Psience Quest

(2023-06-18, 04:40 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah on the one hand belief in the afterlife seems to be doing fine, even in places where it dropped I think it seems to be coming back.

I do wonder how one would facilitate education here. I guess one could start with the logically impossibility of Materialism, then compare the research that was done on Survival with other field research and witness testimony?

If there is no a priori reason to reject, say, Reincarnation research then is the work done comparable to work done by those studying what we would consider "mundane" phenomena?

At least this is the path that led me to thinking more positively about the Survival cases, but admittedly I'm a bit of an odd duck because I am trying to separate the logical conclusion from my starting intuition there's an afterlife.

I think veridical NDE investigators generally follow abductive reasoning, and therefore their conclusions necessarily can only be to what comes up as the best explanation of several different theories, given the actual incomplete and sometimes conflicting data. Obviously there can not be absolute certainty of these conclusions.

However, some of the foremost NDE researchers have still come up with the albeit short-of-absolute-certainty conclusion that some form of consciousness continues after physical death, as evidenced by (1) some NDErs almost certainly having temporarily left their physical bodies and brains as some sort of mobile center of consciousness to travel to other locations in the world or in other realms, where they sometimes made observations of things that they had no way of knowing normally, and (2) these NDErs having consciously made these observations during a period when their physical brain was dysfunctional during serious trauma. Observations described in the accounts that could later be verified by the investigators.

From Wiki:

Quote:"Abductive reasoning (also called abduction, abductive inference, or retroduction is a form of logical inference that seeks the simplest and most likely conclusion from a set of observations. It was formulated and advanced by American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce beginning in the last third of the 19th century.

Abductive reasoning, unlike deductive reasoning, yields a plausible conclusion but does not definitively verify it. Abductive conclusions do not eliminate uncertainty or doubt, which is expressed in retreat terms such as "best available" or "most likely". One can understand abductive reasoning as inference to the best explanation, although not all usages of the terms abduction and inference to the best explanation are equivalent.
....properly used, abductive reasoning can be a useful source of priors in Bayesian statistics."

As witness Kenneth Ring. He has been one of the foremost NDE researchers and I think he showed a lot of wisdom in his concluding remarks in a paper on veridical NDE evidence in respect to attacks by one of the leading NDE skeptics, Keith Augustine (already linked by Brian, at https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/675...no1-70.pdf ):

Quote:"....I have tried to speak in their (the NDEr's)
voice so that they would be heard, not me. In this respect, the evidence
from NDEs is, I believe, highly suggestive that some form of
consciousness continues after death; the abundant NDE testimony I
have heard and read convinces me, as it does most others, of that.
Augustine of course is free to reject such testimony or to insist that it
does not (absolutely) prove anything. I can certainly agree with him on the latter
point, but I cannot disregard what NDErs have shared with me over
a period of more than twenty years, and I dare say that if Augustine
had had the opportunity I did during the time I was active in the field,
he might well find himself concurring with me. In any case, I
encourage him to look into the matter for himself by cultivating direct
contact with NDErs."

On the other hand, most skeptics reject abductive reasoning, insisting on, due to their biased absolute conviction of materialism, coming to a negative (definitely not paranormal) conclusion if there is even just the slightest possibility of a there being a "normal" materialistic explanation for the data in hand. Of course they refuse to use abductive reasoning in determining Bayesian priors. They therefore summarily reject one of the primary tools used by mankind in answering important questions where an actionable answer discerning the most likely solution is greatly necessary, despite incomplete and perhaps erroneous data. As most prominently necessitated and used in trials deciding issues of guilt or innocence in the field of criminal law.

Sciborg,

Please compare the following statements:

1. The underlying nature of reality is such that, when humans exist, they are conscious.
   
2. The underlying conscious nature of reality is such that, when humans exist, they are conscious.
   

I contend that the first statement is true. I understand you think the second statement is true. Fine, #2 may be true, but the problem is that your words imply that statement number 2 proves that statement number 1 is false. That is wrong. If statement number 2 is true, then, by simple logic, statement number 1 is also true.

