Consciusness IS NOT MATTER

[elias_marquez_zoho]

Consciousness works with information (electromagnetism), and the fundamental particle of the electromagnetic field, the photon, has zero mass, it is not matter, but energy.

I know we need the nervous system for consciousness to happen, but this would be the "hardware", not the "software".

I'm not saying consciousness exists because of God or anything like that, don't get me wrong, but I have to say "materialism" is a conception already discarded by quantum mechanics advancements, as we look at most models of fundamental particles (there are fundamental particles without mass, and different "fields").

Materialism is nowadays as discarded as Biblical creationism.

I think Quantum Mechanics can give us some leads regarding consciousness. Information/light/electromagnetism is explained by Quantum Mechanics, not biology.

Biologists should accept physicians are going to enter their field.

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, elias_marquez_zoho said:

Consciousness works with information (electromagnetism), and the fundamental particle of the electromagnetic field, the photon, has zero mass, it is not matter, but energy.

 

Electromagnetism is information? citation please...

1 hour ago, elias_marquez_zoho said:

I know we need the nervous system for consciousness to happen, but this would be the "hardware", not the "software".

I'm not saying consciousness exists because of God or anything like that, don't get me wrong, but I have to say "materialism" is a conception already discarded by quantum mechanics advancements, as we look at most models of fundamental particles (there are fundamental particles without mass, and different "fields").

Materialism has been discarded?  Citation please. 

1 hour ago, elias_marquez_zoho said:

Materialism is nowadays as discarded as Biblical creationism.

I think Quantum Mechanics can give us some leads regarding consciousness. Information/light/electromagnetism is explained by Quantum Mechanics, not biology.

Biologists should accept physicians are going to enter their field.

Again, you offer nothing but an assertion, please give a source... 

[elias_marquez_zoho]

37 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

 

Electromagnetism is information? citation please...

Materialism has been discarded?  Citation please. 

Again, you offer nothing but an assertion, please give a source... 

 

 

1.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement  

(third paragraph)

 

2.

 

 

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement#Naturally_entangled_systems

Quantum entanglement occurs in living beings, such as plants. Photosynthesis encompasses this phenomenon. This is a very recent discovery.

[Moontanman]

19 minutes ago, elias_marquez_zoho said:

 

 

1.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement  

(third paragraph)

 

2.

 

 

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement#Naturally_entangled_systems

Quantum entanglement occurs in living beings, such as plants. Photosynthesis encompasses this phenomenon. This is a very recent discovery.

I honestly do not see any bases for the assertions you make clarified in these links. It looks like you are making some interesting but less than justified assumptions... 

[Strange]

13 hours ago, elias_marquez_zoho said:

Materialism is nowadays as discarded as Biblical creationism.

Please define what you mean by materialism and provide some evidence it has been discarded.

[Alex_Krycek]

OP.  I agree with your viewpoint.  Positing a general definition of materialism as the current scientific philosophy would give us a reference point. 

"Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental aspects and consciousness, are results of material interactions."

I think that with the advancements in science over the last 50 years, the assertion that phenomena such as consciousness originate from matter, and that matter is the "end all be all" of the universe is now highly questionable. 

By the way, have you read any of Ruppert Sheldrake's work, such as  Science Set Free?

[Strange]

18 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

I think that with the advancements in science over the last 50 years, the assertion that phenomena such as consciousness originate from matter, and that matter is the "end all be all" of the universe is now highly questionable.

While it is true that there is more to the universe than matter (if we assume that means baryonic matter - stuff made of fermions) I don't think there is any evidence that consciousness doesn't;t arise from matter (the brain). The only arguments against this I have seen are arguments from incredulity.

19 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

By the way, have you read any of Ruppert Sheldrake's work, such as  Science Set Free?

Enough to know that he is a typical pseudoscientist.

