental states actually influence the physical world rather than the physical being fundemental.

(And don't try to equivicate based on your poor understanding of QM to generate some woo woo.)

Its not a poor understanding of QM because even those with qualified understandings posit the same thing. I have already linked several phsyicists who all support the idea of the observer effect and consciousness and mind or information being fundemental reality.

You have no demonstrated conception of how science works. Stop trying to pretend you do.

You obviously havn't read Thomas Kuhn.

If they have, they need to demonstrate a physical mechanism, but frankly, I don't see any reason to think that they have either.

What physical process. The Quantum world at the very bottom is not physical, its about energy and know one knows what the nature of that energy is.

Theorectical physics is based on maths and like I said some of the ideas proposed for mind and information being fundemental are based on maths.

Others are based on the same deductive thinking about physical matter except are proposing consciousness as a fundemental force. In both cases there is no physical stuff to see. In fact many have argued that consciousness and mind being fundemental fits the data better.

Physics is Pointing Inexorably to Mind
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/physics-and-astronomy/quantum-electrodynamics

Henry P. Stapp the very structure of quantum mechanics implies a central and irreducible role for mind: an experiential aspect of nature distinct from that of the physical matter and energy described by the dynamical equations of physics.

That mind may in some way extend beyond the brain and body – connecting personal conscious awareness with more extended sources of information in the world – is a powerful and compelling hypothesis that could account for many currently inexplicable phenomena. It is also a hypothesis that can be subjected to rigorous scientific investigation, both empirical and theoretical.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1904/1904.10528.pdf

 

[Hans Blaster]

Its not babbling because even mainstream science spectulates about ideas beyond what can be verified like Multiverses and the beginnings of our universe and what came before this. QM opens the door for such spectulations because of its nature and the possible interpretations of QM.

And we have a name for this kind of unjustified speculation invoking QM -- Quantum Woo Woo. (QWW)

But how is that just about science. Behaviour cannot be reduced to the physical workings of the body no more than consciousness can be reduced to nuerons.

Do you even understand what I wrote. After two paragraphs of babbling about QWW you had finally mentioned an actual scientific approach to the study of consciousness (study the behaviors of conscious beings) and I acknowledged that as (finally) scientific in nature. I literally made no claims about mechanisms and this reply contains my first use (and hopefully last) mention of the word "neuron". You are replying to things I didn't write.

The reason I posited human behaviour was because it involves non scientific measures such as subjective beliefs and perceptions which have a physical effect on the body and reality and yet cannot be reduced to the physical.

Again, you posted the right thing, but apparently for the wrong reason. Behavior is the primary window we have to the functioning of mind, including consciousness. That is why I labeled your original "study behavior" statement as "finally something scientific".

What do you mean never been demonstrated. Are you saying we need to somehow bring the NDE world into a lab so we can directly see it.

I'm saying that mind activity has not been demonstrated without brain activity (or rather in the presence of a fully non-active brain).

This is what I mean by expanding our measure of how we can know reality. The only way to understand NDE and consciousness beyond brain is to ask the subject who is experiencing the phenomena.

It still doesn't support the notion of "w/o brain activity". No one knows their brain state (except mind of course). You need equipment.

There is plenty of evidence from 1st hand testimony of those who have had out of body experiences and many have been independently verified. Thats not including other controlled tests which have shown brain activity in the conscious regions of the brain when the brain is either near dead or deminished.

Not the same as no activity.

Or the other tests such as Blind sight and minds ability to predict beyond chance.

I am not saying it has to be supernatural but also that it points to something beyond the current reductionist and material paradygm.

I'd never heard of blindsight, but looking it up, it was clear that whatever exactly was the explanation, it wasn't supernatural. It is also irrelevant to your claim.

Some of the ideas I have linked are still based on the physical but propose new ways of looking at the data, new dimensions or forces.

This is where it is clear that you don't understand the physics involved. There is not only no support for any force (or "dimension", sigh, why do people bring up dimensions like they are majik. There are 3+1 dimensions, no more, no less.), but no "new force" that could interact with the body could have escaped detection by now.

You just did above when you said that ideas that consciousness beyond brain is Woo.

But I was referring to the general view that consciousness is an epiphenomena and therefore any notion about self or conscious experiences revealing knowledge about fundemental reality especially influencing reality through free will or agency is a sort of trick that physical causes like evolution have produced for survival.

Which is a really odd way to respond to my counterclaim about *imagination*. You had claimed (or so it seemed) that *imagination* required a supernatural aspect to mind. Why would that be the case? I was not in my original reply making any argument on imagination against your supernaturalist view of consciousness, just pointing out that the existence of imagination as a function of mind says *NOTHING* about the nature of mind. You need to read my posts more carefully. I was not trying to engage you again in a fruitless discussion of the (super)natural nature of mind. It is rather pointless.

