Luc Turpin

Disagree! We experience both and both are difficult to unravel from one another! They apparently do much more than that, and evidence is mounting to that effect Statements witout apparent grounds for determining their veracity. It's a waggle dance with apparently a lot of information (distance, direction, etc. of pollen) being conveyed to others. It's a symbolic language.

First, let's be clear that I am not advocating nor think that there is such a thing as a life-force. This was given as an example for argument sake only. Only observation and evidence will tell if it exists or not. Mind from brain or mind through brain would have the same effect as you describe on the brain. And the things that you describe, obtained through various forms of brain scans and experiments, are all valid and correct! No issues there! But major questions still remain. For the sake of repeating myself, where is mind in the brain? I gave ample references indicating that we don't know. And if it's all over the brain, has the "binding" issue been resolved? no! You mentioned metabolism forces, but how does this create consciousness? Or more aptly, how is consciousness extracted from a kilogram or so of flesh? We don't know. If we did know how the brain does its magic, then why after 25 years of neuroscience research did Christof Kock concede his bet to David Chalmers on this issue. In 1998 he bet that by 2023 we would know how the brain achieves consciousness, and lost. I also provided references on this one in my original 'Mind' tread. And why this panoply of hypotheses and theories on it if we know? Gave examples I am not the only one advocating for this position. A growing number of neuroscientists are starting to look elsewhere to try and answer the elusive question of how consciousness works. And why does mind "seem" to be all over in nature? even in low lying life forms? Or without brains? This was not expected - lime molds appearing to think! Gave examples and references on this one too! Research in the last few decades is not helping us consolidate what we thought about the brain. Gave also ample examples. A lot of things that we thought we knew about the brain were overturned From static brain to neuroplasticity. From brain as a computer to it not being one. From humans only to other lower life forms. From animals feeling no pain and having no sense of self to some that do. From synapses to other parts of neurons. From neurons to other cells. We dint' know about this either. Apparently, all cells including neurons use multiple signals at the same time to communicate: Secreted chemicals Launched sacs filled with genetic instructions Electric currents Electromagnetic waves Physical contact by cells Biological nanotubes between cells Who could have believed then that bioelectricity would be studied as a measure to control body shapes? And what about NDE's? Do we ignore all the cases where mind appears to work through an apparently absent brain? So many things going on that it is hard to follow. Are we to overlook the entirety of all of these and other findings to come for the sake of sticking to an apparently outmoded model of mind-brain? "The orthodox view of memory is that it is stored as a stable network of synaptic conncections among neurons in a brain. That view is clearly cracking" Again, I reiterate, what you say about the brain is correct, but there is more to the story than what you tell. The hardware problem is easy; the software one is not!

1- This "nonsense" was not entirely proved wrong yet, but this is not the point the I am pursuing. For me, it is not whether they are true or not, but how mind still expresses itself through a very damaged or absent brain. One experiment that I am aware of installed random number generators in hospital rooms, but no one had an NDE in them. Do not know of any other such experiment. 2- Blind people don't use 'it' to see in their daly lives, because they are not outside of their bodies in their daily lives. Yes, blind people report seing during their NDE"s. The term used in this case is "mindsight". And these were people that were blind all of their lives. Stange isn’t it!

We are expressions of our mind interacting with reality, not only "expressions of whatever beliefs we choose to accept". Consciousness, perception, thoughts, feelings, senses and beliefs, come from mind and are combined together to create our own inner-world of what reality is perceived to be.