Regarding the underlying nature of reality, it might or might not be conscious. I don't know. I argue that statement 1 is true, and am not specifically arguing that the underlying nature of the universe needs to be conscious or unconscious.

I tend to think the underlying nature of the universe in unconscious. For consciousness is very complex. Laws of a universe can come from nothing ( see The Problem with Nothing ) But laws of a universe that thus come into existence are more likely to be simple, as per Occam's Razor. So there is a prior improbability that the basic nature of the universe is not conscious.

Of course one could argue that a conscious universe better explains human consciousness, and that compensates for the prior odds against the added complexity of universal consciousness. Perhaps. I don't know. But I find a universe with an underlying consciousness to be less likely compared to a fundamentally unconscious universe. 

Again, this is my point:

• The activities of the mind require the brain. If the brain is destroyed, then, as far as we know, anything that would be left that had been part of the cause of my thoughts could not be expected to carry on the activities of the mind that occurred in this life. If the brain is missing, it is hard to see that anything that remained would continued to output any mental functioning that would continue to be the self. 
  

After 400 posts, I don't find anything here that substantially refutes that claim. Can you point to a post here that refutes this claim?

(2023-06-21, 11:58 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]Evidence of the claim that non-conscious matter cannot produce consciousness? That's just basic logic ->

If the brain is made from non-conscious constituents it cannot produce consciousness because you cannot get Something (Mind) from Nothing (Non-conscious Matter).

I have explained many times to you that I think the mind is a set of actions done by one or more entities, yes? Just like a conversation, a stampede, a war, and an avalanche are a set of actions by one or more entities, so the mind is a set of actions by one or more entities. After all that discussion, does it ring a bell that I keep mentioning that to you?

So, if the mind is a set of actions, then yes you could get a set of actions from matter. You can argue that the brain is not adequate for this task, but you cannot say it is "making something from nothing" when matter acts. That is a bogus argument.

Quote:Frankly I can't think of a single argument you've refuted so I still think if the brain is made from non-conscious constituents it cannot:

-Have Thoughts About Anything
-Use Reason
-Store Memories [that require any of the other aspects in this list]
-Have Subjective Experiences

Why cannot a brain made of non-conscious constituents use reason? Even simple creatures like ants have brains that use crude reasoning in their brains. Why cannot this be done without conscious constituents?

And simple creatures like bees can store memories. Why cannot this be done without conscious constituents?

When it comes to subjective experiences, yes, that is controversial. Nobody knows where that comes from.

But I personally don't see the need for the underlying nature of the universe to be conscious in order for insects to use crude reasoning and store memories. If you think so, fine. 

None of this addresses my point about survival after death.

Again, as I said in my first post here, I readily acknowledge that something else other than just neurons may be involved. And that something else might be a fundamental consciousness behind reality. 

Quote:In your footnotes here, I see two mentions of Consciousness Explained. 

Of course. I was describing two experiments, so I provided two footnotes to my source. That allowed people to trace back through the footnotes to read about the original experiments. That is not an appeal to authority. It is giving a source.

Quote:So all that stuff about how the neurons are vying for attention and the brain making a model of the self to deal with said vying were just some ad hoc ideas you came up with? If I open up Consciousness Explained I won't find Dennett proposing something similar for how consciousness can be produced by non-conscious matter?

Again, I don't think it's a problem that you are borrowing ideas from Dennett or anyone else. But it's silly to make an arbitrary distinction between a summary of someone else's ideas and a direct quote/reference.

I learned a lot from Dennett, yes. But I never make the point that one should believe these things because Dennett believes them. However, your references to the work by Sam Harris appear to have no other point then to take Harris as an authority. For in that post, he basically just discusses his awe at the fact that consciousness exists. Reading that link doesn't lead me to information about any experiments or any significant argument other than Harris's awe at the thought of consciousness.

Quote:I thought Harris' argument was quite convincing, as why would we expect Something (Mind) to come from Nothing (Non-conscious Matter). Isn't that why it's so obvious a nail doesn't have consciousness that to believe such a thing makes a person "as dumb as a nail"?

