/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9659789
GET OUT OF HERE PENROSE BEFORE WE HAVE TO PUT YOU DOWN

>>9659789
>hallucinations

>>9659789
>We now know
The article was published in 2014
>consciousness can exist outside of the brain
That is not one of the conclusion published in the article. If you actually bother to read it, the only profound claim is that they reported a small fraction of patients recalling certain events while unconscious. Even if you grant that there isn't some psychological false positive effect occurring, you can still explain this phenomenon by arguing that though the patient was unconscious, they were still absorbing visual/auditory information, which wasn't processed until the patient began to regain consciousness.
>there very likely is an afterlife
Go back to /x/

>>9659789
People sedated and undergoing operations report hanging in the air, watching the surgeons at work. Out-of-body experiences, right?

So they put little shelves high up on the walls of the OR, contents visible only from above, and put small objects, printing, etc. there.
Patients were told about the set-up before the operation and, afterwards, asked to describe what was on the shelves. ZERO!!! No one ever gets it right.

Never a shred of evidence of consciousness without a material substrate. Anesthesia de-synchronizes the brain and the various subroutines which we interpret as "thinking" can't communicate. But fragments may still operate. Doesn't mean souls (or the little people of "Inside Out") exist.

Maybe you'll find a more appreciative audience on /x/.

>>9659879
One patient did accurately report the automated voice from a piece of equipment, and correctly described the medical personnel in the room.

>it takes a scientific study to convince materialicucks that the brain is a product of consciousness and not the other way around
We non-brainlets knew this all along.

>>9659879
>>9660215
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anesthesia_awareness
https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/are-we-all-awake-during-anesthesia

>>9660669
He was undergoing cardiac arrest, he wasn't just under anaesthesia. It's a significant result regardless of whether you attribute anything supernatural to it.

>>9660215
>>9660669
Yes, I've heard those stories.
You might be interested in listening to
>http://www.radiolab.org/story/anesthesia
They were studying the (fortunately rare) phenomena where the patient is awake and aware -- but unable to move or communicate the fact.
Anesthetic was injected very very slowly while they watched the patient's brainwaves. There's a regular rhythm which emanates from the front of the brain and spreads throughout. It appears to be a "synch pulse" telling various clusters of cells when to "speak" and when to "listen". It vanished abruptly at a critical dosage.
That's what I meant by "Anesthesia de-synchronizes the brain and the various subroutines which we interpret as 'thinking' can't communicate."
Various processes may still run, but the Network is down.

This confirms what you're saying. Parts of the brain are still operating, but in a disorganized fashion.
And, usually, memories are not being laid down. I'm always fascinated when I wake up in a different room and recall nothing after beginning to count backwards from 100.
Consciousness is a process being carried out by a physical mechanism -- a mechanism we can temporarily disable.

>>9659824

>false positive

The chance of correctly guessing what the patient reported is beyond astronomical.

>though the patient was unconscious, they were still absorbing visual/auditory information, which wasn't processed until the patient began to regain consciousness.

How exactly does the brain observe things 3-5 minutes into cardiac arrest, at a time in which we KNOW that there is no brain activity going on?

>>9659879

>So they put little shelves high up on the walls of the OR, contents visible only from above, and put small objects, printing, etc. there.
Patients were told about the set-up before the operation and, afterwards, asked to describe what was on the shelves. ZERO!!! No one ever gets it right.

That's because those were tiny studies with virtually no OBEs. That's the whole reason they launched this major multi-center study. And even here, the ethics committees didn't accept the shelves everywhere, including the place in which one patient in this study actually did observe things correctly and verifiably so.

Do you have a non-ad hoc explanation for that which is compatible with the idea that the brain did it?

>Never a shred of evidence of consciousness without a material substrate.

That was arguably the case in many former, tiny studies. Not so in this one. Please, actually read the study! Or just see >>9660215 and >>9660703.

>>9660669
>>9660716

This verified observation occurred during cardiac arrest, not anesthesia. These are two profoundly different things from a neurophysiological perspective.

During cardiac arrest, the brain is not active. They even state so explicitly in the study:

"[...] in contrast to anesthesia typically there is no measurable brain function within seconds after cardiac standstill."

Here's a source for it:

17. Bennett DR, Nord NM, Roberts TS, Mavor H. Prolonged “survival” with flat EEG following CA. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1971;30:94.

They have 4 more sources for it in the study.

>>9659822
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyu7v7nWzfo

>>9660703
What's easier to believe? That the whole of science which strongly indicates materialism is false? Or that a few isolated and rare reports were faked, or exaggerated, etc.?

>>9661012
>The chance of correctly guessing what the patient reported is beyond astronomical.
How do you know that it actually happened? Everyone involved could be lying.

Or maybe there was just some accidental error either in the setup or in the reporting.

Also, with 7 billion people, stuff that is incredibly rare happens all the time.

Anecdotal evidence like this will never be convincing, because it's always going to be easier to explain it away like I just have rather than say the totality of science is wrong.

>>9663831
When presented with evidence that challenges our current views, the correct response is to BOTH question the evidence and try to find issues with it, AND question our current views and try to find issues with them.

I'm not religious and I do believe in materialism, more or less. But a few things make me wonder, and this is one of them.

>>9659789
If you think about it, Empiricism doesn't support Materialism because it is based on observation, therefore it puts an Observer on a more fundamental level than what is physically observed. Of course, this means Empiricism needs to be 'turned on' by something non-observable as well, which should be Reason, shouldn't it?

This "Reason" however is finite and limited, corresponding to the human mind. It earns the title "Reason" due to its syntax being the same of the Ideal Reason, infinite and arguably the Set of all Sets. So 1. the same syntax with the Universe(Set of all sets, ultimate reality, "ideal logic"), 2. corresponds to the human mind, 3. Exists on a more fundamental level than what is observed: 1, 2, 3 imply the mind/soul goes on after physical death. However if you mess with your syntax, that is, if you degenerate your mind towards irrationality, then you put yourself outside of the Reality Set.

This is the human essence in Essentialism that should be preserved, and mind you, is completely ignored in Existentialism which is what the modern scientists are taught.

>>9664291
>But a few things make me wonder, and this is one of them.
Then you're very gullible. Beware of being taken advantage of by a con-man. And/or just very bad at statistics.

>>9664834
I didn't say I accept it unquestioningly. I said it makes me think.

/If/ the researchers are being truthful and /if/ the experiment was performed correctly, /then/ the result is valuable (not necessarily supernatural). The patient allegedly heard the automated voice while in cardiac arrest. Our current knowledge suggests that this shouldn't be possible. Either the study is wrong or our current knowledge is wrong.

One example is sufficient to prove something is possible if the evidence for that example is strong enough. I'm not necessarily claiming that the evidence provided is strong enough in this case.

>>9663835
science is wrong if you assume materialism to be true
numbers don't exist in the material world. Numbers are a Representative of something that exist outside the material world, you can't represent something that doesn't exist. Number then exist in a meta-physical world outside the material world.

Materialism is just flat out wrong.

