A new Guardian article on near-death experiences

so nbtruthman, when you can prove how molecular structures can be reduced to quantum mechanics you can claim you have refuted emergence! Until then emergence is a credible explanation for consciousness.

see https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-t...-chemistry

Whether or not molecular structures (such as those of the H2O molecules I brought up) can be reduced to quantum mechanical phenomena, none of these phenomena, quantum mechanical or chemical/structural/energetical, contain or embody the fundamentally, existentially different qualities of consciousness such as qualia, subjective awareness, thought, etc. I think the following recent post to you by David001 explains this very well: https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-t...6#pid56886 .

Therefore it requires some sort of magic to transform by some sort of strong "emergence" these chemical and quantum mechanical phenomena into consciousness. And we certainly don't want to invoke magic in these sort of things - after all, magic isn't even supposed to exist, and at the very least also this would violate the Occam's Razor principle of parsimony in a big way. But the transformation of water molecules in a vapor to liquid water having vastly different physical properties at certain temperatures and pressures can certainly be explained by quantum mechanical and/or chemical/structural/energetical principles and laws. Weak emergence I suppose.

The key point is that the water vapor molecules and the liquid water are still in the same existential realm of the physical and quantum mechanical, making this not in any way a radical strong emergent transformation of a thing in one existential realm into another thing in an entirely different existential realm.

Whether or not molecular structures (such as those of the H2O molecules I brought up) can be reduced to quantum mechanical phenomena, none of these phenomena, quantum mechanical or chemical/structural/energetical, contain or embody the fundamentally, existentially different qualities of consciousness such as qualia, subjective awareness, thought, etc.

False. It's just an unproven assumption that qualia can't be emergent as well. Your H2O example is only an example of socalled "weak" emergence (the property of wetness), not strong emergence that I'm debatting here.

I think the following recent post to you by David001 explains this very well: https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-t...6#pid56886 .

False. David talks about ad-hoc solutions to Schrødingers equation in chemistry.

Therefore it requires some sort of magic to transform by some sort of strong "emergence" these chemical and quantum mechanical phenomena into consciousness.

False - The whole point in strong emergence is that new properties may not be describable by the properties of it's constituents. Hence no need to use "chemical and quantum mechanical properties" in the description of the emerging properties.

And we certainly don't want to invoke magic in these sort of things - after all, magic isn't even supposed to exist, and at the very least also this would violate the Occam's Razor principle of parsimony in a big way.

And the utilization of a 'fictional' spiritual realm does not violate Occam's Razor principle?

But the transformation of water molecules in a vapor to liquid water having vastly different physical properties at certain temperatures and pressures can certainly be explained by quantum mechanical and/or chemical/structural/energetical principles and laws. Weak emergence I suppose.

Agree. this example is weak emergence. The concept of weak emergent properties is utilized across various scientific disciplines beyond physics

The key point is that the water vapor molecules and the liquid water are still in the same existential realm of the physical and quantum mechanical, making this not in any way a radical strong emergent transformation of a thing in one existential realm into another thing in an entirely different existential realm.

I don't know why you have vapor in this discussion at all.

False. It's just an unproven assumption that qualia can't be emergent as well. Your H2O example is only an example of socalled "weak" emergence (the property of wetness), not strong emergence that I'm debatting here.


False. David talks about ad-hoc solutions to Schrødingers equation in chemistry.


False - The whole point in strong emergence is that new properties may not be describable by the properties of it's constituents. Hence no need to use "chemical and quantum mechanical properties" in the description of the emerging properties.


And the utilization of a 'fictional' spiritual realm does not violate Occam's Razor principle?


Agree. this example is weak emergence. The concept of weak emergent properties is utilized across various scientific disciplines beyond physics


I don't know why you have vapor in this discussion at all.

I don't think all this material about apparent "strong emergence" in chemistry and quantum mechanics is terribly relevant.

The bottom line: is there any actual evidence that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain?

Many claim it. None can provide evidence for it, they can only say that it is suggested. But it is not enough to cite belief in "strong emergence". If you think that there are examples of "strong emergence" of entirely new properties of matter not predictable from general laws applying to the constituents, and these examples are where the two sets of properties are in entirely different existential realms, then please identify these examples.

Remember, in order to explain consciousness as an emergent property of neuronal organizations in the brain, "strong emergence" in this case has to somehow apply where the opposing properties are in entirely, fundamentally different existential realms, consciousness and materiality.