So when he says that non-conscious information processing (IP) can produce consciousness is like "round squares" or "2 + 2 =7" he doesn't mean that it's a logically impossible proposition?

He simply does not say that. He says,

Quote:Likewise, the idea that consciousness is identical to (or emerged from) unconscious physical events is, I would argue, impossible to properly conceive—which is to say that we can think we are thinking it, but we are mistaken. We can say the right words, of course—“consciousness emerges from unconscious information processing.” We can also say “Some squares are as round as circles” and “2 plus 2 equals 7.” But are we really thinking these things all the way through? I don’t think so. [source, emphasis added]

So he is saying it is impossible to conceive of what it even means for unconscious things to make consciousness. He is not saying it is impossible to happen. Further down he says,  "Consciousness may very well be the lawful product of unconscious information processing." So how can you use that post as proof that consciousness cannot come from unconscious information processing? Harris actually says the opposite.

Quote:It could even be the case that the physicists like Max Planck who say Matter is generated by Consciousness are correct.

So very unclear what you mean by "I trust science" here.

When I say I trust science, I mean I trust the process of science. I do not mean I trust every thing every scientist ever said.

Again, Planck's statements on the underlying consciousness of the universe appears to be based on his religious belief. I have never seen any scientific evidence he gave for the claim.

The fact that he was a great scientist and made this statement does not prove it is true.

Quote:Already pointed out a few times "non-physical" is just used in contrast to the claim that the "physical" has no consciousness in its fundamental constituents. If, as logic dictates, the "physical" defined in this way cannot account for consciousness we know exists then it follows from *that* definition that consciousness is "non-physical".

Again, you quote this out of context. Your original gave several different meanings that people use for "non-physical". You pick the one you don't like, and make this out to be the only definition for this word. It's not. There is a reason people struggle with the meaning of this word. The struggle even has a name--Hempel's dilemma. See https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-i...9#pid52649 .

Quote:Claiming the idea of consciousness being a fundamental constituent of reality as "non-natural" is just begging the question.

If there is a fundamental consciousness to reality, that would be natural.

But if there is a soul unique to a person that animates a person, that is supernatural. 

You yourself seem to dismiss the idea of souls. Without souls, can this fundamental-consciousness continue my identity as a conscious self after my brain is gone?

Quote:But I've already noted this doesn't mean there are souls a few times over? How many more times can this be said?

As long as there are people saying that we have souls that continue our existence as an identifiable self after death, we should tell them that an underlying universal consciousness doesn't necessarily mean we have eternal souls. Consciousness doesn't necessarily mean we survive death.

Quote:I've already said, at least twice by my recall, that I think it's reasonable for a person to look at brain illness as a reason to disbelieve in an afterlife?

Have you ever given a good reason why it is that, when a person experiences brain damage in a particular area, he can lose much of his ability to store new memories? Saying "filter theory" without explaining how it solves the problem is not an answer. 

Things like retrograde amnesia after brain injury are expected if the brain is fundamental to our mental life. How do you explain it?

(2023-06-23, 11:18 AM)Merle Wrote: [ -> ]The underlying nature of reality is such that, when humans exist, they are conscious.

This is clearly true, but explains nothing concerning how consciousness is produced in the first place.

(2023-06-19, 05:01 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]A different "take" on this - a look at just a little of the actual data relevant to these issues.

From: Rivas, Titus. The Self Does Not Die: Verified Paranormal Phenomena from Near-Death Experiences. International Association for Near-Death Studies. Kindle Edition.

The following are a few cases selected randomly from this compilation of more than 100 generically similar cases in various categories. This book contains over 100 reliable, often firsthand accounts of uncanny perceptions during NDEs that were later verified as accurate by independent sources. These near-death experiencers were everyday people from all over the world — many of whom were clinically dead, unable to see or hear.


Discussion:

These are among more than 100 other cases of verified paranormal knowing and other veridical paranormal phenomena described in accounts by NDE experiencers and investigated by Titus Rivas and colleagues.

