Philosophy and Physics agree about God?

[_SteelHead]

I'll stand by my first observation. Until consciousness can be demonstrated independent of a physical host, this is all just diverting conjecture.

[_spotlight]

Hi Mak,

I gave Franktalk the opportunity to support his position and he failed to do so. He simply ignored the problems with his "hypothesis" and simply dismissed them.

Mikwut seems to be indicating that there is some other "paradigm" that is capable of explaining the facts in an alternate way. I am curious to see what he presents if anything and also how he deals with facts that falsify his viewpoint.

[_Maksutov]

I'll stand by my first observation. Until consciousness can be demonstrated independent of a physical host, this is all just diverting conjecture.

Not only that, but with fMRIs we can see "interior states" reflected in physical processes in real time. And they're just the beginning. The processes are more subtle than we have known and more complex, therefore we have more research to do. That means more, not less, empirical analysis is the path to greater understanding.

[_Maksutov]

Hi Mak,

I gave Franktalk the opportunity to support his position and he failed to do so. He simply ignored the problems with his "hypothesis" and simply dismissed them.

Mikwut seems to be indicating that there is some other "paradigm" that is capable of explaining the facts in an alternate way. I am curious to see what he presents if anything and also how he deals with facts that falsify his viewpoint.

There's no shortage of paradigms out there. If I can't see one that's effective, I may have to settle for one that's entertaining.

What I see happening here is that instead of a "god of the gaps" we are seeing a "science of the gaps" used to connect dots that happen to favor religious perspectives. If there's something more than semantics and sophistry going on, let's see some results. Otherwise, it looks like a mix of pseudoscience and apologetics, a more sophisticated creationism.

I think Frank is not willing to concede any authority to mikwut, any more than to any one else. At least, that's what my "inner journey" has told me.

[_EAllusion]

The fact that conscious thinking impacts brain constitution is not contradictory to physicalism unless you can show that this isn't just brain states impacting other brain states. It isn't even a hard observation for physicalism to contend with. Something going on in some areas of the brain having downstream impacts on other areas isn't surprising or confusing.

That many sorts of decisions people make can be shown to precede the conscious experience of them corresponding to preceding brain changes doesn't refute idealism per se, but it does seem to be a problem for the naïve version on display here.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I'll stand by my first observation. Until consciousness can be demonstrated independent of a physical host, this is all just diverting conjecture.

It appears that way. The assertion being made that consciousness is independent of the physical mind isn't supported by fact, nor is anyone providing anything of substance other than philosophy to 'support' their position.

- Doc

[_Chap]

I'll stand by my first observation. Until consciousness can be demonstrated independent of a physical host, this is all just diverting conjecture.

It appears that way. The assertion being made that consciousness is independent of the physical mind isn't supported by fact, nor is anyone providing anything of substance other than philosophy to 'support' their position.

- Doc

Same here. Mess with my brain, and it messes with my consciousness. Mess with it seriously enough, and my consciousness ceases altogether, either temporarily or permanently. Oh, and by the way, all the apparent consciousnesses I have ever met have had a one to one correspondence with a locatable brain.

So ... why would I not make it my default hypothesis that brains are things that, among other things, do consciousness, and that consciousness is something that brains do?

I am of course open to being persuaded otherwise - but I need some hard evidence to make that happen.

[_DrW]

Mikwut,

First of all, I have enjoyed the discussion so far- no - really.

I won't be responding to you point by point, but will try, yet again, to lay out my position. In doing so, I trust that you will be able to overlook my relative lack of sophistication when it comes to philosophy (which deficit on my part seems to annoy you no end).

You commented that scientists typically have the same problem in this regard as I do. I am in no position to disagree, but perhaps this tendency is for good reason. Please continue reading.

At one point upthread you stated something to the effect that metaphysics (a branch of philosophy) is bounded by physics (a branch of science). Perhaps we could start there.

On this thread so far, we have been referring quantum mechanics (QM). I suppose that this stemmed from the video linked to in the OP and your referring to the von Neuman interpretation (of QM). QM is mainly concerned with probability waves, particles, superpositioning and the Schrödinger equation.

Let us instead talk about the most accurate and experimentally verified view of reality there is; quantum field theory (QFT). QFT is the most successful scientific theory of the century (many would say of all time) and provides for astonishingly accurate predictions in areas from particle physics to cosmology.

QFT has been indispensable in development of the Standard Model of particle physics and was the theory used to accurately predict the existence Higgs boson and to describe the Higgs field (which exists everywhere in space and imparts the blessing of mass to those particles who deserve it).