>>9664891
This.

>>9661012
>"[...] in contrast to anesthesia typically there is no measurable brain function within seconds after cardiac standstill."
"Typically". Not even the author is certain enough.

>>9664862
>Our current knowledge suggests that this shouldn't be *typically* possible.

Fixed.

The atypical, although rarely, still occurs. You're married to your own hypothesis and are cherrypicking like an infatuated teenager, your own sources claim that "typically" it shouldn't be possible.

Yet you're transformig it to an absolute affirmation. Fix that mistake anon.

The study is most likely wrong and there is not enough evidence to sustain its results.

>>9664891

>Numbers don't exist in the real world.

>Electrons running through wires aren't real upon moment of inspection.

>Those electrons that concocted the information of that number you interpereted are not real.

Part of me just wants to unleash an EMP so powerful that it goes beyond discombobulating pidgeons homing ability and shuts down your brainlet sized cerebral cortex.

However seeing as you are already a bird brain a regular one would probably make do.

>>9665074
>>9664891

Fugg

>>9665074
I said material world
numbers do exist in a meta-physical world.
The real world is compromised of material and material world.
Show me the number one in the material world, not one of something.

>>9664891
Materialism is not an assumption of science. Materialism is a conclusion of science.

https://sites.google.com/site/maartenboudry/teksten-1/methodological-naturalism

>>9665257
>naturalism = materialism

>>9665263
I think you need to read the paper, rather than drawing incorrect conclusions.

>>9659789
>when are we actually going to start

>>9663831

>What's easier to believe?

The evidence. A rational thinker always follow the evidence, wherever it may lead, regardless of their bias.

>That the whole of science which strongly indicates materialism is false?

Most of science strongly indicate materialism, yes, there's no doubt about that. But far from all of it. There is also parapsychology and other lines of evidence in survival research, such as after-death communication, death bed visions, death bed coincidences, terminal lucidity, shared death experiences, etc. When you pile all of these on top of each other, it becomes a figurative mountain of evidence.

And sure, one mountain against the Himalayas of evidence that is the rest of science may not seem like that much, but it's not a contest, and survival research and parapsychology does not negate those other findings of science, they only falsify materialism, that is, the way in which all that other data is interpreted.

>Or that a few isolated and rare reports were faked, or exaggerated, etc.?

The thing is, there are millions of NDEs, literally, and the verified observation during OBEs is very common and there are endless amounts of anecdotal accounts of doctors and nurses being flabbergasted by patients seeing and/or hearing things they shouldn't have been able to. The thing that is interesting about this study is that it is one of the few times it has been documented in a prospective study with cardiac arrest patients. But if prior patterns is anything to go by (and usually, that is the case), then further studies will only confirm this more and more as it has already begun to do. In other words, the data is already there, and as it gets stronger and stronger it's only a matter of time before the paradigm shift officially occurs.

>>9663835

>How do you know that it actually happened? Everyone involved could be lying.

>Or maybe there was just some accidental error either in the setup or in the reporting.

Yes, the moon ***could*** be made of cheese. Anything is possible, but science does not concern itself with what Neal Grossman calls "logical possibilities" for which there is no evidence. See more regarding error 4 here: https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc799411/m2/1/high_res_d/vol26-no3.pdf (pp. 227-235)

Fraudulent and lying researchers is always a theoretical possibility, and that goes for all of science. There is no way to ever escape that logical possibility. But it is not an empirical possibility that researchers ought to take seriously unless there is empirical evidence to suggest that it might be true. And in this case, there isn't. Study after study on NDEs all come to the same conclusion.

>Also, with 7 billion people, stuff that is incredibly rare happens all the time.

Indeed, but if this was a freak occurrence, why are NDErs absolutely correct about everything they observe during their OBEs ~95% of the time, including extremely unexpected things?

>Anecdotal evidence like this will never be convincing

In reality, testimonies are an incredibly important source of knowledge. If you doubt that, how do you think that they carry out neuroscience? They stimulate the patient's brain, and the person reports - testifies - what they experienced when this transpires.

If testimonies were not a source of knowledge, how would we even know that people have NDEs to begin with, even if we believe that they are hallucinations?

"I hallucinated an NDE!"

"No you didn't, that's just an epistemically void claim based on nothing but testimony. And by the way, depression and even consciousness doesn't exist since we have to take people's word for it."

>>9663835

>because it's always going to be easier to explain it away like I just have rather than say the totality of science is wrong.

But this just demonstrates that you haven't understood the alternative explanation for the totality of all the data. See for instance this essay: http://www.newdualism.org/papers/C.Carter/Carter-Does-consciousness.htm

That consciousness can exist independently of the brain does not mean that all the correlations we find between mental states and brain states in every day life are wrong or anything like that. It just means that the final interpretation of the totality of the data has to accommodate survival research findings. The transmission theory of consciousness does this perfectly, and is perfectly compatible with the findings of neuroscience and our understanding of physics.

For a simplified explanation, see this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_qBIw7qyHU

>>9666764
>The evidence. A rational thinker always follow the evidence, wherever it may lead, regardless of their bias.
And you're the one ignoring the massive wealth of evidence to the contrary, instead hyper-focusing on a flimsy set of evidence that matches your preconceptions.

> the verified observation during OBEs is very common and

Not really, no. Not for anything that requires an nonmaterial soul.

> The thing is, there are millions of NDEs, literally,

And millions of people claimed to talk to Jesus, and millions more talk to Muhammad, etc. This is prima facie proof that this sort of personal report is basically worthless evidence. They cannot all be right. Most of them must be wrong. And all of them can be wrong for the same easily explainable reasons.

>>9665038

I'm curious, do you have a single source of documented brainwave activity 3-5 minutes into a cardiac arrest?

>>9659789
Genetic memory was also ignored by scientism to push the athiest agenda. All the work of Carl Jung points to an afterlife, and the tremendous ability of the mind to break physical limitations.

>>9669507
Jung is barely better than Freud in that he's the kind of "psychologist" that gives his field a bad name. His ideas are essentially psycho-philosophy, interesting to consider but not grounded in actual science at all.

>>9659789
faggot

you believe this because you are afraid and this pacifies you.


No one knows, deal with it

Here's the ultimatum on consciousness:

The conscious entity that you control known as your "self" only lasts for a tiny fraction of time.

The nature of consciousness is similar to that of a film reel: the conscious being controlling your body lasts for some time, but "you" are like a single frame in a film reel, only persisting for a short while until time advances to the next frame.

By the time you've finished reading this, the conscious entity that had started reading this post had already expired. "You" that is reading this now is a different entity.

"You" will expire in 3.. 2.. 1..

>>9669763

So there can't be an endurable, core aspect of our innermost being?

Is this viewpoint due to "muh materialism", or would you argue that it is applicable to all angles of what may be the nature of consciousness?