What, you just said these ideas are Woo and there is no evidence. If as you say that you agree that conscious experiences can reveal knowledge about fundemental reality then it follows that conscious experience should be taken as evidence about fundemental reality. That means ideas like NDE, free will and agency are evidence for consciousness beyond brain.

Like with the imagination bit above, again, I was not making any claims that experiences are "unreal" because mind is natural. Pay attention.

You obviously didn't read the links or bother to research the reasoned arguements given based on the data. For example IIT is a mathmatical theory so its based on the same kind of evidence as other theorectical physics ideas. Or Stapp or Wheelers arguements that the data from QM points to consciousness and mind being fundemental.

You didn't provide any links (and thus far haven't yet), nor defined "IIT" or identified who "Stapp" or "Wheeler" are and what they claim.

There you go, once again making truth claims that the mind and consciousness is a figment of the imagination and Woo. This even equates the entire area of psychology as woo because much of psychology is about mind over matter, that mental states actually influence the physical world rather than the physical being fundemental.

Good grief. This paragraph just made me so mad I punched the wall and I haven't done that in years. DO YOU PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT YOU ARE REPLYING TO? I was clearly talking about *mentalists*. Mentalists have been repeatedly demonstrated to be FRAUDS. It is not even relevant to the thing you are trying to discuss and it certainly isn't a commentary on the true nature of mind and consciousness. Get a grip.

Its not a poor understanding of QM because even those with qualified understandings posit the same thing. I have already linked several phsyicists who all support the idea of the observer effect and consciousness and mind or information being fundemental reality.

You have not demonstrated any understanding of QM and seem poorly equipped to evaluate the work of (apparent) professionals.

You obviously havn't read Thomas Kuhn.

I tried, but it was garbage, so I stopped. (or maybe it was Popper) I need a philosopher like I need another hole in the head.

What physical process. The Quantum world at the very bottom is not physical, its about energy and know one knows what the nature of that energy is.

Theorectical physics is based on maths and like I said some of the ideas proposed for mind and information being fundemental are based on maths.

Energy is very much physical and one of the most important concepts in physics. Theoretical physics *uses* math. It is not "based on math".

Others are based on the same deductive thinking about physical matter except are proposing consciousness as a fundemental force. In both cases there is no physical stuff to see. In fact many have argued that consciousness and mind being fundemental fits the data better.

If it was a "fundamental force" there would be something to detect. That is my POINT.

Finally, we get some links. Will they be useful...

Physics is Pointing Inexorably to Mind
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/physics-and-astronomy/quantum-electrodynamics

Nope, this is a general subject heading on a broad topic unless you think the 4th listed article:

Electron–positron pair production in ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions​

is somehow relevant to minds.

Henry P. Stapp the very structure of quantum mechanics implies a central and irreducible role for mind: an experiential aspect of nature distinct from that of the physical matter and energy described by the dynamical equations of physics.

That mind may in some way extend beyond the brain and body – connecting personal conscious awareness with more extended sources of information in the world – is a powerful and compelling hypothesis that could account for many currently inexplicable phenomena. It is also a hypothesis that can be subjected to rigorous scientific investigation, both empirical and theoretical.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1904/1904.10528.pdf

So we now see that "Stapp" is an old guy who worked on mind-based interpretations of QM and you present an *essay* written by someone in the molecular biology department at Berkeley as your evidence. smh

 

[stevevw]

And we have a name for this kind of unjustified speculation invoking QM -- Quantum Woo Woo. (QWW)

Its not unjuestified spectualtion but based on interpretations of QM. You do realise that some of the interpretations propose the observer and consciousness influences reality.

Do you even understand what I wrote. After two paragraphs of babbling about QWW you had finally mentioned an actual scientific approach to the study of consciousness (study the behaviors of conscious beings) and I acknowledged that as (finally) scientific in nature. I literally made no claims about mechanisms and this reply contains my first use (and hopefully last) mention of the word "neuron". You are replying to things I didn't write.

Thats because you cannot see the forrest through the trees when you claim that the scientific aapproach in the only wayto determine reality. The science method is only one way and not exclusively the only way we can know reality.

So when you insist on bringing everything back to science, to methodological naturalism you are not just talking about science. You are actually making and espistemic claim about how we should understand reality an and ontological claim about what reality is ie enclosed within the physical and all other ideas are ruled out as Woo. But that is more than a science claim and more a belief position.

Again, you posted the right thing, but apparently for the wrong reason. Behavior is the primary window we have to the functioning of mind, including consciousness. That is why I labeled your original "study behavior" statement as "finally something scientific".

But as I mentioned 'behaviour' tells us nothing about the nature of reality. It tells us about the functioning of the mind but the functioning of the mind, the neuron and electical activity does not tell us why a physical substrate should contain subjective experiences. We cannot see the experience of red within the brain activity. Only what it does to the brain and body.

If you insist that this is the only way we can understand consciousness then you are going beyond science and making a metaphysical belief claim.