Of course materialist skeptics will always question the validity of such reports, since they conflict with their deep almost religious belief in materialism. They can always find some flaw or other, no matter how unlikely, where there just might be some "normal" explanation.

But how likely is it that every single one of the more than 100 verified veridical NDEs compiled and documented in this book, and of the host of others that must exist but were not found, has a conventional "normal" explanation? This "normal" explanation has a wide range of choices, ranging from fraud, coincidence, some sort of medical errors in reporting, to anesthesia awareness, hallucination, it goes on, with generally minimal plausibility.

If even only just one out of all these cases is valid, then it is known that it is a fact that sometimes an NDEer will lose consciousness with brain dysfunctional after incurring deep trauma, and somehow still experience leaving their physical body and going elsewhere, to observe various things that they could not have normally known and that still were later verified by investigators. These observations can sometimes be of the physical body being worked on by the resuscitation team, seen from the perspective of the ceiling of the ER or operating room.

By strong implication of this, during a period during which their brain was dysfunctional due to severe trauma, a victim's consciousness still exists and is sometimes capable of separating from the brain and body as some sort of mobile center of consciousness and traveling to some other location in the physical world or other realms, veridical details of which are later recounted to investigators and found to be correct.

This clearly is impossible if the conscious mind is a function of or in some other sense really one with the physical brain neurons.

Therefore the conclusion from a lot of experiential data in evidence: the mind is not a function of the physical brain neurons and theories of mind that assume this are invalid.

To believe that every single one of all the experiences documented in "The Self Does Not Die" is invalid, really somehow being a fraud or misperception or coincidence or anesthetic awareness or hallucination or whatever, reveals a strong and unquestioning religious faith in materialism.

I find it interesting that there has still been no response from Merle to my citing the 3 cases in this post and the 3 in closely following post #348, of a total of just six out of the more than 100 investigated and verified veridical NDEs in the Rivas, Dirven and Smit compilation volume The Self Does Not Die published by IANDS. And no response yet to my little exposition on the successful use of abductive reasoning by veridical NDE investigators, in post #407. Not interested in examining the actual data?

(2023-06-23, 02:17 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]I find it interesting that there has still been no response from Merle to my citing the 3 cases in this post and the 3 in closely following post #348, of a total of just six out of the more than 100 investigated and verified veridical NDEs in the Rivas, Dirven and Smit compilation volume The Self Does Not Die published by IANDS. And no response yet to my little exposition on the successful use of abductive reasoning by veridical NDE investigators, in post #407. Not interested in examining the actual data?

There is a problem with believing books.  The author has a vested interest as well as his/her own biases.  I don't think we can use this as evidence as it is too anecdotal.

(2023-06-23, 02:17 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]I find it interesting that there has still been no response from Merle to my citing the 3 cases in this post and the 3 in closely following post #348, of a total of just six out of the more than 100 investigated and verified veridical NDEs in the Rivas, Dirven and Smit compilation volume The Self Does Not Die published by IANDS. And no response yet to my little exposition on the successful use of abductive reasoning by veridical NDE investigators, in post #407. Not interested in examining the actual data?

Its not intentional that I have not yet responded. There is a lot of things on this thread that I wish I had time to respond to. There is no way I can respond to everything addressed to me.

Regarding the NDE stories, yes, I have read them. I can't verify any of the details, but for every story, I can think of many ways to explain it short of the person somehow traveling out of the body and sensing things.

If souls can travel out of the body, why don't we see them? Seeing occurs when photons strike an object. In the case of humans, the photons strike our retina. That blocks the light from traveling further. In other words, anything that sees has to be opaque and block the light from traveling through it. And if that is happening, why can we not sense these opaque soul eyes?

If souls really survive death and can communicate with the living, you guys could make a fortune. Just agree that the first one of you to pass away will go to a certain gambling table and tell the rest of you what is in the dealer's hand. And if you think that is unethical, we could use you guys to spy out terrorist activity or to verify other countries are keeping their nuclear arms agreement. Even if you just set up a stunt, in which all of you could accurately report what is going on in some hidden room based on the input from the soul of the first one to go, that would be impressive.