>>9668830

>And you're the one ignoring the massive wealth of evidence to the contrary

No. This is a common misunderstanding among proponents of materialism, that the extreme amounts of data demonstrating the correlation between mental events and brain events is somehow counting against the transmission theory of consciousness, when in fact it is explicitly predicted by it. If you do not understand that, then you have some reading to do. I suggest starting here: https://trans4mind.com/spiritual/Does-consciousness.pdf

>instead hyper-focusing on a flimsy set of evidence that matches your preconceptions.

What preconceptions? I used to be a materialist, then I took a look at the survival data and realized that materialism was falsified by it. I was once in your shoes, my friend. And you are not familiar with that data, and you eagerness to ignore this evidence instead of acknowledging it and looking for more betrays your lack of objectivity.

>Not really, no. Not for anything that requires an nonmaterial soul.

Uhm? Have you taken a single look at the literature? Are you familiar with the work of Michael Sabom, Penny Sartori, Sam Parnia, Jeffrey Long, Bruce Greyson, Peter Fenwick, etc? That OBE observations during NDEs are accurate in 90+% of all cases not a controversial claim among those familiar with the data.

>And millions of people claimed to talk to Jesus, and millions more talk to Muhammad, etc.

First of all, there's a tremendous difference between talking to Jesus, and having Jesus talk about explicitly in no uncertain terms to you.

Secondly, millions of people claim to be depressed, and billions of people claim to be tired every once in a while. Are people wrong just because we are forced to derive some knowledge from testimonies? Can't we know whether people have ever been tired?

>>9669760

So there can't be evidence of an afterlife, because anyone who tries to look at any possible evidence is immediately just afraid to accept the reality of death.

>>9673302
By disabling a certain part of your brain, I can make you go blind. By disabling a certain part of your brain, I can make you unable to form grammatically correct sentences, but you can still understand spoken English. By disabling another part of the brain, I can make you unable to understand spoken English, but you can still create gramatically correct English. By disabling another part of the brain, I can make you unable to recognize faces. By disabling another part of the brain, I can make you unable to form long term memories.

Everything that you are is the brain. The transmission "theory" is transparently wrong.

>>9659824
We can infer that the universe springs from a 6-dimensional substrate. I think that the idea of another world is mathematically valid. If you understand anything about philosophy (and I know that positivists are philosophically challenged, which is one of the reasons why you are so redundant and thick-headed) then you will know that the mind-before-matter argument is as solid as the matter-before-mind argument.

>>9659789
Enough with your spic boolshit

>>9659789
Read the whole thing, waste of time. So they interviewed 140 people, 101 of which made it to stage two interview, and of that number, the amount that answered yes to the questions that would support your conclusion are abysmal
>Did you seem to be aware of things? 7
>Did you seem to enter some other unearthly world? 7
>Did you suddenly seem to understand everything? 6
>Did scenes from the future come to you? 0

All I see from this is cardiac arrest brings about a state of mind somewhere in between forced sedation and normal unconsciousness

>>9673302
you're not on reddit, you don't have to put a linebreak between greentext and plaintext

>>9678424
>breaking up large text blocks for better readability was invented by Reddit
Where did this stupid accusation even come from? I feel like it suddenly appeared one day a year or two ago with no discernable cause.

>>9675319

>By disabling a certain part of your brain, I can make you go blind. By disabling a certain part of your brain, I can make you unable to form grammatically correct sentences, but you can still understand spoken English. By disabling another part of the brain, I can make you unable to understand spoken English, but you can still create gramatically correct English. By disabling another part of the brain, I can make you unable to recognize faces. By disabling another part of the brain, I can make you unable to form long term memories.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The transmission theory of consciousness explicitly predicts all of these things. In fact, if these things /weren't/ the case, then the transmission theory of consciousness would be false!

So when you list all of these trivial facts you're mistakenly under the impression that you're saying things that count against the transmission theory consciousness, when in fact you're saying things that are in favor of it and are hence strengthening the case for it!

If you want to continue this discussion, please read the essay I recommended you in >>9673302 and try to understand what it is you have so far been unable to, otherwise you're just restating your own a priori false assumptions yet again.

>>9678244

>Did you seem to enter some other unearthly world? 7
>Did you suddenly seem to understand everything? 6

>state of mind somewhere in between forced sedation and normal unconsciousness

Yeah, I'm totally in another world and understand everything in daily life.

>>9680673
https://trans4mind.com/spiritual/Does-consciousness.pdf
>pointing out the total recall
experienced under hypnosis

Bullshit.

>But part of the reason the mind-body relationship has seemed so
puzzling for so long is because mental and physical events seem so completely unlike
each other.

This is a subtle but gross misunderstanding of the nature of science. It'll take a while to explain, but in short this is no more nor less true of any science at all. Science is not in the business of explaining fundamentally why something happens. That's not the role of science.

See the standard Feynman video on "how do magnets work" for a longer explanation of why science cannot meaningfully answer questions of that sort.

However, the true death knell of your ridiculous idea is this:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/physics-and-the-immortality-of-the-soul/
For the transmission idea to be true in any meaningful way, that means that some of the electrons, protons, and neutrons in your brain obey rules other than the standard model of particle physics. This is a falsifiable claim, and it's manifestly false. The particles in your brain obey the same materialistic uncaring rules as the particles in trees, rocks, and stars. Physics has advanced to the point where there is no more room left for magic.

>>9680724
Sorry, posting to other boards, and forgot the trip. Also, here's the link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8

>>9680673
>>9680724
>>9680727
To make the argument clear: We can look at the history of science as it relates to life generally, and to human life in particular. Early on, there were claims that life was magic, and not physics, and there was an animating life force that made the body function. IIRC, the original hebrew word for spirit was "breath". Similarly, other gods, and maybe Yahweh, were described as breathing life into clay figurines. They didn't understand biology, chemistry, quantum field theory. However, over time, we realized that this was just materialistic physics. This pattern has clearly continued. We have confirmed that the standard model is correct for every single physical thing in everyday physics for every test that we have ever done. So, what's more likely - that this pattern continues, and the brain also obeys the same uncaring materialistic equations of motion? Or that that human brain is a special exception to the laws of physics? And you cannot have a meaningful transmission theory without some cause-and-effect going from the soul to the brain, and that is flatly incompatible with the standard model of particle physics. So, I'm going to go with the undeniable and obvious arc of scientific history, which is that the brain is a lump of matter like any other which obeys the same uncaring laws of motion as any other lump of matter.

For bonus points, as Sean Carroll asks in the link, when did living creatures first have souls? Did the earliest amino acids have souls? Prokaryotes? Eukaryotes? Etc.

>>9673302

> Can't we know whether people have ever been tired?

Yes.

You can check the infinite wheel of causation that caused the tiredness outside the body and ended up being perceived by the brain as "lower your energy expenditure" for this is actually an universal feeling, pathways that evolved and converged millions of years ago to result in a feedback mecahnism to adjust to the environment.

Also, when anon said this >>9675319 he is undoubtfully referring that for the brain being a mere transmitter surely seems like the relationship works in both sides, in fact a keen eye might notice that they are the same thing, in all senses for there is no property that you can manipulate and will not affect the other nor they work outside our understanding of nature but rather work outside our understanding of how it interacts with itself.