I'm saying that mind activity has not been demonstrated without brain activity (or rather in the presence of a fully non-active brain).
It still doesn't support the notion of "w/o brain activity". No one knows their brain state (except mind of course). You need equipment.

Yes it has in many ways and its not just about demonstrating mind without brain activity. Its also about mind influencing the physical activity which is the other way around. The mind is at the root rather than the physical. A memory or a subjective state that suddenly appears in the mind without apparent physical cause can change the physical state of the body and even objective reality.

There are a number of verified conscious experiences where there is little brain activity or absolutely know brain activity when the brain has flatlined. They have also compared brain signals between imagined events, hullucinations or other drug or anastetically induced states and found they are different to NDE brain activity.

The NDE brain activity happens in the higher consciousness regions and associated with memory and episodic experiences. In other words they are similar in nature to real lived experiences and the experiencers claim it is more real than everyday life and not dream like. Nor is it confusing and fragmented for which toxicity and unreal dreamlike states cause.

New evidence indicates patients recall death experiences after cardiac arrest
Up to an hour after their hearts had stopped, some patients revived by cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) had clear memories afterward of experiencing death and had brain patterns while unconscious linked to thought and memory. As captured by EEG, a technology that records brain activity with electrodes, the patients saw spikes in the gamma, delta, theta, alpha, and beta waves associated with higher mental function. These have included a perception of separation from the body, observing events without pain or distress, and a meaningful evaluation of their actions and relationships. This new work found these experiences of death to be different from hallucinations, delusions, illusions, dreams, or CPR-induced consciousness.
New evidence indicates patients recall death experiences after cardiac arrest

Pim van Lommel, describes them, “the NDE is an authentic experience that cannot be simply reduced to imagination, fear of death, hallucination, psychosis, the use of drugs, or oxygen deficiency.” NDEs need to be examined as their own thing — a separate experience, that millions of people around the world encounter, and which is irreducible to any other (existing) neuroscientific explanation.

Lommel’s landmark paper reveals several interesting things. First, NDEs have been shown to occur some minutes after the heart of a critical patient has stopped, and at a time when “the brain ordinarily stops functioning and cortical activity becomes isoelectric.” This implies that whatever the source or reason for these NDEs, it does not lie in normal, understood brain processes. Second, our recollection of NDEs is much more like real memories than imagined memories. As a research team from the University of Padova showed,
Can near-death experiences prove the afterlife?

Not the same as no activity.

As mentioned there is now evidence of flatlined brains having higher level consciousness with clarity and detail. More real than real. This should not be possible even in an unconscious or compromised state let alone a flatlined brain with no brain activity.

I'd never heard of blindsight, but looking it up, it was clear that whatever exactly was the explanation, it wasn't supernatural. It is also irrelevant to your claim.

By claiming that whatever it is "its not supernatural" you are making a belief claim and not a scientific one. There is no way you can or science can prove it is not the result of something beyond naturalistic causes because science cannot even tell us what the nature of matter is let along consciousness. All it can do is describe behaviour which tells us nothing about the nature of what is being described.

This is where it is clear that you don't understand the physics involved. There is not only no support for any force (or "dimension", sigh, why do people bring up dimensions like they are majik. There are 3+1 dimensions, no more, no less.), but no "new force" that could interact with the body could have escaped detection by now.

Doesn't the leading mainstream scientific interpretations and theories on QM data propose extra dimensions such as with M and String theory. It seems to me no matter which interpretation you want to take, the Many Worlds or Quantum Consciousness such as QBism your going to end up needing extra dimensions to be able to account for what is happening.

How can science even measure other dimensions when that would require a completely different set of methodology and assumptions which science doesn't include.

Which is a really odd way to respond to my counterclaim about *imagination*. You had claimed (or so it seemed) that *imagination* required a supernatural aspect to mind.

No I only claimed that 'Imagination' is not something the science method can even measure let along make claims about its nature as associated with consciousness. Its certainly of the Mind and not explained physically. Whether thats the supernatural or some undiscovered force know knows. But it is not within the closure of the physical.

Why would that be the case? I was not in my original reply making any argument on imagination against your supernaturalist view of consciousness, just pointing out that the existence of imagination as a function of mind says *NOTHING* about the nature of mind. You need to read my posts more carefully. I was not trying to engage you again in a fruitless discussion of the (super)natural nature of mind. It is rather pointless.

But your missing my point. The existence of imagination, abstract and creative thinking which all come under subjective experiences does tell us something about the nature of Mind. That it cannot be reduced to its physical mechanisms. This is already inherent in the Hard Problem of consciousness.

You keep assuming the physicalist assumptions about the nature of the mind has been proven and all other possibilities are excluded when that is not the case at all. In fact because thse experiences point to a qualitative nature if anything it undermines the physicalist claims.