Instead of real evidence from people that have actually died, we get stories that could have many other interpretations. Sorry, but if souls really survived and could communicate with us,  one would expect evidence that is much more clear than a few antecdotes.

(2023-06-23, 04:02 PM)Brian Wrote: [ -> ]There is a problem with believing books.  The author has a vested interest as well as his/her own biases.  I don't think we can use this as evidence as it is too anecdotal.

That pretty much rules out all science textbooks too. And all scriptures... Where does it all end?

(2023-06-23, 12:50 PM)Brian Wrote: [ -> ]This is clearly true, but explains nothing concerning how consciousness is produced in the first place.

Can you point to a post in this thread that does explain how consciousness is produced in the first place, other than appealing to something that looks like magic?

None of us can explain consciousness, and none of us can jump over the moon either. There are some things we cannot do. Your point is?

For reasons I explained in the post you quoted, I think it is more probable that:

• The underlying unconscious nature of reality is such that, when humans exist, they are conscious.
  

compared with

• The underlying conscious nature of reality is such that, when humans exist, they are conscious.
  

Which do you think is more probable? Or do you have a third option (besides postulating that magical souls commandeer bodies)?

(2023-06-23, 11:18 AM)Merle Wrote: [ -> ]I tend to think the underlying nature of the universe i(s) unconscious.......
Again, this is my point:

• The activities of the mind require the brain. 
  

After 400 posts, I don't find anything here that substantially refutes that claim. Can you point to a post here that refutes this claim?

I must agree that there is a route for unconscious mental responses to evolve into being self-aware states in a living agent.  Subconscious processes are the bedrock of mental organization that coordinates physicality.  That a signal can make a frog leg jump, shouldn't obscure what kind of skillful jumping done by a frog with a working mind.  Instinct is complex and is the subject of renewed interest in bio-informatic research.

First rebuttal point is: to pragmatically frame the picture.  Do not the activities of the brain require mind, equally? The information processing by means of signals has never been modeled.  The other side is quantum mind, which explains many more outcomes, in a duel of razors.

Second, You cite complexity, an information science field of study.  Sci has cited a seasoned professional published with a younger professor saying they have math to support the operation of brain/mind has a quantum level of actions.  I surely think this direct refutation to your assertion that's all signals within a brain.  From the paper:

Quote: a particular interpretation of quantum mechanics was offered by Werner
Heisenberg. The quantum states are potentia hovering ghost-like between an idea and a
reality (Heisenberg, 1958). We here adopt Heisenberg’s view. Reality consists in
ontologically real Possibles, Res potentia, and ontologically real Actuals, Res extensa, linked
by measurement. This interpretation explains at least five mysteries of quantum mechanics,
including nonlocality, which way information, null measurement, and “no facts of the matter
between measurements” (Kauffman, 2016; Kastner et al., 2018) so may rightly be considered
seriously. It is of fundamental importance that Heisenberg’s interpretation of quantum
mechanics is not a substance dualism so does not inherit the mind body problem arising
due to a substance dualism (Kauffman, 2016; Kastner et al., 2018, Radin and Kauffman,
2021). Thus, the hypothesis that brain mind is partly quantum allows a new prediction: it
suggests a natural role for mind (Radin & Kauffman, 2021). Mind collapses the wave
function, as von Neumann, Wigner and Shimony, hoped (von Neumann, 1955; Wigner &
Margenau, 1967; Shimony, 1997, Chalmers, 1996, Svetlichny, 2011).
Remarkably, this testable hypothesis stands quite well confirmed. 

(2023-06-23, 11:18 AM)Merle Wrote: [ -> ]Again, this is my point:

• The activities of the mind require the brain.
  

After 400 posts, I don't find anything here that substantially refutes that claim. Can you point to a post here that refutes this claim?

It is not for us to refute.  It is you who are making the claim, now prove it, and when you try, remember that correlation does not equal causation and information processing is not consciousness.  While you are at it, maybe you can explain how consciousness can emanate from physical matter.