[Alex_Krycek]

@ OP

You may be interested in a book called Quantum Questions.  It's an anthology of philosophical essays by the world's most prominent physicists, each delving into questions about the nature of consciousness, God, and what lies beyond our human sensory perception.  Einstein has an interesting essay in the book called "Cosmic Religious Feeling" in which he discusses a spiritual perception that cannot be organized or put into material form and the pursuit of which is, in his view, the true purpose of science. 

He writes:

"I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the noblest motive for scientific research.  ...  Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from it's practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of the men who, surrounded by a skeptical world, have shown the way to kindred spirits scattered wide through the world and the centuries." 

This accords with other arguments made in the book regarding a paradox relating to matter and energy.  As matter and energy exist in more and more subtle forms, they become untraceable in the material realm, thus no material proof of the existence of a "supreme intelligence" (God, if you will) can ever be established.

Edited January 26, 2018 by Alex_Krycek

[Alex_Krycek]

13 hours ago, Strange said:

While it is true that there is more to the universe than matter (if we assume that means baryonic matter - stuff made of fermions) I don't think there is any evidence that consciousness doesn't;t arise from matter (the brain). The only arguments against this I have seen are arguments from incredulity.

Enough to know that he is a typical pseudoscientist.

Where is your evidence that consciousness arises from the brain?

Quote

Enough to know that he is a typical pseudoscientist.

It's easy to dismiss those who hold differing viewpoints that may contradict our worldview.  With all due respect, have you actually read any of Sheldrake's books?   Have you listened to any of his talks or read any of his publications?  Do you know anything of substance about the man or his prestigious career as a biologist?  If you don't, why not maintain some level of impartiality and investigate the veracity of his work for a respectable length of time before condemning him as a "pseduo-scientist"?

Pseudo-science means false science.  Sheldrake has never conducted false science.  He has never been found to misrepresent his findings or attempt to obscure the nature of his experiments.  Yes, he conducts research into areas that are unexplained, areas that may be off-limits to mainstream science.  But this is what science is for: to inquire into the unknown with a spirit of bold adventure. 

Whether they distort data to satisfy the corporations funding their research projects (those who have a financial interest in certain results being published), or are just flat out wrong in their hypotheses but hold positions of authority in the scientific community so their fallacious views go unchallenged, many scientists who do not come under any such scrutiny as Sheldrake are in fact the real "pseudo-scientists".   

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/05/dozens-of-recent-clinical-trials-contain-wrong-or-falsified-data-claims-study

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/sep/13/scientific-research-fraud-bad-practice

https://qz.com/638059/many-scientific-truths-are-in-fact-false/

At the end of the day, as long as Sheldrake follows the scientific method to test his hypotheses, structures and conducts his experiments methodically, is honest in reporting his data, and allows his findings to be peer reviewed, he's not engaging in pseudo-science.  If he has a theory, such as Morphic Resonance, then it's up to him to prove that theory before it can be accepted into the mainstream, but he's certainly allowed to have it nonetheless.   

In my view the reason he receives such disdain is because he openly challenges the philosophical assumptions of materialism, something you're not supposed to do.  As the prevailing scientific philosophy, materialism rests on certain assumptions, as all philosophies do, and to challenge this foundation of belief in any way is to attack the very identity of those standing upon it, which is why non-conformists such as Sheldrake are singled out. 

But this is a perpetual issue in science.  It happened to Norman Doidge when he brought his evidence of neuroplasticity and challenged brain localization theorists.  He was ignored, attacked, and silenced - for a time, until the ad hominem assaults could no longer block his path, and the veracity of his evidence overturned an entire field.  It's the same reason Einstein was attacked for his theory of relativity by those who thought his proposal couldn't possibly fit into their Neo-Kantian worldview. 

So ultimately I think we should keep an open mind regarding the unsolved questions of the universe.     

[iNow]

6 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

this is a perpetual issue in science

Which is a large part of the reason why it's so powerful and why it does such a fantastic job of preventing us from falling victim to our own biases and preconceptions.

 

 

6 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

With all due respect, have you actually read any of Sheldrake's books?   Have you listened to any of his talks or read any of his publications?  Do you know anything of substance about the man or his prestigious career as a biologist? 