It's not enough to cite authority figures who are trying to prove it. It's not enough to cite your belief that matter is required for anything to exist. It's not enough to plead lack of definition of consciousness. We all know what is meant by it. We all know it is the prime datum of our existence. We all know the only thing we can truly know is that we are conscious - "I think therefore I am". Yet, science is mute on consciousness. It is still, after many very years of research and speculation, a TOTAL mystery.

There is no evidence that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain.

The so-called evidence usually cited is just correlational, in a sense that we know that consciousness is associated with the presence of a functioning brain. This, however, does not prove that the brain with its neurons and neuronal structures is causal of consciousness.

It then boils down to the debate over the Hard Problem of consciousness, that there is no way to explain how brain activity can create consciousness, because qualia and the other aspects or properties of consciousness and subjective awareness are in an entirely existentially different realm of existence than material reality.  No one has the slightest idea how emergence would work in the case of consciousness. Experience, emotion and thought are not things and no one can show how they could possibly arise from matter. There is not even a clue to how we should prove or even investigate this.

It's interesting that there actually may be evidence for Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff's quantum mind theory called Orch OR, but the problem here is that Orch OR is not an emergent brain model of consciousness. It's "receiver" model of consciousness. In this model, the brain "receives" consciousness. However, consciousness itself remains a mystery. So, the question, "what is consciousness?" remains, and emergentism is useless as an explanation.

And all of this is still trumped by the stubborn existence of a virtual mountain of evidence for paranormal phenomena that clearly indicate the independence of the mind from the brain, all of which would have to be plausibly debunked in order to invalidate the conclusion it points to.

There is no evidence that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain.

The so-called evidence usually cited is just correlational, in a sense that we know that consciousness is associated with the presence of a functioning brain. This, however, does not prove that the brain with its neurons and neuronal structures is causal of consciousness.

The rest of your post made some excellent points. I just wanted to mention something with regard to correlation. What runs counter to that idea of correlation is that as brain activity subsides, consciousness and awareness increases. From a certain perspective this is one aspect of NDE research. (From my own personal perspective it isn't the most interesting part, but is still necessary and useful research).

I'm not aiming for a complete coverage of the topic but  there are measurable reasons, not only with regard to NDEs, there are other instances, to conclude that reduced brain activity can be associated with heightened states of consciousness. That places ideas of correlation in this context on very shaky ground.

There is no evidence that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain.

The so-called evidence usually cited is just correlational, in a sense that we know that consciousness is associated with the presence of a functioning brain. This, however, does not prove that the brain with its neurons and neuronal structures is causal of consciousness.

And here comes the big surprise. Substance dualism also requires new natural laws for which there is no evidence. A former debatter recognizes this and writes in a recent blog post:

So since substance dualists usually believe in the existence of mental causes in addition to physical ones, they are committed to denying that our current laws can be completely accurate.

https://ian-wardell.blogspot.com/

So what I have shown here is that there are 2 competing philosophical stances on consciousness both without any direct empirical evidence. But the indirect evidence for strong emergence is overwhelmingly much stronger than the anecdotes from the "gospel of NDES" you keep getting back to as it reflects every day life observations much better.

And all of this is still trumped by the stubborn existence of a virtual mountain of evidence for paranormal phenomena that clearly indicate the independence of the mind from the brain

But we cannot use this evidence scientifically because it is so flimsy and debatable.  You might not think so because you fill your boots with one-sided "evidence" and hand wave away any evidence or arguments to the contrary.  When your evidence produces undebatable facts, then we can push forward in this direction, but not until.

But we cannot use this evidence scientifically because it is so flimsy and debatable.  You might not think so because you fill your boots with one-sided "evidence" and hand wave away any evidence or arguments to the contrary.  When your evidence produces undebatable facts, then we can push forward in this direction, but not until.

I totally agree. Please believe me, I really hope for the immortal soul for myself and everybody else. The threshold of evidence for convincing me is just not quite there yet. Now if only those AWARE studies had produced a "veridical perception" hit everything would be much easier. But Parnia have now tried for more than 20 years to obtain such empirical evidece....

So what I have shown here is that there are 2 competing philosophical stances on consciousness both without any direct empirical evidence. But the indirect evidence for strong emergence is overwhelmingly much stronger than the anecdotes from the "gospel of NDES" you keep getting back to as it reflects every day life observations much better.

If Strong Emergence means Something (Consciousness) from Nothing (Matter the materialist faith tells us lacks Consciousness)...

Well that should obviously be logically impossible.