Like with the imagination bit above, again, I was not making any claims that experiences are "unreal" because mind is natural. Pay attention.

Ok then, does subjective conscious experiences reveal knoweldge about fundemental reality. If you say that experiences are not unreal what do you actually mean. Real in what sense. Real as in the fact they happen. But we are not talking about that reality are we but the place for conscious experiences as far as fundemental reality.

That is the fundemental difference that one side says ultimately experiences are physical in nature and the other that they are beyond physical nature. Or beyond the closure of the physical. I would have a guess that when it comes down to it you will fall on the side that its fundementally a physical phenomena caused by the physical and therefore not real as far as accounting for fundemental reality.

You didn't provide any links (and thus far haven't yet), nor defined "IIT"

Ok I thought I had. But heres the thing. If you are going to make claims these alternative ideas are Woo then don't you think you should understand what you are refuting and not just assume. Integrated Information Theory is a well recognised idea proposed in various forms.

Integrated Information Theory (IIT), published in the journal BMC Neuroscience, is one of a small class of promising models of consciousness. “IIT is a very mathematical theory. A core idea suggests consciousness will emerge when information moves between the subsystems of an overall system: to be conscious, an entity has to be single and integrated and must possess a property called "phi" which is dependent on the interdependence of the subsystems.
https://www.space.com/is-the-universe-conscious

or identified who "Stapp" or "Wheeler" are and what they claim.

Once again if you don't know who Stapp and Wheeler are and what they are known for then how can you say their ideas are Woo. Stapp was a collaborator with Heisenberg and probably one of the leading physicists on consciousness and QM. I think his paper “Quantum theory and the role of mind in nature” broadly sums up his arguements that QM points to mind/consciousness being fundemental.

“From the point of view of the mathematics of quantum theory it makes no sense to treat a measuring device as intrinsically different from the collection of atomic constituents that make it up. A device is just another part of the physical universe… Moreover, the conscious thoughts of a human observer ought to be causally connected most directly and immediately to what is happening in his brain, not to what is happening out at some measuring device…

Our bodies and brains thus become…parts of the quantum mechanically described physical universe. Treating the entire physical universe in this unified way provides a conceptually simple and logically coherent theoretical foundation…”(H. P. Stapp, 2001).

Quantum theory and the role of mind in nature

Orthodox Copenhagen quantum theory renounces the quest to understand the reality in which we are imbedded, and settles for practical rules describing connections between our observations. Many physicist have regarded this renunciation of our effort to describe nature herself as premature, and...

arxiv.org

Wheeler generally agreed with Stapps position or rather Stapp with Wheelers and his 'Anthropic Participatory Universe'. Which is similar in that they both propose Mind and Consciousness as fundemental. That we as conscious observers are participators and entangled in the unraveling of reality.

But Wheeler is most known for coming up with the ideas of 'Black Holes and Worm Holes'. He pioneered the theory of nuclear fission with Niels Bohr and introduced the S-matrix in quantum mechanics. Also his 'Delay Choice Quantum' experiment which basically shows that measurement can even influence the past and from this came his arguements that conscious observers create reality.

The “Past” and the “Delayed-Choice” Double-Slit Experiment

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780124732506500066

Experimental Realization of Wheeler's Delayed-Choice Gedanken Experiment

https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1136303

Also his “Participatory Anthropic Principle”
John Wheeler’s Participatory Universe
https://futurism.com/john-wheelers-participatory-universe/

 

[BCP1928]

Its not unjuestified spectualtion but based on interpretations of QM. You do realise that some of the interpretations propose the observer and consciousness influences reality.

Thats because you cannot see the forrest through the trees when you claim that the scientific aapproach in the only wayto determine reality. The science method is only one way and not exclusively the only way we can know reality.

So when you insist on bringing everything back to science, to methodological naturalism you are not just talking about science. You are actually making and espistemic claim about how we should understand reality an and ontological claim about what reality is ie enclosed within the physical and all other ideas are ruled out as Woo. But that is more than a science claim and more a belief position.

But as I mentioned 'behaviour' tells us nothing about the nature of reality. It tells us about the functioning of the mind but the functioning of the mind, the neuron and electical activity does not tell us why a physical substrate should contain subjective experiences. We cannot see the experience of red within the brain activity. Only what it does to the brain and body.

If you insist that this is the only way we can understand consciousness then you are going beyond science and making a metaphysical belief claim.

Yes it has in many ways and its not just about demonstrating mind without brain activity. Its also about mind influencing the physical activity which is the other way around. The mind is at the root rather than the physical. A memory or a subjective state that suddenly appears in the mind without apparent physical cause can change the physical state of the body and even objective reality.

There are a number of verified conscious experiences where there is little brain activity or absolutely know brain activity when the brain has flatlined. They have also compared brain signals between imagined events, hullucinations or other drug or anastetically induced states and found they are different to NDE brain activity.