With all due respect, yes. I have. A number of them, in fact, and I am in agreement with the assessment presented by Strange. Sheldrake's methodology is deeply flawed and his conclusions rather often unsupported by the data (i.e. pseudoscientific)

Edited January 26, 2018 by iNow

[Alex_Krycek]

7 hours ago, iNow said:

Which is a large part of the reason why it's so powerful and why it does such a fantastic job of preventing us from falling victim to our own biases and preconceptions.

True.  If it focuses on impartially examining the evidence and not on ad hominem attacks.  Unfortunately in many cases this does not happen, as was the case with Doidge's research into neuroplasticity recently.  As you know, human beings, even those who profess to be acting in the name of objective truth, are often swayed by deep seated cognitive biases that act to serve their own personal interests rather than the interests of science as a whole.  For example, when someone has worked their entire career to support a theory that neuro-plasticity completely overturns, the ego is not too happy and will behave accordingly.  In other words, I don't agree that scientists are fundamentally impartial.  Science becomes repeatedly entrenched in inaccurate patterns of thinking that are objectively false, when it could be progressing forward at a faster pace if there wasn't this biased personal interest in maintaining the established view. 

 

Quote

With all due respect, yes. I have. A number of them, in fact, and I am in agreement with the assessment presented by Strange. Sheldrake's methodology is deeply flawed and his conclusions rather often unsupported by the data (i.e. pseudoscientific)

Interesting.  Which ones did you read?  And what is your primary criticism of his methodology?

Edited January 26, 2018 by Alex_Krycek

[Strange]

39 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Where is your evidence that consciousness arises from the brain?

Did I say I had any?

15 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Which ones did you read? 

God knows. It was decades ago. [edit: just noticed that wasn't aimed at me; but the answer stands]

15 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

And what is your primary criticism of his methodology?

Methodology?

39 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

It's easy to dismiss those who hold differing viewpoints that may contradict our worldview. 

Oh, the irony.

It isn't about contradicting some "worldview". It is the fact that science is based on repeatable and replicatable  evidence. Sheldrake's ... ummmm ... "ideas" are based on largely anecdotal evidence heavily influenced by selection and confirmation biases. 

Edited January 26, 2018 by Strange

[iNow]

16 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Which ones did you read?

It's been a while, but the ones I remember are Dogs who know when their owners are coming home, and Seven Experiments that could change the world, and also The sense of being stared at.

17 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

And what is your primary criticism of his methodology?

His approaches do not control for extraneous variables or account for more parsimonious explanations.

More here beyond what I can recall off the top of my head: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake#Criticism

[Alex_Krycek]

7 hours ago, Strange said:

Did I say I had any?

Ok.  So can I ask why you assume that consciousness arises from matter (i.e. the brain)? 

 

Here is some evidence that it might not.

(note: It's the same case study, but I posted numerous sources so as to verify it.)

https://www.sciencealert.com/a-man-who-lives-without-90-of-his-brain-is-challenging-our-understanding-of-consciousness

http://www.businessinsider.com/missing-90-percent-of-brain-neuroscience-2016-7

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/07/13/man-living-without-90-percent-of-his-brain-challenges-scientists-most-basic-theories-of-consciousness/

 

7 hours ago, Strange said:

It isn't about contradicting some "worldview". It is the fact that science is based on repeatable and replicatable  evidence. Sheldrake's ... ummmm ... "ideas" are based on largely anecdotal evidence heavily influenced by selection and confirmation biases. 

 

According to Sheldrake, his data is legitimate and collected using verified methods.  He could be lying, of course. 

Edited January 26, 2018 by Alex_Krycek

[iNow]

18 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

I don't agree that scientists are fundamentally impartial

Perhaps unfortunately, but we're all humans first and scientists second. We'll forever be subject to our own biases, which is massive part of the reason having a robust methodology such as the scientific process is so crucial to our continued forward momentum and progress.