+1

I think that I have been mediocre at best in my understanding and responding to your topic The fault is all mine and on my limited knowledge of the subject matter. But consciousness, I have many opinions about it. With some backed by evidence. Thought and consciousness are strongly corelated; I think therefore I am Mounting evidence, not yet conclusive, hints at not only us humans that can think Life and consciousness are corelated, but not the same thing; one is a biological process and the other is still in the process of being defined; it is either an emergent property of matter or an essential element of life, but not life itself I don't see how "wiring" makes it logical, expand Cause precedes effect, no two identical things exist, reality exists as it appears, and reality is complete unto itself - all of this seems related to reality, not consciousness. Survival has to be assured for consciousness to exist, then, maybe, more attributes come into play afterward. All of consciousness, in humans and others if they are conscious (still being debated), is non digital. The brain does not work like a computer (ample evidence on this one). Good point! To me, science and philosophy are a bit like dart throwing, but one has a target and the other appears to not have one 😊

1- Yes, your actions can most assuredly change reality, within the limits of the laws of nature. 2- Then there will have to be a lot of reinterpretation to be done from this paradigm shifting perspective. Paradigm shift - Thomas Kuhn challenged the then prevailing view of progress in science in which scientific progress was viewed as "development-by-accumulation" of accepted facts and theories. Kuhn argued for an episodic model in which periods of conceptual continuity where there is cumulative progress, which Kuhn referred to as periods of "normal science", were interrupted by periods of revolutionary science. The discovery of "anomalies" during revolutions in science leads to new paradigms. New paradigms then ask new questions of old data, move beyond the mere "puzzle-solving"[1] of the previous paradigm, change the rules of the game and the "map" directing new research.[2]·" 3- Please expand if you wish on you only having the evidence and that every experiment agrees with this interpretation, but agree that this is a philosophy forum so evidence is not an absolute requirment. 4- I guess simply explained, simply understood; I think though that there is more to the story than this. 5- Like what about the double slit experiment? 6- Please expand on the relationship of logic-beliefs and the nature or meaning of existence? Note: I admit of being out of my comfort zone with your topic, but our back and fourth is useful at least to me as I am seekiing to understand at the same time as I am responding.

I reiterate with more precision: what I experience of reality affects my beliefs of it and my beliefs affect the perception that I have of reality, but my own beliefs or collective ones cannot change reality in onto itself. A lot of science would have to be overturned for it to be such and this extraordinary claim would also require extraordinary evidence, before being contemplated as a contending hypothesis. 1- You are providing a statement, not evidence nor observations 2- I knew that maths would be brought into a discussion on logic. I have major limitations in understanding it's role in describing the universe, so I will pass on this one. 3- Yes they do and are absolutly confounded by the experience, real or not. 4- I think that you need to rephrase this statement as it appears to say that our beliefs mold reality. If your belief is such, then see opening statement above. 5- So, truth, logic, falsity and illogic exist, which seem to run the whole gamut of possibilities. Randomness also uses all of those when expressing itself. I am not sure that this idea is worth pursuing, unless major discrepancies start cropping up in our current understanding of the universe Finaly, we are bit off topic.

1- The unproven, but provable if it is such. If, one day, I accept that mind is through brain, it will be because of observation-evidence, not faith, feeling and supposition. Electromagnetic forces are non-physical per say and rooted in science and evidence. So, why would it be different if a mind-field was to exist (not saying that it does, but if it did, it would be provable). "Is it fear of the inevitable" - no, I don't like the idea of disappearing, but so be it; "or an earnest interest in divining some great truth or deep mystery for posterity's sake" - I have no such pretention. 2- Used conventional "wisdom" because of always using mind-brain concept. The latter, not former was what I meant. 3- Terminal lucidity is one of many things that does not concur as closely as expected to the current mind-brain concept. What I believe is unimportant, but we have to follow observation and data. In the last post, I gave you a list of things that we believed before about the brain that, through observation-evidence, have become obsolete. I would not be searching about outside of the current mind theory field if there was no evidence leading me along. Read the evidence-observations indicated in articles and references that I posted in both treads and you will discover that I am not the only one having doubts.

