New video - Neuroscientific Evidence: Irreducible Mind (Part 1)

I'm aware those things can 'easily' influence aspects of one's consciousness, but that of course doesn't mean correlation means causation. Sometimes it can, but in the case of consciousness I'm not convinced at all. I'd argue that immediately assuming consciousness is as simplistic as that, in reductionist sense, is absurd. But that's my take. Consciousness isn't as easy to overpower either in the case of terminal lucidity. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree since I know I'll never convince you Steve. I've been lurking here long enough to know that.

Also, I have seen that video before and the debates in the comments section (which included some who challenged aspects of the video, but I only skimmed them since YouTube comments are rarely very well-informed). I saw the video mentioned on Bernardo Kastrup's blog/forum site: https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2020/02/pbss-spacetime-role-of-consciousness-in.h
I found the comments he and the other bloggers make to be very interesting and enlightening. One user even mentions Dean Radin (I have mixed thoughts on him). 

I wonder if anyone here is familiar with Bernardo's site and forum? I think I see Sci there  

Did you watch the video?  
And yet you're convinced the NDE correlation to consciousness definitively proves otherwise. Would you care to explain why in your mind that is so? Have you ever considered how each and every individuals mind remains separate from the 7 plus billion other peoplel living on this planet? Can you explain how this supposed universal consciousness works? I see a lot of talk as if it is a fact. What I never see is an explanation of how it actually works. That it does work is taken for granted. Be critical of yourself so that when you think about what you think about you don't always arrive back where you started.

That PBS series has been good... I particularly like this episode... https://youtu.be/GWFJteC7kIk they’ve done a really good job with it! From Matrix Mechanics to the S-Matrix, scattering experiments, the unsatisfactory nature of virtual particles, the amplitudehedron etc...

Really brings us right up to date to the cutting edge... can we find a better description of what is going on in the hidden inaccessible area of physics when particles come together in scattering experiments.

I’ll bet my lunch that the solutions they begin to find, eventually begin to show mathematical and geometrical similarities with basic biological structures like protein folding, proteins, repeating structures like dendrites, cilia, centrioles built out of these proteins...

I enjoy those videos, but I must admit they are well above my pay grade. When you look at how nature functions be it via physics, chemistry or  biology at the bottom it's all physics. About the video itself it is interesting that some of the "Fathers of QM" changed their minds on the role of consciousness has in QM, which is something I suspect is little known.

Did you watch the video?  
And yet you're convinced the NDE correlation to consciousness definitively proves otherwise. Would you care to explain why in your mind that is so? Have you ever considered how each and every individuals mind remains separate from the 7 plus billion other peoplel living on this planet? Can you explain how this supposed universal consciousness works? I see a lot of talk as if it is a fact. What I never see is an explanation of how it actually works. That it does work is taken for granted. Be critical of yourself so that when you think about what you think about you don't always arrive back where you started.

It's more than just NDEs for me but yes, I am convinced by the well-documented and heavily investigated anomalous cases, or most of them at least. I am convinced of the works by the UVA and others I respect, as well as my own experiences. I agree with the comments made by Bernardo and others on his site about that video, which I'm wondering if you've read. I also never said I definitely believe in a universal consciousness that unites all minds. Does a universal consciousness even have to unite all minds? Our senses of self and individuality, and the fact we have separate minds, doesn't negate that possibility. Maybe those who claim to know for certain, such as NDErs, could enlighten us, but I recognise that they're probably not an absolute authority on spiritual and fundamental matters, especially for someone like you. 

And frankly Steve, I'm very critical of myself. Too critical even. I've made that very clear in multiple posts. I do hope you apply skepticism and critical thinking to your own conclusions as well. As I said, I already know that I won't change your mind-after all, what I find convincing you might not, which is subjective. That's why we can agree to disagree

He's re-uploaded it correcting some flaws and adjusting his argument it seems. He admits he was  mistaken in some areas and has made an improved version. That's very impressive for a YouTuber: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOFGKhvWQ4M .