My guess is you've become confused by "evidence" that can be interpreted in more logical ways. [Which doesn't by default mean Dualism or Survival of any kind is true, just that Strong Emergence - if defined as I did above - is something we can comfortably dismiss.]

Also:

And here comes the big surprise. Substance dualism also requires new natural laws for which there is no evidence. A former debatter recognizes this and writes in a recent blog post:

Laws? No such thing, unless we're talking about a Mind establishing Order...

The rest of your post made some excellent points. I just wanted to mention something with regard to correlation. What runs counter to that idea of correlation is that as brain activity subsides, consciousness and awareness increases. From a certain perspective this is one aspect of NDE research. (From my own personal perspective it isn't the most interesting part, but is still necessary and useful research).

I'm not aiming for a complete coverage of the topic but  there are measurable reasons, not only with regard to NDEs, there are other instances, to conclude that reduced brain activity can be associated with heightened states of consciousness. That places ideas of correlation in this context on very shaky ground.

Good points. I feel like the neuroscientist Erik Hoel covered the shaky ground as well ->

Neuroscience is pre-paradigmatic. Consciousness is why

Also the old chestnuts by Raymond Tallis who is a philosopher and retired neuroscientist:

What Neuroscience Cannot Tell Us About Ourselves

A Smile at Waterloo Station

So how did people ever imagine that a ‘cerebral deposit’ (to use Henri Bergson’s sardonic phrase) could be about that which caused its altered state? Isn’t it because they smuggled consciousness into their idea of the relationship between the altered synapse and that which caused the alteration, so that they could then imagine that the one could be ‘about’ the other? Once you allow that, then the present state of anything can be a sign of the past events that brought about its present state, and the past can be present. For example, a broken cup can signify to me (a conscious being when I last checked) the unfortunate event that resulted in its unhappy state.

Of course, smuggling in consciousness like this is inadmissible, because the synapses are supposed to supply the consciousness that reaches back in time to the causes of the synapses’ present states. And there is another, more profound reason why the cerebral deposit does not deliver what some neurophysiologists want it to, which goes right to the heart of the nature of the material world and the physicist’s account of its reality – something that this article has been circling round. I am referring to the mystery of tensed time; the mystery of an explicit past, future and present.

And New Atheist "Horseman" w/ Neuroscience PhD Sam Harris:

The Mystery of Consciousness

The Mystery of Consciousness II

(See also his thoughts on CORTs, which I think is the acceptable minimum on evaluating the quality of evidence.)

Though of course an irreducible-to-matter consciousness may not survive bodily death- my understanding is all three of the above authors are skeptical of Survival. 

But to me what exactly this lack of Survival would mean in itself is puzzling, since the aspects of consciousness that can be considered immaterial would need to be accounted for in some way. 

Some Idealists would say the individual personality is illusory to begin with or collapses in the Ur-Mind, some Panpsychists would say our Mind breaks down into smaller minds.

But the evidence available suggests otherwise. We can judge this evidence as not being replicable in the lab, but the phenomena has been recorded across history, in medical facilities, with still living witnesses that seem as credible or more credible than those for mundane historical events we take seriously. 

Terminal Lucidity and Sudden Savants are also supportive of a Mind-as-Filter/Hypothesis, though they aren't strictly speaking evidence of Survival.

All to say Survival may well be false, but given the search to define "matter" leads to QM & Fine Tuning even the study of the "physical" suggests that minds potentially have some existence beyond it. The study of the physical also depends on Mathematics, where if one accepts that Math/Logic are Universals - noted atheist Bertrand Russell also included colors - one has to then ask their relationship to our minds which utilize them...which again suggests there is something immaterial about our minds...

To me the quality of a hypothesis lies in its logical consistency and how different supportive evidence  & argument ties together. So while Survival is not a replicable scientific fact it also seems quite reasonable to me. I do understand it won't be convincing to everyone but we should put Survival evidence in a proper context before judging its plausibility/probability.

I totally agree. Please believe me, I really hope for the immortal soul for myself and everybody else. The threshold of evidence for convincing me is just not quite there yet. Now if only those AWARE studies had produced a "veridical perception" hit everything would be much easier. But Parnia have now tried for more than 20 years to obtain such empirical evidece....

AWARE 1 & 2 used secret and hidden visual targets, like other OBE researchers who use visual targets - the targets are secret, and they hide them so, no one can see them.

The remainder of the OBE researchers don't even bother using visual targets.

Whether it’s because researchers don’t use visual targets, or because they hide them, this is the reason there are no hits.

There are no researchers even studying whether the NDE OBE contains veridical visual information.