Got it! Better! Thanks for responding

1- What evidence is there for a universal logic? Believing it is not enough to make it occur. 2- There is substantial evidence that there are "laws of nature". 3- Not sure that I got an answer! 4- To me, both appear of almost equal proportion. 5- Yes beliefs can change 6- Yes, hard to change a person 7- I do not think that beliefs is the only filter nor a requirement of perception. Some have "mystical' experiences without belief in them. 8- Yes, easy to not notice

I am reasonably ok with this one. But not this one. When were delusional perception and schizptipicals fun things to have as labels; and it appears in the way that you worded it that all religious folks have these attributes. Also, your quote makes mention of personality disorder, thought disorder, paranoia, social anxiety, derealization, transient psychosis, and unconventional beliefs. When were these things associated with mental stability? DSM-5 classifies them as disorders. Noted that some are "characteristics of others", but it still linking them all. The referenced articles appear tamer in their conclusion than the Wiki article. Correction - Delusional perception was referenced here:

Large brush that you're painting with! My religious friends appear more mentally stable than most in society. Their faith anchors them to a more benevolent-peaceful reality than science does. Even if this reality is not so much benvolent and peaceful. Disturbed individuals are all over, even in science.

So, a universal logic underlies consciousness and reality? Are the "laws of nature" all encompassing of reality? Are beliefs involved in determining the meaning or not of existence? What I experience of reality affects my beliefs of it! My beliefs can change the perception of reality that I have! You play the part without the horns 😉

I have been very clear that mind from brain is the majority view while mind through brain the minority one, with or without God, with or without an afterlife. If the matter is settled, then why such an abundance of theories. In my original tread, I posted numerous observations that do not entirely match up with the conventional view of the mind-brain concept. Where is mind? Mind in nature! How does it work? In this tread, I expounded or added Jon Lieff - Secret Language of Cells, Paul Pietsch - Shuffle Brain, curious NDE cases, Robert Epstein - Empty Brain and Basal Cognition. From static brain to neuroplasticity. From brain as a computer to it not being one. From humans only to other lower life forms. From animals feeling no pain and having no sense of self to some that do. From synapses to other parts of neurons. From neurons to other cells. These are but just a few things that have changed in the last few years. I reiterate, recent findings-observations-data do not perfectly matchup with conventional wisdom. Non-physical/material does automatically imply metaphysicality. I too believe in science.

Because it is still a question! Discussion "ad nauseam" was inconclusive and ended at agreeing to disagree. Participation in discussion is voluntary, but requires respect.

1- Odds are not very good indeed! even for finding remnants of low life forms. 2- If we find intelligence all over in nature, this would also be a key sign of wherein lies mind. Just helping us understand us would be, well, helpful too.

Maybe data and observation will determine if a useful dichotomy is there or not! Brain is part of the body, definitely; where is mind is the main issues that we need to address; It has the potential to change our understanding of our place in the universe; are we mere accidents of nature or active partners in the cosmic dance. Finding life elswhere in the universe, without it either being brought to or coming from earth, would begin to help us also resolve the enigma. Hard to understand should not stop us from trying.

To me, life around us does not always follow a logical path, hence the need to make sense of it. As for the before and after void, I like your use of the word "apparent", as we really do not know. However, if mind is within brain, then there isnothing waiting for us afterward. If mind acts upon brain, then, maybe.

Yes, if life has no meaning, then we are left with making our own sense of, and emphasise rationality and logic in doing so! .....our own sense of it, and emphasize........

Please expand! Within the context of nature-meaning of existence please.

You have greatly contributed to my understanding of the big-bang; thanks +1

I have been reading and re-reading this thread trying to understand what happened near the big-bang and still cannot wrap my head around it! Can someone describe to me, based on observation and best model so far, what we think occurred at or near the big-bang? Is there an analogy that can help explain what took place? Desperately seeking understanding!

To whom may help me understand. Why are hard-sciences and mathematics so much part of the existence of some as to become their life meaning?

Yep, a matter of experience and perspective, and, no, fortunate or unfortunate that it din't happen to me. Again, a matter of perspective