You do not need an "outsider" and a "driving wheel" to explain this, nor is more satisfactory, if anything is less satisfactory since you start adding another system of which there is no evidence but yet have to explain how interacts with the material realm to produce consciousness(or transmit it, is meaningless by itself for now you have to explain the nature of the outside consciousness).

>>9659789
>consciousness versus Materialism
Lrn2false-dilemma fgt pls

>>9680747

I think you misinterpret the basic premise. It is not implied that it is the phenomenon of consciousness that is a problem for materialism here, but rather the actual evidence of consciousness clearly existing without neural correlations during cardiac arrest that is the issue here.

>>9682646
> without neural correlations

Anon, brain activity just doesn't die during cardiac arrest, operations or even death(lasts a while)

Is not an absolute it's an spectrum, you are still there.

>>9675319
>The transmission "theory" is transparently wrong.
The transmission theory is correct. Nothing you've stated contradicts it. If I disable your televisions antenna it's going to stop the TV producing images, that doesn't mean we can conclude the antenna was the thing that was producing the image all along.

>>9683004
Please respond to:
>>9680724
>>9680727
>>9680735

>>9683008
Repond to what? Mindless materialist drivel utilizing circular logic about how science claims only the material exists and this must be true because science only investigates physical phenomena using a methodology which apriori excludes any non-physical causes? I think there are better uses of time than refuting the pseudo-intellectual claims of proponents of scientism for the 1000th time.

Reality has qualitative and quantitative aspects. The fact that the scientific method deliberately ignores the existence of the qualitative to focus exclusively on what can be quantified doesn't mean anything except that it's only going to be able to recognize and measure phenomena that can be quantified.

>>9683016
Respond to Sean Carroll's paper. Do you believe that electrons, protons, and neutrons in the brain obey the standard model of particle physics, or do you believe that they obey different rules than the electrons, protons, and neutrons in plants, rocks, and stars? Do you understand how that would be a falsifiable claim? We could measure how the electrons, neutrons, and protons in human brains behave. Do you really believe that we're going to find violations of the standard model in the brain?

And without violations of the standard model in the brain, the transmission theory is false. Clearly so.

>>9683017
Transmission theory doesn't require the atoms in the brain to behave differently than they do anywhere else. Another boring strawman from a person who claims to be a rationalist but only accepts evidence that fits into their preconceived worldview. Yawn.

>>9683020
> Transmission theory doesn't require the atoms in the brain to behave differently than they do anywhere else.

Yes, it does. Materialism is the notion that the atoms in the brain obey uncaring, mindless particle physics. The transmission theory is that there is some non-material "soul" thing which, at a minimum, has some causal influence over the body, including speech. The transmission theory is vapid if it doens't include that the non-material soul sometimes has some causal influence on what we say aloud with our physical material mouths.

>>9683022
>What do you mean two metallic objects can be attracted to each other? By what? Some invisible "magnetic force!?" preposterous! No such thing exists!
It's actually quite bizarre how you seem to presume that the universe has been "solved" and there can be no methods of interaction we haven't been able to detect yet. Once again you're placing your ideological bias in front of rational thought. Transmission theory fits the facts better.

>>9683026
I ask again: Are you making the claim that the electrons, neutrons, and protons in the human brain obey rules other than the standard model of particle physics? Do you understand how this is a falsifiable claim?

> It's actually quite bizarre how you seem to presume that the universe has been "solved" and there can be no methods of interaction we haven't been able to detect yet.

Again,see the work of Sean Carroll. The math of quantum field theory is quite clear: Assuming the relative correctness of quantum field theory, and if there was another kind of particle or force out there which mattered for the energy scales on planet Earth and in your brain, then we would have already created it in a particle accelerator. We haven't. There's still room for new fundamental physics, but not for everyday energies. The fundamental physics of everyday energy levels is complete. The standard model of particle physics accounts perfectly for every experiment ever done on Earth.

>>9683022
Materialism was debunked over 20 years ago, it's hardly relevant anymore

>>9683030
Citations please. Apparently lots of respectable scientists missed that memo, including Sean Carroll.

>>9683029
>The standard model of particle physics accounts perfectly for every experiment ever done on Earth.
We also know the standard model of particle physics is dead wrong and incomplete since it still suggests things that are wildly inconsistent with actual experimental results. Don't play the "We've got it all figured out" card when we know for a fact there are still massive missing pieces.

>>9683034
>actual experimental results
No. Not a single experimental result contradicts the standard model.

There are astronomical observations which show that the standard model is incomplete, but there is not a single experiment that you can do on planet Earth that contradicts the standard model.

>>9683032
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM

>>9683036
Do we not have gravity on Earth anymore?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM&feature=youtu.be
Cites Eugene Wigner. The quote is out of context. He also died in 1995.

>>9683039
AFAIK, you need to go into space to devise experiments that are sensitive enough to confirm GR, such as GPS satellites.

>>9683037
Oh god. Are you really citing "the observer effect" of quantum mechanics as evidence that realism and materialism is false? Practically every physicist today would say that you're full of it, and grossly distorting what quantum mechanics actually says.

>>9683037
>>9683042
Yep. You are. This is just pseudo science bullshit like "The Secret".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_(book)
Go back to /x/.
>>>/x/

>>9683040
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/aa02/e3c21a074949e64200cef1dac007db36720f.pdf

>>9683046
Ok. Are you trying to make a point? Just posting random citations for no reason?

>>9683043
Here is where the materialist gets angry at his inability to properly address the facts and provide a rebuttal so instead he disengages, claims superiority and flees. Shame, if you actually opened your mind instead of clinging to the debunked and irrelevant ideology of materialism you'd actually be able to fit the facts to the most suitable conclusion instead of desperately trying to handwave away everything that is inconvenient to your position

>>9683048
You're posting pseudoscience drivel. Conscious observers do not play a special role in quantum mechanics, and there is no evidence that this is the case. You don't understand what you're talking about.

Here are some sources for you to educate yourself:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-issues/#MeasProb
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghirardi%E2%80%93Rimini%E2%80%93Weber_theory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdqC2bVLesQ

>>9683048
And I'm not fleeing. I'm just saying that you're wrong, and practically every practicing physicist will tell you that you're wrong about your understanding of quantum mechanics w.r.t. the "observer effect".

>>9683050
>Conscious observers do not play a special role in quantum mechanics
They do indeed. The interference pattern only ceases to form when INFORMATION about which slit the particle passed through can be retrieved. As evidenced by the fact that the experiment was performed with the detector active but no tape recording the data, and interference pattern formed.

Also you posted competing theories to try and rationalize the result and I don't think anyone takes the many worlds interpretation seriously and the De Broglie theory also has serious problems like not being reconcilable with relativity. There is a reason the Copenhagen interpretation won out, and it's not so much an "interpretation" as it is just ignoring things we can't see and pretending that it doesn't exist in favor of the mathematical representation that can predict the results.

>>9683051
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW6Mq352f0E

Go to 2:40

>>9683055
>>9683057
The person is the video is lying. That never happened. That's not how reality works. The evidence is otherwise. Citations please.