The NDE brain activity happens in the higher consciousness regions and associated with memory and episodic experiences. In other words they are similar in nature to real lived experiences and the experiencers claim it is more real than everyday life and not dream like. Nor is it confusing and fragmented for which toxicity and unreal dreamlike states cause.

New evidence indicates patients recall death experiences after cardiac arrest
Up to an hour after their hearts had stopped, some patients revived by cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) had clear memories afterward of experiencing death and had brain patterns while unconscious linked to thought and memory. As captured by EEG, a technology that records brain activity with electrodes, the patients saw spikes in the gamma, delta, theta, alpha, and beta waves associated with higher mental function. These have included a perception of separation from the body, observing events without pain or distress, and a meaningful evaluation of their actions and relationships. This new work found these experiences of death to be different from hallucinations, delusions, illusions, dreams, or CPR-induced consciousness.
New evidence indicates patients recall death experiences after cardiac arrest

Pim van Lommel, describes them, “the NDE is an authentic experience that cannot be simply reduced to imagination, fear of death, hallucination, psychosis, the use of drugs, or oxygen deficiency.” NDEs need to be examined as their own thing — a separate experience, that millions of people around the world encounter, and which is irreducible to any other (existing) neuroscientific explanation.

Lommel’s landmark paper reveals several interesting things. First, NDEs have been shown to occur some minutes after the heart of a critical patient has stopped, and at a time when “the brain ordinarily stops functioning and cortical activity becomes isoelectric.” This implies that whatever the source or reason for these NDEs, it does not lie in normal, understood brain processes. Second, our recollection of NDEs is much more like real memories than imagined memories. As a research team from the University of Padova showed,
Can near-death experiences prove the afterlife?

As mentioned there is now evidence of flatlined brains having higher level consciousness with clarity and detail. More real than real. This should not be possible even in an unconscious or compromised state let alone a flatlined brain with no brain activity.

By claiming that whatever it is "its not supernatural" you are making a belief claim and not a scientific one. There is no way you can or science can prove it is not the result of something beyond naturalistic causes because science cannot even tell us what the nature of matter is let along consciousness. All it can do is describe behaviour which tells us nothing about the nature of what is being described.

Doesn't the leading mainstream scientific interpretations and theories on QM data propose extra dimensions such as with M and String theory. It seems to me no matter which interpretation you want to take, the Many Worlds or Quantum Consciousness such as QBism your going to end up needing extra dimensions to be able to account for what is happening.

How can science even measure other dimensions when that would require a completely different set of methodology and assumptions which science doesn't include.

No I only claimed that 'Imagination' is not something the science method can even measure let along make claims about its nature as associated with consciousness. Its certainly of the Mind and not explained physically. Whether thats the supernatural or some undiscovered force know knows. But it is not within the closure of the physical.

But your missing my point. The existence of imagination, abstract and creative thinking which all come under subjective experiences does tell us something about the nature of Mind. That it cannot be reduced to its physical mechanisms. This is already inherent in the Hard Problem of consciousness.

You keep assuming the physicalist assumptions about the nature of the mind has been proven and all other possibilities are excluded when that is not the case at all. In fact because thse experiences point to a qualitative nature if anything it undermines the physicalist claims.

Ok then, does subjective conscious experiences reveal knoweldge about fundemental reality. If you say that experiences are not unreal what do you actually mean. Real in what sense. Real as in the fact they happen. But we are not talking about that reality are we but the place for conscious experiences as far as fundemental reality.

That is the fundemental difference that one side says ultimately experiences are physical in nature and the other that they are beyond physical nature. Or beyond the closure of the physical. I would have a guess that when it comes down to it you will fall on the side that its fundementally a physical phenomena caused by the physical and therefore not real as far as accounting for fundemental reality.

Ok I thought I had. But heres the thing. If you are going to make claims these alternative ideas are Woo then don't you think you should understand what you are refuting and not just assume. Integrated Information Theory is a well recognised idea proposed in various forms.

Integrated Information Theory (IIT), published in the journal BMC Neuroscience, is one of a small class of promising models of consciousness. “IIT is a very mathematical theory. A core idea suggests consciousness will emerge when information moves between the subsystems of an overall system: to be conscious, an entity has to be single and integrated and must possess a property called "phi" which is dependent on the interdependence of the subsystems.
https://www.space.com/is-the-universe-conscious

Once again if you don't know who Stapp and Wheeler are and what they are known for then how can you say their ideas are Woo. Stapp was a collaborator with Heisenberg and probably one of the leading physicists on consciousness and QM. I think his paper “Quantum theory and the role of mind in nature” broadly sums up his arguements that QM points to mind/consciousness being fundemental.