[Strange]

9 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

So can I ask why you assume that consciousness arises from matter (i.e. the brain)? 

Why do you ask? I'm not sure I stated any such assumption.

10 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Here is some evidence that it might not.

Or that we don't yet fully understand the brain.

11 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

According to Sheldrake, his data is legitimate and collected using verified methods.

And how much of this work has been published in peer reviewed journals?

31 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

I don't agree that scientists are fundamentally impartial.

The scientific method is designed to eliminate the sort of biases that humans (including scientists) are prone to. And, in the long run, it works very well. 

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Ok.  So can I ask why you assume that consciousness arises from matter (i.e. the brain)? 

 

Here is some evidence that it might not.

(note: It's the same case study, but I posted numerous sources so as to verify it.)

https://www.sciencealert.com/a-man-who-lives-without-90-of-his-brain-is-challenging-our-understanding-of-consciousness

http://www.businessinsider.com/missing-90-percent-of-brain-neuroscience-2016-7

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/07/13/man-living-without-90-percent-of-his-brain-challenges-scientists-most-basic-theories-of-consciousness/

 I bothered to read all three of your links and in no way can i see how they support the assertion that consciousness does not arise from the brain... Can you point me to what I missed? 

I do know there have instances of brain damage that totally changed who the people were before the accident. This is quite well documented... Not to mention that brain damage often, if not mostly, results in death or a distinct lack of self awareness... 

I have a significant portion of my brain that is unresponsive, the doctors say it probably happened before or during birth. A large amount of the temporal lobe of my brain is affected. The doctor said it was "interesting" that I seemed to have no cognitive problems but he didn't go into anymore detail. At the time I was young had suffered from a couple blackouts that never happened again so it was never really followed up. My point here is that brain plasticity in no way supports the idea that consciousness does not originate in the material world or the brain... You say:

Quote

So ultimately I think we should keep an open mind regarding the unsolved questions of the universe. 

I have to ask why you think the scientific method constitutes a closed mind? 

Edited January 26, 2018 by Moontanman

[StringJunky]

47 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

 I bothered to read all three of your links and in no way can i see how they support the assertion that consciousness does not arise from the brain... Can you point me to what I missed? 

I do know there have instances of brain damage that totally changed who the people were before the accident. This is quite well documented... Not to mention that brain damage often, if not mostly, results in death or a distinct lack of self awareness... 

I have a significant portion of my brain that is unresponsive, the doctors say it probably happened before or during birth. A large amount of the temporal lobe of my brain is affected. The doctor said it was "interesting" that I seemed to have no cognitive problems but he didn't go into anymore detail. At the time I was young had suffered from a couple blackouts that never happened again so it was never really followed up. My point here is that brain plasticity in no way supports the idea that consciousness does not originate in the material world or the brain... You say:

I have to ask why you think the scientific method constitutes a closed mind? 

Yep, you only have to look at someone with something like dementia, who was once perfectly lucid, to see that mind and brain are one. Take various psychoactive drugs and one can clearly see that the mind emerges from  biochemical processes when we interfere with those processes with those chemicals. No mental gymnastics are necessary, which is necessary when mind and brain are seen as distinct. I think it boils down to people not  wanting to die and a separate metaphysical mind permits the comforting possibility  of continuity after physical death.

Edited January 26, 2018 by StringJunky

[DrmDoc]

2 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Ok.  So can I ask why you assume that consciousness arises from matter (i.e. the brain)? 

 

Here is some evidence that it might not.

(note: It's the same case study, but I posted numerous sources so as to verify it.)

https://www.sciencealert.com/a-man-who-lives-without-90-of-his-brain-is-challenging-our-understanding-of-consciousness

http://www.businessinsider.com/missing-90-percent-of-brain-neuroscience-2016-7

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/07/13/man-living-without-90-percent-of-his-brain-challenges-scientists-most-basic-theories-of-consciousness/

 

According to Sheldrake, his data is legitimate and collected using verified methods.  He could be lying, of course. 