>>9683057
Presumably, he's describing, inaccurately, the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser
And it seems that he's doing it in a sensationalist way, and wrong way, in order to sell books to gullible fools such as yourself.

>>9683057
>>9683060
For an introductory explanation to this and other physics issues, I suggest the youtube channel PBS Space Time. Here's the particular video on this topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ORLN_KwAgs

>>9683058
>The person is the video is lying. That never happened
He's a physicist who verified the result himself. You can also see the pattern forming based on whether information is gained in the quantum eraser experiment, which uses the same principle. Whether or not information is gained is what causes the behavior of the particles to change. Information that can only be gained when a conscious observer is interpreting that information. These are the facts and the only reason they're disputed is because there is still a very strong ideological bias toward materialism in physics.

>>9683062
No, although that also shows that information is the key. He's talking about a standard double slit experiment where it was performed with a tape recording data, and one where the tape was not inserted so the head was not recording anything. The result changed.

>>9683067
>No, although that also shows that information is the key. He's talking about a standard double slit experiment where it was performed with a tape recording data, and one where the tape was not inserted so the head was not recording anything. The result changed.
Yeah, he's lying.

>>9683070
>It's damaging to my argument so I'll just dismiss it
Ah now we see the true colors of the materialist. Keep your head in the sand then.

>>9683072
I can provide citations that he's lying if you want. I already stumbled across a forum of practicing physicists who talk about him by name, and say, generously, that he's wrong, or that he's lying.

>>9683067
He's not accurately describing the experimental apparatus. He's describing his experimental apparatus by analogy. However, his actual experimental apparatus differs substantially from his description-by-analogy. See:
https://www.my-big-toe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7296

Generously, he's incompetent. Probably, he's just a liar who wants to make money off rubes via book sales and such.

>>9683088
>I quite agree, and have always agreed, that it is not the measurement that is critical -- even though many physicists call this "the measurement problem". It is not really about measurement at all -- it is about information. In most instances, a measurement leads to information so these two terms are often used interchangeably unless one is being very precise with ones words.

>So when I said: "So then [the physicists] said 'let's not look, but let's leave the equipment, maybe it's the equipment that's doing it,' so you leave the sensors where they are, but you just turn off the power to what's recording the data, so now the sensors are still in place but they're not recording anything. What do you think happens? It goes through both slits, you get a wave pattern on the other side."

>The critical factor is not that the measurement was not made but that the information was not collected. In this case, not making the measurement causes the information to not be collected.

>That is why Chris felt compelled to say: "It depends on what you mean by "the sensors are still in place but they're not recording anything," What I meant by it was that the information was not collected.

>In Chris's example, passing a light beam through a polarizer changes the polorazation of the light and that is information we know -- one does not have to measure the polarization of the light to know that the light is polarized -- that information is available without measurment -- the light is polarized because it went through a polarizer. So of course the light hits the photomultiplier "like bullets" -- it could not do anything else. The fact that the polarization was not measured is not relavent. At right angles, their could be no superposistion and thus no interference pattern. A trivial experiment with an obvious result.

Why link a post that destroys your own argument?

>Tripfag calling himself "scientist" is actually a brainlet

>>9683094
Because it doesn't. The other persons in the thread explain how Tom doesn't properly understand quantum theory. A polarizer is not a fucking macroscopic magnetic tape recording machine, and he's an idiot or a liar to equate the two. Take your pick - both options suck.

Again, standard Copenhagen interpretation, which is actually upheld by the evidence and experiments, unlike his. The standard Copenhagen interpretation is that a "measurement" is when the qubit becomes entangled with a macroscopic object, like an indicator the twists left or twists right, or a hard disk drive magnetic head trying to write to magnetic storage (whether the disk / tape is present or not). It's the standard micro-macro distinction.

A polarizer is not a measurement, because it doesn't involve the necessary entanglement between the qubit of interest and macroscopic object.

The link explains this. Plenty of other web sites will also explain this.

Of course, the interpretation will differ depending on whether you go with standard Copenhagen, or Everett, or Bohm, or GRW, but they all predict basically the same thing.

>>9683099
>A polarizer is not a measurement
Did you miss the point that measurement is irrelevant? It's information that matters and obviously if you know that the particle has passed through a polarizer then you gain information about it. "The measurement problem" is a misnomer. It's information and the availability of it that causes the change in behavior. He says it right there.

>It is not really about measurement at all -- it is about information. In most instances, a measurement leads to information so these two terms are often used interchangeably unless one is being very precise with ones words

>In Chris's example, passing a light beam through a polarizer changes the polorazation of the light and that is information we know -- one does not have to measure the polarization of the light to know that the light is polarized -- that information is available without measurment -- the light is polarized because it went through a polarizer. So of course the light hits the photomultiplier "like bullets" -- it could not do anything else

Once again conclusively proving that it's information and a conscious observer obtaining that information that causes the change in behavior.

>>9683099
Also that's not the experiment he was talking about in the video. He's not "equating" anything. He performed the double slit experiment with/without the tape and obtained his results independently.

>>9683101
And he's just wrong. Do the experiment with an actual hard disk drive magnetic head, but with the disk removed, and you will get an entirely different outcome compared to his experiment with the polarizer, because it's not about "information" in that sense, and it's really about the micro-macro distinction and when micro-states become entangled with macro-objects.

>>9683105
And he's a liar, or you're misreporting. He did not do that, and/or that's not the result that he got. You can trivially see this by searching online.

>>9683107
>He did not do that
But he did. I know you're upset that the result completely destroys you but how about acting like an actual scientist and accepting experimental results instead of desperately flopping around like a fish trying to argue how they must be somehow wrong because you don't want to admit you're mistaken about your understanding.

>>9683110
>But he did.
How do you know that? Because he said so? Come on. He's a lone wackjob, no better than the electric universe nutters or time cube.

>>9683110
Or do you not accept yet that others have done his experiment and got other results? Do you really need me to do your homework for you? Are you trolling me right now? Probably.

>>9683113
He's got the guts to come out and state the truth which puts him far above mainstream academia in my eyes. All those cowards who hide behind the Copenhagen interpretation. If people know that all Copenhagen states is they don't accept the reality of anything but the result, then people would see it for the fraud it is. See when you say that "No mainstream physicists believe consciousness plays a part in collapsing quantum states" what you really mean is that according to Copenhagen they don't believe ANYTHING is happening in reality until they see the result, and that the mathematical model they use to approximate what is going on and predict the result doesn't take into account consciousness therefore...

Anyone with a brain can see through that circular logic. Just because physicists refuse to address the reality of what is actually occurring doesn't mean other people do, and every experimental result we obtain verifies that the conscious observer plays a part as the change in behavior occurs after INFORMATION is obtained, nothing to do with measurement.

>>9683124
>and every experimental result we obtain verifies that the conscious observer plays a part as the change in behavior occurs after INFORMATION is obtained, nothing to do with measurement.
What is the color of the sky in your world?