“From the point of view of the mathematics of quantum theory it makes no sense to treat a measuring device as intrinsically different from the collection of atomic constituents that make it up. A device is just another part of the physical universe… Moreover, the conscious thoughts of a human observer ought to be causally connected most directly and immediately to what is happening in his brain, not to what is happening out at some measuring device…

Our bodies and brains thus become…parts of the quantum mechanically described physical universe. Treating the entire physical universe in this unified way provides a conceptually simple and logically coherent theoretical foundation…”(H. P. Stapp, 2001).

Quantum theory and the role of mind in nature

Orthodox Copenhagen quantum theory renounces the quest to understand the reality in which we are imbedded, and settles for practical rules describing connections between our observations. Many physicist have regarded this renunciation of our effort to describe nature herself as premature, and...

arxiv.org

Wheeler generally agreed with Stapps position or rather Stapp with Wheelers and his 'Anthropic Participatory Universe'. Which is similar in that they both propose Mind and Consciousness as fundemental. That we as conscious observers are participators and entangled in the unraveling of reality.

But Wheeler is most known for coming up with the ideas of 'Black Holes and Worm Holes'. He pioneered the theory of nuclear fission with Niels Bohr and introduced the S-matrix in quantum mechanics. Also his 'Delay Choice Quantum' experiment which basically shows that measurement can even influence the past and from this came his arguements that conscious observers create reality.

The “Past” and the “Delayed-Choice” Double-Slit Experiment

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780124732506500066

Experimental Realization of Wheeler's Delayed-Choice Gedanken Experiment

https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1136303

Also his “Participatory Anthropic Principle”
John Wheeler’s Participatory Universe
https://futurism.com/john-wheelers-participatory-universe/

Before you get too involved in this discussion, be sure to consider that the concept mind-body dualism is not an essential Christian or even merely theistic doctrine nor does rejecting it make one a metaphysical materialist.

 

[stevevw]

Before you get too involved in this discussion, be sure to consider that the concept mind-body dualism is not an essential Christian or even merely theistic doctrine nor does rejecting it make one a metaphysical materialist.

I agree but I am not getting into this based on trying to prove God or Christianity. Just because your a Christian doesn't mean you cannot get involved in various issues about what constitutes reality. I think its a fundemental human thing where we want to know the big questions of life and the idea that there is something more to life than just what we see in the world around us.

As we see in the literature the mind body dualism has been a fascinating and complex issue we all ponder going back millenia. That it is still a mystery after all this time and with our increased knowledge is telling in itself. Considering with have mapped the genome, are peering back at the beginnings of our universe and have discovered the Higgs Bosom it seems strange that we still are none the wiser about consciousness.

 

[BCP1928]

I agree but I am not getting into this based on trying to prove God or Christianity. Just because your a Christian doesn't mean you cannot get involved in various issues about what constitutes reality. I think its a fundemental human thing where we want to know the big questions of life and the idea that there is something more to life than just what we see in the world around us.

So we do. But accepting mind-body dualism is not necessarily the right approach.

As we see in the literature the mind body dualism has been a fascinating and complex issue we all ponder going back millenia. That it is still a mystery after all this time and with our increased knowledge is telling in itself. Considering with have mapped the genome, are peering back at the beginnings of our universe and have discovered the Higgs Bosom it seems strange that we still are none the wiser about consciousness.

All that tells us is that mind-body dualism is an unfalsifiable (i.e. theological) proposition and there is really no point to bringing it up in a science forum.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Its not unjuestified spectualtion but based on interpretations of QM. You do realise that some of the interpretations propose the observer and consciousness influences reality.

Do you realize that interpretations of QM are just that -- interpretations. They are not evidence or facts or theories.

Thats because you cannot see the forrest through the trees when you claim that the scientific aapproach in the only wayto determine reality. The science method is only one way and not exclusively the only way we can know reality.

I skimmed through your whole response and I noticed you didn't include the part where I told you how angry I got at your inclusion of things I hadn't mentioned (and may have *never* mentioned anywhere). We'll (as Reagan said) here you go again. You are not arguing with my posts but with what you perceive to be my position. I did not make this claim here, so knock it off or this conversation is going to end abruptly.

So when you insist on bringing everything back to science, to methodological naturalism you are not just talking about science. You are actually making and espistemic claim about how we should understand reality an and ontological claim about what reality is ie enclosed within the physical and all other ideas are ruled out as Woo. But that is more than a science claim and more a belief position.

Do you even know where you are (check the header of the page)? This is the science section, sir. It is the *only* thing that is on topic. If you can't stay on topic this *will* end abruptly.

But as I mentioned 'behaviour' tells us nothing about the nature of reality. It tells us about the functioning of the mind but the functioning of the mind, the neuron and electical activity does not tell us why a physical substrate should contain subjective experiences. We cannot see the experience of red within the brain activity. Only what it does to the brain and body.

If you insist that this is the only way we can understand consciousness then you are going beyond science and making a metaphysical belief claim.

More evidence that you don't even understand the conversation you are in.