If I may join your discussion, I read the articles in your citations and they appear to at best involve quite of bit of hyperbole and, at worst, author's bias.  Hydrocephalus doesn't necessarily destroy brain tissue as the articles suggest, but rather compresses healthy brain tissue into thin layers.  Despite what those articles suggest, sufferers of congenital hydrocephaly are living with 100% of their brain with the distinction that this percentage has been compressed into a smaller portion of normal brain volume by an excess of cerebrospinal fluid.  Consciousness arising from brain function, which is the result of electrochemical processes in the brain rather than electromagnetic processes exclusively, is confirmed by every case of brain death since the dawn of humanity.  No evidence in cogent, universally accepted science to-date has shown consciousness persisting after brain death.  Further still, those electromagnetic processes believed to be the basis of consciousness cannot exist without the biological and metabolic processes in the brain that give rise to its electromagnetic activity. 

Edited January 26, 2018 by DrmDoc

[elias_marquez_zoho]

25 minutes ago, DrmDoc said:

If I may join your discussion, I read the articles in your citations and they appear to at best involve quite of bit of hyperbole and, at worst, author's bias.  Hydrocephalus doesn't necessarily destroy brain tissue as the articles suggest, but rather compresses healthy brain tissue into thin layers.  Despite what those articles suggest, sufferers of congenital hydrocephaly are living with 100% of their brain with the distinction that this percentage has been compressed into a smaller portion of normal brain volume by an excess of cerebrospinal fluid.  Consciousness arising from brain function, which is the result of electrochemical processes in the brain rather than electromagnetic processes exclusively, is confirmed by every case of brain death since the dawn of humanity.  No evidence in cogent, universally accepted science to-date has shown consciousness persisting after brain death.  Further still, those electromagnetic processes believed to be the basis of consciousness cannot exist without the biological and metabolic processes in the brain that give rise to its electromagnetic activity. 

 

I have to correct you. When you say "electrochemical processes" you are assuming thats a diferent field from electromagnetic physics.

It is not.

"Chemistry" doesnt really exist, chemistry is pure nomenclature. Chemistry is, in fact, physics. Chemical bonds are explained by Physics.

Electromagnetism is produced by the existence of charged particles, not "biology".

[Strange]

2 hours ago, elias_marquez_zoho said:

 

I have to correct you. When you say "electrochemical processes" you are assuming thats a diferent field from electromagnetic physics.

It is not.

"Chemistry" doesnt really exist, chemistry is pure nomenclature. Chemistry is, in fact, physics. Chemical bonds are explained by Physics.

Electromagnetism is produced by the existence of charged particles, not "biology".

That is a very silly argument.

[StringJunky]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

That is a very silly argument.

Yeah, everything is just fields, Man.

[DrmDoc]

2 hours ago, elias_marquez_zoho said:

 

I have to correct you. When you say "electrochemical processes" you are assuming thats a diferent field from electromagnetic physics.

It is not.

"Chemistry" doesnt really exist, chemistry is pure nomenclature. Chemistry is, in fact, physics. Chemical bonds are explained by Physics.

Electromagnetism is produced by the existence of charged particles, not "biology".

I agree with Strange, chemistry = physics is a specious argument given the position you appear to support.  The position you espouse would suggest that all matter is consciousness, which it is not given human equivalency as the only scientifically verifiable mean by which we are able to quantify the true nature of consciousness.  Human equivalency assures humanity that it is indeed conscious and our equivalency in brain structure assures us of the means by which we are able to determine that quality.

[Alex_Krycek]

11 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Yep, you only have to look at someone with something like dementia, who was once perfectly lucid, to see that mind and brain are one. Take various psychoactive drugs and one can clearly see that the mind emerges from  biochemical processes when we interfere with those processes with those chemicals. No mental gymnastics are necessary, which is necessary when mind and brain are seen as distinct. I think it boils down to people not  wanting to die and a separate metaphysical mind permits the comforting possibility  of continuity after physical death.