Do you have a single citation of someone performing this experiment by anyone else, and getting the result that you claim? Because I can find lots of people saying that they've done the experiment, and gotten contradicting results.

A tripfag jew... could it get any more revolting?

>>9683127
That's me. Posting to other boards without my trip.

>>9683124
>He's got the guts to come out and state the truth which puts him far above mainstream academia in my eyes.

So, going full conspiracy theorist crazy. Gotcha. Well, that took a while, but I'm glad we got there. Do you also believe that the Earth is flat and the Earth is only 6000 years old?

>>9683130
lolwut? When I did state my religion? Also, I'm an atheist. Also, go fuck off back to your containment board.
>>>/pol/

>>9683133
Let me ask you then, what is your proof that the conscious observer is not involved?

>>9683134
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking and what standard of evidence that you're demanding. However, I will bring into evidence every time that anyone except this guy did the sort of experiment comparable to a hard disk drive magnetic head without a disk loaded, there is no interference pattern. The standard Copenhagen explanation is that the entanglement between the subatomic particle and the macroscopic object collapses the wave function. No human necessary. In this particular case, the human doesn't know the result because the metallic disk / tape is not loaded, and he's not otherwise "looking".

More broadly, my evidence is that the math of quantum field theory says that if there was some other force or matter particle in your head that did something, we would have created it already in a particle accelerator, and we haven't, and therefore it's very likely that no such thing exists. The alternative is to throw out quantum field theory, the best scientific model of reality that human science has ever developed.

>>9659789
Oxygenated blood flows through the brain during CPR so there's some activity going on. Patients are typically not RSI'd or otherwise sedated so that they experience psychological effects isn't particularly surprising. Especially considering that with very high quality CPR (like with Lucas 2 devices) some people experience consciousness to some degree.

>>9660215
All the AEDs say the same thing.

>>9683139
>More broadly, my evidence is that the math of quantum field theory
Aha, I knew you'd say that because it's the only defense used. The math is an abstraction and doesn't necessarily have any congruence to things that are occurring in reality. The fact that it has predictive power doesn't mean that every element in the formulas used correlate to an actual thing occurring in reality, in fact quantum physicists admit there's a lot of fudging involved where terms are added simply to make it line up with results, rather than any need to represent anything actually occurring.

Hell the "quantum field" isn't even a real thing, it is nothing more than a conceptual tool. Arguing that we don't need consciousness to explain experimental results because the math doesn't account for it is simply being completely and utterly disingenuous, and you know it too.

>>9683145
>The math is an abstraction and doesn't necessarily have any congruence to things that are occurring in reality. The
Say that to the people who got the Nobel prize for creating and discovering the Higgs boson, and thereby completing the standard model. You're just denying the scientific method right now.

oh vey listen to me goyim
only loudmouth stereotype is right and must get the last word in
I pity the people who have to deal with you irl

>>9683139
>>9683145
And finally, even more broadly, I would rely on the entire history of scientific progress. Many many times, people put forward the idea of magic or human souls to explain something.

First it was simple physics, like why the sun rises, or the seasons. Then we explained that with materialistic physics.

Then people asserted that biology was magic, and human souls were necessary for bodies to work. Well, we discovered that we can create biological molecules from abiological sources, and we learned a lot about biology, and so they were wrong there.

The entire arc of scientific discovery is the rapidly receding line between stuff that has materialistic explanations and the stuff with unknown but purported magical explanations. To any unbiased observer, this is incredibly clear.

So, what do you think it's going to be next time? Do you think that the workings of the brain are going to be explained by materialistic mindless rules, or do you think we're finally going to find some magic?

PZ Myers put it quite eloquently here:
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/03/03/thor/

>>9683148
Say that to proponents of string theory which has consistently been BTFO in every experimental test and yet keeps getting pushed because "the math works"

>>9683154
>Poz Myers
Yuck.

>>9683154
I can add countless lines to this story. I can talk about how many people thought that magic was required for the diversity of life. Well, then we discovered evolution. They thought that magic was required for the origin of life, but we're learning more and more about plausible mechanisms for abiogenesis. Newton discovered his laws of motion, but he thought that the orbits would not be stable over millions of years, and so he said that a god was keeping them stable, but later LaPlace improved on his work and showed that simple materialistic rules were sufficient for the stability of the orbits of the planets over millions of years.

>>9683155
Are any of the string theory proponents claiming that their thing is actually a demonstrated, supported, scientific theory? No. False equivalence. Please try again.

>>9683159
>Are any of the string theory proponents claiming that their thing is actually a demonstrated, supported, scientific theory
Yes, plenty are. Regardless if your point is that we shouldn't believe things that make sense mathematically until they are experimentally verified then I agree with you. Now what were you saying about consciousness not playing a part because of the math?

>>9683161
>Yes, plenty are.
Again, you're just grossly ignorant of the actual scientific community. Please try again. Go read a book or something. Go to college. Take some courses. Many professors and universities will allow you to sit in and participate for free without registering (but of course you don't get accreditation).

>>9683161
>Now what were you saying about consciousness not playing a part because of the math?

The "transmission model" requires that sometimes the non-material soul nudges some of the electrons (or neutrons, protons, etc.) in the brain in a way that is contrary to the standard model of particle physics. After all, if all particles in the brain obeyed the standard model of particle physics, then materialism would be true, basically by definition. For a soul to exist, it has to actually do something, casually, like influencing speech patterns in a casual manner. That requires violations of the standard model, and for all of the reasons that I gave up-thread, it's foolish to believe anything otter than the particles in the brain obey the standard model and no more.

>>9683163
You literally have string theorists in the media claiming that it's the only valid ToE and it's only a matter of time til the kinks get worked out. Once again your disingenuous nature shows as you pretend that there aren't plenty of theoretical physicists working on and promoting a theory that has ZERO experimental support and is nothing more than mathematical vapor

>>9683169
>You literally have string theorists in the media claiming that it's the only valid ToE and it's only a matter of time til the kinks get worked out.
Examples please. Start with just one.

>>9683168
>The "transmission model" requires that sometimes the non-material soul nudges some of the electrons (or neutrons, protons, etc.) in the brain in a way that is contrary to the standard model of particle physics.
The brain works on electromagnetism, not the movement of particles as we established here >>9683046

>>9683173
Uh huh. Do I care? No. It doesn't change my demands. Do you think that "materialism" mean I have to restrict myself to just electrons, protons, and neutrons, and ignore the EM field? Please. What foolishness. The EM field is also described by the standard model, and the same challenge is given to you.

>>9683170
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=8778

Entire blog (and book) dedicated to debunking String Theory and ridiculing it's proponents. Enjoy.

>>9683177
I skimmed the page. I didn't see an example of a string theorist saying that string theory is obviously correct and that it's only a matter of time until the problems are worked out. Please try again. You're the one who made the claim, and now it's time for you to give evidence for the claim.

>>9683177
>>9683179
In other words, I'm invoking the cultural convention known as the "burden of proof" which is used in cases to shield people like me from abusive people like you demanding that I research their claims for them and provide evidence for their positions.