Yes it has in many ways and its not just about demonstrating mind without brain activity. Its also about mind influencing the physical activity which is the other way around. The mind is at the root rather than the physical. A memory or a subjective state that suddenly appears in the mind without apparent physical cause can change the physical state of the body and even objective reality.

There are a number of verified conscious experiences where there is little brain activity or absolutely know brain activity when the brain has flatlined. They have also compared brain signals between imagined events, hullucinations or other drug or anastetically induced states and found they are different to NDE brain activity.

The NDE brain activity happens in the higher consciousness regions and associated with memory and episodic experiences. In other words they are similar in nature to real lived experiences and the experiencers claim it is more real than everyday life and not dream like. Nor is it confusing and fragmented for which toxicity and unreal dreamlike states cause.

New evidence indicates patients recall death experiences after cardiac arrest
Up to an hour after their hearts had stopped, some patients revived by cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) had clear memories afterward of experiencing death and had brain patterns while unconscious linked to thought and memory. As captured by EEG, a technology that records brain activity with electrodes, the patients saw spikes in the gamma, delta, theta, alpha, and beta waves associated with higher mental function. These have included a perception of separation from the body, observing events without pain or distress, and a meaningful evaluation of their actions and relationships. This new work found these experiences of death to be different from hallucinations, delusions, illusions, dreams, or CPR-induced consciousness.
New evidence indicates patients recall death experiences after cardiac arrest

Pim van Lommel, describes them, “the NDE is an authentic experience that cannot be simply reduced to imagination, fear of death, hallucination, psychosis, the use of drugs, or oxygen deficiency.” NDEs need to be examined as their own thing — a separate experience, that millions of people around the world encounter, and which is irreducible to any other (existing) neuroscientific explanation.

Lommel’s landmark paper reveals several interesting things. First, NDEs have been shown to occur some minutes after the heart of a critical patient has stopped, and at a time when “the brain ordinarily stops functioning and cortical activity becomes isoelectric.” This implies that whatever the source or reason for these NDEs, it does not lie in normal, understood brain processes. Second, our recollection of NDEs is much more like real memories than imagined memories. As a research team from the University of Padova showed,
Can near-death experiences prove the afterlife?

As mentioned there is now evidence of flatlined brains having higher level consciousness with clarity and detail. More real than real. This should not be possible even in an unconscious or compromised state let alone a flatlined brain with no brain activity.

Low or hard to detect brain activity does not demonstrate that conscious or mind is not connected to brain activity. Show consciousness or mind in something without a brain or one that is dead and stays dead.

By claiming that whatever it is "its not supernatural" you are making a belief claim and not a scientific one. There is no way you can or science can prove it is not the result of something beyond naturalistic causes because science cannot even tell us what the nature of matter is let along consciousness. All it can do is describe behaviour which tells us nothing about the nature of what is being described.

Would you have preferred "no one has demonstrated that it is supernatural"?

Doesn't the leading mainstream scientific interpretations and theories on QM data propose extra dimensions such as with M and String theory. It seems to me no matter which interpretation you want to take, the Many Worlds or Quantum Consciousness such as QBism your going to end up needing extra dimensions to be able to account for what is happening.

M/String theory is a failed attempt to merge quantum gravity with all other forces. It is questionable if it is or ever was actually science. There is no evidence for extra dimensions. (Many worlds is not an extra dimensions interpretation of QM either.)

How can science even measure other dimensions when that would require a completely different set of methodology and assumptions which science doesn't include.

The extra dimensions people made claims, they were tested, they failed.

No I only claimed that 'Imagination' is not something the science method can even measure let along make claims about its nature as associated with consciousness. Its certainly of the Mind and not explained physically. Whether thats the supernatural or some undiscovered force know knows. But it is not within the closure of the physical.

But your missing my point. The existence of imagination, abstract and creative thinking which all come under subjective experiences does tell us something about the nature of Mind. That it cannot be reduced to its physical mechanisms. This is already inherent in the Hard Problem of consciousness.

I'm not going to dig back and demonstrate what you actually wrote, but I stand by my position. "Imagination" doesn't alter the issue in the slightest about the nature of consciousness or mind. Like most of the things in this topic I don't know how you would study imagination scientifically, but then again, I am not in the relevant fields, so I can not assess methods I am not even aware of.

You keep assuming the physicalist assumptions about the nature of the mind has been proven and all other possibilities are excluded when that is not the case at all. In fact because thse experiences point to a qualitative nature if anything it undermines the physicalist claims.

Not quite. I am a scientist and we use nature to explain things in nature. People are part of nature and there is a vast scientific enterprise studying people, including their behaviors, scientifically. I don't know what the limits or extent of those studies because (as I just stated) IT IS NOT MY FIELD, but I would be foolish to assume that they don't know what they are doing or how to study stuff and just accept a supernaturalist interpretation in a world with no physical mechanisms for such action.