Thanks  for the update. I've edited the opening post of this thread. Despite the partial revision and editing of the YouTube video the conclusion remains the same and is still convincing: that the mind is not the brain, as indicated by much neuroscientific evidence.

It's more than just NDEs for me but yes, I am convinced by the well-documented and heavily investigated anomalous cases, or most of them at least. I am convinced of the works by the UVA and others I respect, as well as my own experiences. I agree with the comments made by Bernardo and others on his site about that video, which I'm wondering if you've read. I also never said I definitely believe in a universal consciousness that unites all minds. Does a universal consciousness even have to unite all minds? Our senses of self and individuality, and the fact we have separate minds, doesn't negate that possibility. Maybe those who claim to know for certain, such as NDErs, could enlighten us, but I recognise that they're probably not an absolute authority on spiritual and fundamental matters, especially for someone like you. 

And frankly Steve, I'm very critical of myself. Too critical even. I've made that very clear in multiple posts. I do hope you apply skepticism and critical thinking to your own conclusions as well. As I said, I already know that I won't change your mind-after all, what I find convincing you might not, which is subjective. That's why we can agree to disagree

Well the relationship between QM and Consciousness isn't necessarily universal consciousness.

I mention a couple possibilities brought up by physicists here, though Kastrup's co-authored paper advocating Idealism is at the top discussing whether decoherence can explain away consciousness as part of physics.

This is quite interesting and appears to be from this paper.  A few comments:

Recalls something written, interestingly enough, by Sam Harris' wife Annaka Harris:

Think of consciousness like spacetime—a fundamental field that’s everywhere.

My own sense of the correct resolution to the mystery of consciousness, whether or not we can ever achieve a true understanding, is split between a brain-based explanation and a panpsychic one. So while I’m not convinced that panpsychism offers the correct answer, I am convinced that it is a valid category of possible solutions that cannot be easily dismissed.

Then from the paper you mention:

"We assume that the extra-dimensions “D” are associated with a mental-consciousness or that of the individual mind-consciousness is (partly) an expression of a universal mind-consciousness through holonomic communication with quantum fields. “Consciousness” is created by the electromagnetic force in the framework of SU(6) U(1), whereas “mind” is created by the framework of SU(2)  U(1). The human brain is conceived as an interfacing organ that not only produces mind and consciousness, but also receives information. The brain or parts of it are conceived as an “interference hologram” of incoming data and already existing ones (a “personal universe”), equivalent to the subject’s memory. If properly analyzed, information about the outer world can be distilled, with the analyzer being cerebral electrophysiology."

It's a bit odd though as they use the word "produces"...I suppose there is a consciousness that is partially born from the electrons that make up the brain and partially from the interfacing with the Universal Mind-Consciousness?

I have to admit I don't quite understand how this would work - I can see this as the limit of our understanding but I feel like there would have to a reconciliation of the disparate parts at a higher level?

Presumably we're not completely separate, otherwise we wouldn't be apparently having a shared experience of nature.

One of the reasons for this site, is because many of us believe there is evidence from rare and spontaneous anecdotal stories (or even our own experiences), that people do come into possession of information, in a way that doesn't fit with the idea that our experiences are completely separate.

There are some good reasons to suspect that there may be quantum mechanisms used by the brain. There are also perfectly sensible researchers who are investigating this using their own ideas... like say... Matthew Fisher who is looking for a particular mechanism...

Why would one presume a metaphysical assumption?

Again a presumption  the answer lays within metaphysics. Why?

Why would quantum processes in the brain extend beyond the brain? I'm not saying they do not.

Why would one presume a metaphysical assumption?

Again a presumption  the answer lays within metaphysics. Why?

Why would quantum processes in the brain extend beyond the brain? I'm not saying they do not.

Nothing Max said has anything to do with metaphysics. [Or, at the least, he was not making a philosophical argument for a particular metaphysics.]

I think you're confused about what "metaphysics" means.