According to QFT, what you continue to refer to as physicalist "matter" is, in reality, ensembles of the particles that are localized excitations (vibrations) in their associated fields. These fields exist throughout space. They are quantized so can be referred to as quantum fields. Since matter and energy are interchangeable, mass exhibiting particles resulting from these vibrations in these fields, and their extended particle ensembles, are often referred to as condensed matter.

To be very specific here, the particles that make up all matter are simply vibrations at points in a field. Electrons and positrons are examples of the particles of condensed matter associated with electromagnetic fields. Photons are the electromagnetic force carrier. Condensed matter particles of the strong nuclear field (quarks) combine to give the more familiar protons and neutrons. The force carrier is the gluon. (These force carrying particles are referred to as gauge bosons. The Higgs is not a gauge boson.)

So, before you label most scientists as physicalists, you should consider that physical scientists are well aware that what underlies all of physics, indeed all of reality, are invisible force fields that permeate all space - sort of like your "mind force".

With these basics in mind (which basics you may well already know, but seem to have forgotten), perhaps you need to think about what other force fields your mind force would need to interact with in order to exert the influence you claim for it in the real world.

For example, one could write a book on the ways in which electromagnetic fields interact with the brain. Would you allow that the mind force could be characterized by a field? Would you think that electromagnetic fields might interact with the mind force?

What might this interaction look like?

Is it possible that the gaps in knowledge or the failure of scientists to understand how subjective experience could come from the "mere matter" of the brain could simply be due to an incomplete understanding of how the various quantum fields interact with one another?

Do you still insist on referring to me as a physicalist after all this?

[_mikwut]

Hello Spotlight,

Thank you for clarifying your question.

I did not post anything to do with the binding problem.

You quoted the article I linked entitled, "The Binding Problem", that is where my confusion came from.

I posted a question about idealism and how it could be supported by the fact that the vast majority of what happens in the brain is unconscious. If consciousness rules the day and the material is non existent why does the conscious part of the brain make up the minority of the brain? Why is it the tip of the iceberg? If consciousness causes the "so called" material why the need to make up the circuitry to decipher it? That doesn't seem to be a consistent view.

I appreciate the asking of questions. First, I would submit your offering data that is mesmerizing for any current position including physicalism. Why is the brain in a materialist perspective active at all while asleep? This is an interesting and fascinating discussion that becomes a rabbit hole for both sides. To me, the question becomes which perspective offers the simpler explanation of the limited understanding we currently have. The hypothesis idealism gives is the brain functions not as a consciousness generator but as a localizer, the brain pins consciousness down to particular space-time localization of you and me and our physical bodies. Also, the brain modulates our perceptions from this perspective in a vast sea of the mind at large, or the primary fundamental consciousness. That mind at large is always there that's why in the binding problem I presented (I know you weren't asking regarding it) the visual scene is present in the fundamental mind at large and our brain localizes that chaos or unbounded consciousness to a visual scene we perceive, but that scene isn't found in the brain or its current mapping and processes.

Now here is the relevance to our dreams and idealism. When our brain is not able to properly or is interferred with this localization or modulation of the fundamental consciousness idealism postulates is unbounded. Henry Bergson over a hundred years ago described this as a ‘filtering out’ of consciousness. Brain activation patterns, under this hypothesis, don't imply the brain is generating the correlated conscious experience, but rather we are selecting consciousness from a broader set of the fundamental nature of reality that idealism hypothesizes. The idealist Carl Jung has proposed that
mental contents from the collective unconscious can percolate up to conscious awareness through dreams, visions, and other nonordinary states of consciousness. This makes sense if consciousness is unbounded in its primary fundamental state.

So the brain in idealism is an image (read my post above to DrW regarding color and our sensations) of a process of localization of universal consciousness. Brains scans have been done that circumstantially (that's all brain scans are, evidentially, for either side of this debate) demonstrate this localization or modulation. For instance, it is a general assumption of materialism that intense vivid experiences would excite certain parts of the brain and we see the correlate, but recent studies have shown that psychedelics that produce extremely vivid conscious experiences do the opposite. The study reported that ‘profound changes in consciousness were observed after [the administration of the psychedelic], but surprisingly, only decreases in cerebral blood flow…were seen.’ The researchers ‘observed no increases in cerebral blood flow in any region.’ They reported that ‘the magnitude of this decrease predicted the intensity of the subjective effects.’ https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9IyLj ... ef=2&pli=1 http://www.pnas.org/content/113/17/4853.full.pdf

The fact that the intensity and vividness of the experience resulted inversely proportional to the "lighting up of brain function is precisely what idealism would predict and seems adverse to a materialist lens.