Ok then, does subjective conscious experiences reveal knoweldge about fundemental reality. If you say that experiences are not unreal what do you actually mean. Real in what sense. Real as in the fact they happen. But we are not talking about that reality are we but the place for conscious experiences as far as fundemental reality.

Mind, consiciousness, imagination, dreams, memories, etc., are all real brain states, etc. It is well known that brain states are often bad representations of the *external* world, but that doesn't mean that they don't actually exist in real brains as mental states.

That is the fundemental difference that one side says ultimately experiences are physical in nature and the other that they are beyond physical nature. Or beyond the closure of the physical. I would have a guess that when it comes down to it you will fall on the side that its fundementally a physical phenomena caused by the physical and therefore not real as far as accounting for fundemental reality.

Of course, "beyond physical" things aren't demonstrated, yet.

Ok I thought I had. But heres the thing. If you are going to make claims these alternative ideas are Woo then don't you think you should understand what you are refuting and not just assume. Integrated Information Theory is a well recognised idea proposed in various forms.

Integrated Information Theory (IIT), published in the journal BMC Neuroscience, is one of a small class of promising models of consciousness. “IIT is a very mathematical theory. A core idea suggests consciousness will emerge when information moves between the subsystems of an overall system: to be conscious, an entity has to be single and integrated and must possess a property called "phi" which is dependent on the interdependence of the subsystems.
https://www.space.com/is-the-universe-conscious

Gee that really sounds like an emergent property of complex system integrated together. Nothing supernatural in that description.

Once again if you don't know who Stapp and Wheeler are and what they are known for then how can you say their ideas are Woo.

I was commenting on the ideas as you had presented them, not the unknown researchers.

Stapp was a collaborator with Heisenberg

and I'm an academic descendant of Heisenberg, so what.

and probably one of the leading physicists on consciousness and QM. I think his paper “Quantum theory and the role of mind in nature” broadly sums up his arguements that QM points to mind/consciousness being fundemental.

“From the point of view of the mathematics of quantum theory it makes no sense to treat a measuring device as intrinsically different from the collection of atomic constituents that make it up. A device is just another part of the physical universe… Moreover, the conscious thoughts of a human observer ought to be causally connected most directly and immediately to what is happening in his brain, not to what is happening out at some measuring device…

Our bodies and brains thus become…parts of the quantum mechanically described physical universe. Treating the entire physical universe in this unified way provides a conceptually simple and logically coherent theoretical foundation…”(H. P. Stapp, 2001).

Quantum theory and the role of mind in nature

Orthodox Copenhagen quantum theory renounces the quest to understand the reality in which we are imbedded, and settles for practical rules describing connections between our observations. Many physicist have regarded this renunciation of our effort to describe nature herself as premature, and...

arxiv.org

This is just a disagreement with (dislike of) one interpretation of QM (Copenhagen). It's just philosophical wonderings. (And you know what I think of those.)

Wheeler generally agreed with Stapps position or rather Stapp with Wheelers and his 'Anthropic Participatory Universe'. Which is similar in that they both propose Mind and Consciousness as fundemental. That we as conscious observers are participators and entangled in the unraveling of reality.

But Wheeler is most known for coming up with the ideas of 'Black Holes and Worm Holes'. He pioneered the theory of nuclear fission with Niels Bohr and introduced the S-matrix in quantum mechanics. Also his 'Delay Choice Quantum' experiment which basically shows that measurement can even influence the past and from this came his arguements that conscious observers create reality.

I had no idea you were referring to John Wheeler. From the context I wouldn't have assumed you were invoking a renowned expert on General Relativity. Now that I see what Wheeler was actually proposing, this is again an INTERPRETATION OF QM. None of such things have demonstrated they are "true". (QM is weird and the ideas to understand it are often weird.)

The “Past” and the “Delayed-Choice” Double-Slit Experiment

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780124732506500066

Experimental Realization of Wheeler's Delayed-Choice Gedanken Experiment

https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1136303

Also his “Participatory Anthropic Principle”
John Wheeler’s Participatory Universe
https://futurism.com/john-wheelers-participatory-universe/

 

[stevevw]

So we do. But accepting mind-body dualism is not necessarily the right approach.

Why not.

All that tells us is that mind-body dualism is an unfalsifiable (i.e. theological) proposition and there is really no point to bringing it up in a science forum.

Not necessarily. It seems for the majority of people consciousness is a scientific issue and can be determined by science. Also if you look at some areas of research they are taking a science approach to consciousness.

If you look at ideas like ITT, Orch theory and the Global Workspace theory they are using science to determine consciousness in various ways. Some ideas are still trying to determine consciousness as a physical phenomena through math and information theory. Or in the case of ORCH theory looking at the brains microtubals which is said to initiate quantum decoherence.

Others make good arguements about consciousness or mind being fundemental based on QM. Afterall some of the interpretations of QM argues that mind and consciousness are fundemental based on experimental data. So its not as if they don't have some rational basis for their arguements.