>>9683179
>>9683181
I've already made the point that you refuted your own argument. There are plenty of string theorists who eagerly promote it in the media despite zero experimental evidence and if you doubt that then I invite you to google it or read through the blog. Ultimately that point is tangential to the one I was actually making which is the math is a description of reality and can't be used to make inferences about how reality actually works, as the failures of string theory show.

>>9683182
Moving the goalposts eh? And again unfairly trying to shift the burden of proof,.

>Ultimately that point is tangential to the one I was actually making which is the math is a description of reality and can't be used to make inferences about how reality actually works,
lmfao
Oh wait, you're serious? Let me laugh harder.

Again, please try to say that with a straight face to the people who created and discovered the Higgs boson, or the astronomers who discovered Neptune, and so on and so forth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_Neptune
> The planet Neptune was mathematically predicted before it was directly observed. With a prediction by Urbain Le Verrier, telescopic observations confirming the existence of a major planet were made on the night of September 23–24, 1846,[1] at the Berlin Observatory, by astronomer Johann Gottfried Galle (assisted by Heinrich Louis d'Arrest), working from Le Verrier's calculations. It was a sensational moment of 19th-century science, and dramatic confirmation of Newtonian gravitational theory. In François Arago's apt phrase, Le Verrier had discovered a planet "with the point of his pen".

How stupid are you, really?

I'm off to bed. If the thread is still around later, I'll respond to any further foolishness.

>>9683182
>>9683185
And again, you're confusing a verified model of reality, and predictions made from that, vs string "theory", which isn't a theory at all. They're entirely separate things. I can bullshit math too, but if it's not well supported by a broad range of evidence, then it's not considered a theory, and it would be highly unreasonable to try to make predictions from the model. The standard model is fabulously well supported by many kinds of evidence, and it's a well supported theory, and it's entirely reasonable to make the standard sort of extrapolations to make predictions that we know will likely be true. That's what science is.

>>9683185
>I'll respond to any further foolishness.
I would've thought you'd be tired of getting BTFO by now. The thread has been nothing but you getting destroyed over and over and desperately trying to reframe your argument only to get destroyed again. You can't win just by being stubborn, at some point you need to admit you're just flat out wrong.

>>9683189
I agree and it's disappointing that you can't apply that same logic to the study of consciousness rather than screeching about how it "contradicts" the flawed and incomplete standard model. Despite the fact it doesn't. Despite the fact transmission theory fits the facts better than any other theory. You're ideologically opposed to the idea because you're a materialist and an atheist (It hasn't escaped my notice your "sources" are also promoters of the toxic new atheism ideology like Poz Myers)

>>9683197
Dan Dennett is doing quite good work on actually studying consciousness.

How can you be so thick?

If materialism is true, then materialistic physics is sufficient to explain the observable behavior of the human body.

If materialism is false, then materialistic physics is not sufficient to explain the observable behavior of the human body, and we need some sort of additional non-materialistic physics, e.g. some "soul physics".

In other words, the transmission hypothesis entails some causative effect, some difference from the materialistic status quo. The transmission hypothesis entails that there is a soul which does something substantive regarding the observable behavior of the human body, and that is, by definition, something which is observably different from mundane materialistic physics.

>>9659789
>We now know that consciousness can exist outside of the brain.

>>>/x/

Fucking moron.

>>9684294
>If materialism is false, then materialistic physics is not sufficient to explain the observable behavior of the human body
Correct. And what do you know? Material physics is indeed not enough to explain the behavior of the human body!

>>9685003
>Correct. And what do you know? Material physics is indeed not enough to explain the behavior of the human body!
Citations please.

>>9682909
a spectrum*

>>9685457
The behavior of the claustrum makes no sense in a fully material model.

>>9685515
Ok. Citations please.

>>9685519
>Thinking academia would ever allow a paper to be published that disproves materialism
You're on the kool-aid. Academia is an institution which is deeply prejudiced against non-materialistic theories, you're only confirming your own biases if you demand papers that have been filtered through that system

>>9685542
How did you come to the conclusion that you did? Why should I believe you?

>>9685515
>>9685542
>>9685544
No, really, I would like for you to explain why you think that the behavior of the claustrum "makes no sense in a fully material model". Are you going to cite particular evidence which shows that the behavior of it violates the standard model? Or are you going to go full creationist and make the argument that it could not have evolved?

>>9685542
>>9685544

When lots of people have spent a lifetime as non-materialists in the system, things tend to become clear as day to them, and then they testify to that effect. Here is a long explanation of some of the reasons why academia is so hostile to non-materialistic theories and evidence that aims to falsify it: https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc799403/m2/1/high_res_d/vol21-no1.pdf (pp. 5-24)

>>9685734
Near death studies? Is that really the best you got? "I feel as though I'm not just a material body" and "One time, this one guy I never met, in a way that could easily be faked, claimed to have seen or heard something while unconsciousness".

Also:
>It is not my purpose here, except for a few examples below, to review the wealth of data that falsifies materialism.

Stopped reading.

I asked you for the evidence that convinced you, not some tirade that I'm not being open-minded enough or some shit.

>>9685734
>>9686854
Actually, continuing reading because curious, but I really should have stopped right there.

Now they mention a fortune teller psychic, and the author is upset that some scientists refused to have their time wasted by coming out? Oh come on. If any psychic was legit, they would have won James Randi's million dollars. That no one has is actually among the best evidence that all psychics and mediums are frauds.

>>9659789
"Scientist" has found a home...

>>9685734
I did some more reading, mostly skimming. In short, the author of your paper fails to recognize just how vast the evidence is for materialism, and that's why just a one-off example, no matter how compelling, would not be enough to overturn materialism.

For example, when the orbits of the outer planets were found to be inconsistent with Newton's gravity, did they immediately throw out Newton's gravity? No. Instead they did some math and predicted the location of Neptune, and they found it. Falsification is more complicated than just finding a one-off counter example.

Furthermore, the author of your paper seemingly doesn't have one single bit of hard evidence. Instead, just things that could /easily/ be faked, like psychic trances and typical near death experiences.

Lots of operating rooms now keep a digital display near the roof of the operating room, out of sight of the doctors and the patient, just to test NDEs. So far, not a single patient has reported it correctly. And even if one did report it correctly, we still have to take into account the possibility of outright forgery in the report. Maybe the doctors colluded with the patient. Because there's so many people, rare things happen all the time. That's why good science is based on verifiable, repeatable experiments and observations, and not on first person testimony, which is the shittiest kind of evidence that exists.

>>9659789
>>9686882

Hey there "Scientist", you seem happy in this thread, but there is a flat earther thread going right now too, and your presence there is desperately needed.

>>9659789
>So, when are we actually going to start addressing what they found in this study
>This has tremendous implications.

Not really. Basically, the brain continues to function temporarily after we assume its "death" as confirmed in other studies by electroencephalography surges post cardiac arrest. Consciousness is a limited part of brain function as evident by subconscious processing which does not require our input e.g. activation of the sympathetic nervous system. As a result, it should be no amazing feat that the brain can sometimes recall to us the events surrounding a lack of consciousness as doing so would provide the individual with potentially valuable information to avoid similar events in the future thereby increasing its survival.