It is also further predictive, if idealism as a filter or modulator of mind or consciousness is in fact unbounded or at large and idealism as a hypothesis is on the right track we should see studies of expanded consciousness or mystical experience (this isn't to be taken as the mystical experience is real, that is another discussion altogether) doing just that. Bernardo Kastrup, for example, predicted what later was published here, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 3215302360 to sum it up briefly you can read here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... don-t.html the article explains that "dialing down the brains inhibition boosts mysticism. This is just like what happens with drugs, - the brain is dialing down but there is a boost in perceptual consciousness. We see this play out in fighter pilots experiencing g-force and the blood and oxygen in their brain going down but mystical experiences being had, young kids playing the choking game because of the increase consciousness experience that results, we even salaciously see it when sex partners attempt choking at orgasm (I will not personally comment on this ;). All of these seemingly are queer in a materialist perspective because you wouldn't expect such a vividness, extreme consciousness and all the trappings of our natural consciousness heightened when the brain is being dialed down or back.

Respecting your shutting consciousness off it is perfectly compatible with a filter hypothesis, the filter is simply shut off.

That is the reason the scientific method is useful, by employing falsification to eliminate possible interpretations. If we lack sufficient data to distinguish between possible models then there really is nothing to be said as yet.

I couldn't agree more from a scientific empirical standpoint when both sides are educated on the arguments both ways. I'll keep repeating I don't believe either ontological position has been verified and I don't believe either position has been falsified. I agree with Michael Shermer that neuroscience is currently on a list of the the nonfalsifiable http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... doscience/.

That is the rub of my argument. Given this state of affairs, why then such a commitment to physicalism? Physicalism flys in the face of many of our most common sensical, seemingly real, and beautiful aspects of our being, our awareness as persons and the world represented to us. Why should I be beholden to a physicalist lens of reality that constricts so much of the world and reduces it to mere matter bouncing about. Absurdities in our thinking on a grand scale I am convinced effect us on a micro scale everyday thinking.

regards, mikwut

[_mikwut]

Hi Maksutov,

The mind is a product of the brain and nervous system.

Possibly.

The end

Hardly. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Why try to stop thinking? I don't get it. I don't want to type it twice so I refer to my response to spotlight.

There is no need to dream up all sorts of universal consciousness and other woo-isms

I see. The vast majority of our greatest philosophers to have ever existed (this isn't intended as an argument of authority that they have to be right) were all talking "woo-isms" when they argued for idealism. Eugene Wigner was just talking woo-ism, the great debate between Einstein and Bohr was wooism? Oh boy. The video in the OP was woo-ism, uh-huh, and the Randi Challenge that I linked is woo-ism?

when there is no demand for it in the problems to be solved,

I keep answering this. What problems to be solved are you talking about? How on earth does idealism interfere with any "problems to be solved"?

no evidence for it,

Good grief man, think! This is a basic philosophical ontological debate. I addressed some of the evidence for it above. If you believe there is no evidence for it than go to the link I gave DrW respecting the QM Randi Challenge and win yourself a nobel prize. This isn't ghosts in the attic and debunking clanking sounds for heavens sake.

and no explanation for how it possibly might work.

A couple pages into a thread on a discussion board and "no explanation for how it might work" gets thrown out, invest in a little dialogue and expand your thought - man the heavy thinking lifting is overwhelming! Have you read a serious book on idealism?

Appeals to woo share more with mysticism than with science

What woo?? And why the need for just throwing out slogans? I have attached peer reviewed articles to everything I have stated? This is so knee jerk and unthinking you really should think about why you have such a knee jerk to it.

and should be classed with theological speculations and conspiracy theories.

Holy crap! If you can prove realism there is a Randi Challenge waiting for you to do so but idealism is analogous to conspiracy theories. I think you are so use to current babble of debunking spoon bending and goblins in the closet type stuff your intellectual balance has become a hammer that only sees nails - that's dangerous man.

If you want to be spiritual, pray for the universities and Congress to improve their budgetary priorities in favor of benign and productive empirical science.

Oh dear God, the budget has nothing to do with idealism or physicalism.

If we were to set up mikwut as an example to follow, we should give Franktalk a department chair and publish on the university websites a list of the spirit guides in the faculty and include their channeled texts in every syllabus.

Wierd. Just wierd. Read Bernard D'Espagnat http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Philosoph ... +despagnat and then tell me if were talking spirit guides and stuff.

Are you interested in an interesting discussion or does your debunking hammer sees only nails everywhere?

Have you any evidential support for physicalism as the video presented or further to add to the discussion. Are you threatened by idealism or something? Did you read my posts above, I am an empiricist - Kant was an empiricist, Berkeley was an empiricist, Liebniz was an empiricist - this isn't a battle with empiricism and science it is about an ultimate ontology.

mikwut