A new Guardian article on near-death experiences

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

This is a poor argument. Where do you think the fundamental laws derive from? There’s zero/zip evidence that new properties can’t emerge at scales. There may already be empirical evidence this is happening due to the failure of quantum chemistry to predict molecular structure.

I understand you are trapped in your reductionist beliefs.

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.

I understand (I think) the alternative hypothesis you will like to test for. I guess the problem with not using hidden targets is that it no longer will be a double blinded study. Still at a minimum understand they could add additional visible targets to the hidden targets so there are two sets of targets. Unfortunately the entire setup is not very easy to study in a scientifical setting due to the tragice circumstances underpinning every single ‘event’. I think this is the main problem they have.

This is a poor argument. Where do you think the fundamental laws derive from? There’s zero/zip evidence that new properties can’t emerge at scales. There may already be empirical evidence this is happening due to the failure of quantum chemistry to predict molecular structure.

I understand you are trapped in your reductionist beliefs.

QM and Spacetime both seem to emerge from something far more primitive, and far simpler.

The Kinematical structure of that thing, when it is placed into the everyday world outside your window, looks biological.

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 evidence.

sbu,

I am enjoying your straightforward comments.  The case for emergence and its limits is not well understood.  If you are serious about exploring the subject, I recommend the title Devil in the Details, Robert Batterman. https://www.amazon.com/s?k=robert+batterman  It is a very technical and insightful presentation.

I am in the "no doubt camp" regarding evidence for mental causation and its connection to a formal model.  That model prescribes that there is structure behind observed patterns of actions.  Mind is an abstraction referring to the information processing of living things.  Many think of mind in a reified context, while being just a category of events. 

The organization of this real-world capability is developed through use.  Once developed it is a virtual machine.  Avoiding any spiritual aspects, this "machine's" output is measurable as outcomes from information processing within a separate environment from physics.  This machine's activity maybe "soul".  Minds process information and generate outcomes of behavior, intelligence, focus, understanding and self-awareness.  These scalable results are the scientific stuff of Psychology and Social Science.

So, at the biological level the "virtual machinery" are efferent neurological signals, at the mental level its the observable behavioral output and at a third level the activity maybe seen as spiritual and soulful.  So while it is part of our experiential environment, soul is not measurable in physical terms, but can be seen to be a virtual machine regarding ethics and religion.

For me and my specific point of view, some of the above debate is apples and oranges.  Molecular structure is Material Science and QM is Physics.  Bridge laws need to be ascertained before conclusions are reached about emergence.

  The emergent structures (the rainbow itself is one of them) are not fully explainable either in terms of the finer wave theory or in terms of the ray theory alone. Instead, aspects of both theories (through asymptotic investigation of the wave equations) are required for a full understanding of these emergent phenomena.

 https://plato.stanford.edu/archIves/sum2...terrelate/

QM and Spacetime both seem to emerge from something far more primitive, and far simpler.

The Kinematical structure of that thing, when it is placed into the everyday world outside your window, looks biological.

You still end up with something from nothing following this reasoning.

wait Sciborg just claimed that’s impossible 

You still end up with something from nothing following this reasoning.

wait Sciborg just claimed that’s impossible 

The point I was making concerned your chemistry claims. I was suggesting that failure to predict poorly isolated macro molecular structures using quantum chemistry, may also be related to QM and Spacetime themselves, both appearing to emerge from a more primitive structure.

This is a poor argument. Where do you think the fundamental laws derive from? There’s zero/zip evidence that new properties can’t emerge at scales. There may already be empirical evidence this is happening due to the failure of quantum chemistry to predict molecular structure.

I understand you are trapped in your reductionist beliefs.

Fundamental laws? Where are these, and how do they interact with the material stuff they govern?

As for new properties, whatever is in the effect should be present in the cause and it's quite difficult to define what "proto-conscious" characteristics would be.

The argument that we lack evidence that emergence is impossible is deeply flawed logically, we need evidence of Strong Emergence and that is nowhere to be found.

The argument that we lack evidence that emergence is impossible is deeply flawed logically, we need evidence of Strong Emergence and that is nowhere to be found.

Wrong. And I'm in good company with this assessment, with proponents including David Chalmers and Thomas Nagel, among others.

The point I was making concerned your chemistry claims. I was suggesting that failure to predict poorly isolated macro molecular structures using quantum chemistry, may also be related to QM and Spacetime themselves, both appearing to emerge from a more primitive structure.

Yes it's possible a new more complete theory will solve the issues with reductionism. Like strong emergence and substance dualism it requires new knowledge in the physical domain to be confirmed.

sbu,

I am enjoying your straightforward comments.  The case for emergence and its limits is not well understood.  If you are serious about exploring the subject, I recommend the title Devil in the Details, Robert Batterman. https://www.amazon.com/s?k=robert+batterman  It is a very technical and insightful presentation.

I am in the "no doubt camp" regarding evidence for mental causation and its connection to a formal model.  That model prescribes that there is structure behind observed patterns of actions.  Mind is an abstraction referring to the information processing of living things.  Many think of mind in a reified context, while being just a category of events. 

The organization of this real-world capability is developed through use.  Once developed it is a virtual machine.  Avoiding any spiritual aspects, this "machine's" output is measurable as outcomes from information processing within a separate environment from physics.  This machine's activity maybe "soul".  Minds process information and generate outcomes of behavior, intelligence, focus, understanding and self-awareness.  These scalable results are the scientific stuff of Psychology and Social Science.

So, at the biological level the "virtual machinery" are efferent neurological signals, at the mental level its the observable behavioral output and at a third level the activity maybe seen as spiritual and soulful.  So while it is part of our experiential environment, soul is not measurable in physical terms, but can be seen to be a virtual machine regarding ethics and religion.

For me and my specific point of view, some of the above debate is apples and oranges.  Molecular structure is Material Science and QM is Physics.  Bridge laws need to be ascertained before conclusions are reached about emergence.

 https://plato.stanford.edu/archIves/sum2...terrelate/

Thank you for your kind words, StephenW. I suspect others might be growing weary of responding to my comments, so I'm considering taking a lengthy break.

Regarding your concept of a 'virtual machine,' would you say it resembles a form of dualism? How do you view the influence of bodily needs on behavioral outputs, such as binge eating, within your model?