Not necessarily.  You're positing that the brain is the generator of consciousness, and once the generator is damaged, consciousness itself ceases.  This is sometimes true on the individual level: people with dementia lose cognitive ability, wither away, and die.  The same degeneration is seen with TBI or as a result of encephalopathy.  So yes, on the surface what you're saying seems to be correct, that the mind and brain are one. 

But there is another alternative, and that is the brain is not the generator of consciousness but the receptor of it; that consciousness is a supra-material phenomena that exists independently of the brain.  To analogize the situation the brain could be like a radio, and consciousness the radio wave or signal that the individual radio is tuning into.  If someone didn't understand how radios work, it would seem as if the radio signal is being generated by the radio, as the radio is generating the soundwaves, music, etc.  So when you damage the radio itself, the ability to produce sounds is impaired, and one might logically assume that it is the source of the signal, never realizing that the radio-waves are being generated another source, and the individual radio unit is merely picking them up. 

In this way so our brains might be the receptors of consciousness, not the generators of it.  Yes, we generally require a healthy physical brain to adequately process this signal and act in intelligent way, but there do seems to be exceptions, such as those people who lose large amounts of brain matter but still function normally. 

Another anomaly in my view are the incredibly complex behaviors exhibited by organisms that do not possess highly developed brains.  Take insects, for example, and in particular the behavior shown by hornets and bees in this video. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDSf3Kshq1M).  Yes, insects have a basic brain that acquires sensory information and controls their central nervous system, but the behavior displayed in this video is of such a high order of complexity that their rudimentary physical brain should not account for it in the traditional materialist paradigm.  The behavior of these two species in the video is strategic and intelligent, and to me indicates that some other factor is at play,  a factor that is supra-material. 

Quote

If I may join your discussion, I read the articles in your citations and they appear to at best involve quite of bit of hyperbole and, at worst, author's bias.  Hydrocephalus doesn't necessarily destroy brain tissue as the articles suggest, but rather compresses healthy brain tissue into thin layers.  Despite what those articles suggest, sufferers of congenital hydrocephaly are living with 100% of their brain with the distinction that this percentage has been compressed into a smaller portion of normal brain volume by an excess of cerebrospinal fluid.  Consciousness arising from brain function, which is the result of electrochemical processes in the brain rather than electromagnetic processes exclusively, is confirmed by every case of brain death since the dawn of humanity. 

Interesting.  Thank you for that information. 

Quote

No evidence in cogent, universally accepted science to-date has shown consciousness persisting after brain death.  Further still, those electromagnetic processes believed to be the basis of consciousness cannot exist without the biological and metabolic processes in the brain that give rise to its electromagnetic activity.

Yes, but science can only test if consciousness is incarnate in a physical organism, i.e. it can only look for the signs that it recognizes as consciousness in physical beings and postulate theories on what we are able to observe directly in the interrelation between that organism and conscious behavior.  Science does not as yet possess sufficient knowledge to understand what consciousness really is, nor does it wield instrumentation subtle enough to test if there is conscious activity occurring beyond the apparatus of the physical entity.  So while we can assume what consciousness is and where it originates, that's about all we can do.       

Quote

I have to ask why you think the scientific method constitutes a closed mind? 

I don't.  I think the scientific method is the best way to fully understand the material world.  Develop a hypothesis and figure out a way to test for it, what could be more simple and direct?  However, it's typical of human nature to not ask novel questions and to castigate those who do.  It's also human nature to remain in the comfort zone of collectively held views and not venture into unknown territory with the objective of discovering something new, and to attack those who do challenge the established paradigm.  Such bias is a contamination of scientific inquiry and the methods that support it. 

Edited January 27, 2018 by Alex_Krycek

[John Cuthber]

"Consciusness IS NOT MATTER"
Had anyone said it was?

If I make a house out of Lego bricks, then pull the bricks apart, where did "the house" go?

The idea of "house" an emergent property of the arrangement of bricks, rather than a thing in its own right or a property of the bricks.

Consciousness is a property of an arrangement of matter, rather than  a property of the brain's matter itself.