>>9687241

>Not really. Basically, the brain continues to function temporarily after we assume its "death" as confirmed in other studies by electroencephalography surges post cardiac arrest.

Not really. See >>9669350 and >>9661012 for instance.

>As a result, it should be no amazing feat that the brain can sometimes recall to us the events surrounding a lack of consciousness as doing so would provide the individual with potentially valuable information to avoid similar events in the future thereby increasing its survival.

That's quite the ad hoc with zero evidence and thus zero reasons to take it seriously. Or am I missing something? Please, feel free to cite evidence in favor of your statement.

>>9688751

Have a look at the article I included in my last post. It seems you do not have good attention to detail. Hint: I have included the doi in the image title.

>That's quite the ad hoc with zero evidence and thus zero reasons to take it seriously

That's no concern of mine. You are free to believe in as you choose. Natural selection rewards those which can benefit. Put some thought to it.

>>9685734
>ABSTRACT: The evidence for an afterlife is sufficiently strong and compelling that an unbiased person ought to conclude that materialism is a false theory. Yet the academy refuses to examine the evidence, and clings to materialism as if it were a priori true, instead of a posteriori false. I suggest several explanations for the monumental failure of curiosity on the part of academia. First, there is deep confusion between the concepts of evidence and proof. Second, materialism functions as a powerful paradigm that structures the shape of scientific explanations, but is not itself open to question. The third explanation is intellectual arrogance, as the possible existence of disembodied intelligence threatens the materialistic belief that the educated human brain is the highest form of intelligence in existence. Finally, there is a social taboo against belief in an afterlife, as our whole way of life is predicated on materialism and might collapse if near-death experiences, particularly the life review, were accepted as fact.

Yes this is exactly what I'm talking about. When materialist theories fail non-materialistic theories aren't even considered. It's a disease which has taken over academia completely, to it's detriment because no we have a generation of mindless drones instead of truth seekers. I think we all need to step back and realize that while science has done a great deal for our understanding of physical phenomena it has done absolutely nothing to help us understand non-physical phenomena.

>>9680724

>pointing out the total recall experienced under hypnosis
>Bullshit.

If you had studied any philosophy at all in your life, you might be familiar with the concept of "relevance". Whether hypnosis is real or not is /completely irrelevant/ to the point the author of that article is making.

>Science is not in the business of explaining fundamentally why something happens. That's not the role of science.

>See the standard Feynman video on "how do magnets work" for a longer explanation of why science cannot meaningfully answer questions of that sort.

This is pure rhetoric appealing to the red herring of "muh fractalization of knowledge". Of course you can always dig deeper into any question, but the answer at every level is still of relevance and has epistemic value. Either way, it doesn't address what you argue that it addresses at all. Once again you seem to have a problem with the concept of relevance. Forget about failing to explicitly refute the central point, you don't even address the central point.

>https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/physics-and-the-immortality-of-the-soul/
>Among advocates for life after death, nobody even tries to sit down and do the hard work of explaining how the basic physics of atoms and electrons would have to be altered in order for this to be true.
>there's no way within those laws to allow for the information stored in our brains to persist after we die

Sean Carroll is demonstrably lying in this article, since it was published after the book "Science and the Near-Death Experience: How Consciousness Survives Death" by Chris Carter was published. In the entire first third of the book, he argues the exact opposite of those quotes by Sean with scores of citations to scholarly papers by QM physicists and memory researchers.

As others have tried to point out to you already, you're not updated with the actual literature on the topic. That's OK, but don't expect to be taken seriously until you are.

>>9690088
We cannot answer "how do magnets work?" e.g. "why does the magnetic field and the electric field interact in the way that they do?". Similarly, we cannot answer "how does the brain cause consciousness?". It's the same sort of question. When you look at it closely, it's just as mysterious why the electron field should cause changes to the EM Field, and vice versa.

>As others have tried to point out to you already, you're not updated with the actual literature on the topic. That's OK, but don't expect to be taken seriously until you are.

As I've been asking for the entire thread, citations to these articles please. You haven't given me shit yet. Give me a citation to someone who is writing out the math for soul physics, and how the soul field couples with the electron field, etc.

>>9689006
>Have a look at the article I included in my last post.

I read the article. It says that some psychics actually have psychic powers, and can magically talk with the dead. Do you really mean to defend this position? For example, do you really believe that John Edward is not a con-man?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edward
Suggesting that psychics and mediums actually have magic powers is many times more absurd than suggesting there is a non-material soul.

>>9663260
I fucking watched that for some reason a little while ago and I want to punch the guy in the face. Everything he said is so moronic. Any two digit IQ retard could have written his talk

>>9690201

>It's the same sort of question. When you look at it closely, it's just as mysterious why the electron field should cause changes to the EM Field, and vice versa.

No it's not. It's called "The hard problem of consciousness" for a reason, whereas "The hard problem of magnets" yield zero google search results. Do you have any citations to scholarly physicists who seriously argue that these two are equally hard nuts to crack or are similar in nature, or is this just your personal opinion?

>Give me a citation to someone who is writing out the math for soul physics, and how the soul field couples with the electron field, etc.

I already did in my last post, where I referenced this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Science-Near-Death-Experience-Consciousness-Survives/dp/1594773564/

Take a look inside, and see chapter 4. That's 49 pages where he argues that position. If you don't even want to spend single-digit money on it, go to the nearest library and ask them if they have it or can get it. It really is not that hard to dive deeper into the literature /if you are actually interested in doing so/, instead of just regurgitating your a priori worldview nonstop as if you are more interested in having the final say than actually learning something new.

>>9680735
>So, what's more likely - that this pattern continues
>This pattern has clearly continued.

No, once again you're not familiar with the actual data and the history of the research, you're just stating your own erroneous view of history. The problem is that this pattern has been known to be broken since at least the latter half of the 19th century. Already back then, we had good reasons if we sat on top of the literature to be at least skeptical of materialism on empirical grounds. Today, it's a mountain of evidence that is impossible to justifiably ignore. For a historical overview of all of this data, I recommend Chris Carter's entire trilogy.

>And you cannot have a meaningful transmission theory without some cause-and-effect going from the soul to the brain, and that is flatly incompatible with the standard model of particle physics.

Are you even aware of the plethora of possible interpretations of QM?

>For bonus points, as Sean Carroll asks in the link, when did living creatures first have souls? Did the earliest amino acids have souls? Prokaryotes? Eukaryotes? Etc.

These are good questions and I don't pretend to have the answers. Does a SNES have an incarnated soul?

What I do know, however, is that I don't need to have the answers to those questions in order to make a dispassionate analysis of the totality of the empirical data currently available.

There is no doubt that if we have empirical data that demonstrates that there is an afterlife, then there are a lot of new questions for us to answer. And we won't have all the answers to all of those questions for a long, long time. But that /doesn't/ mean that we should ignore the data, just because it would be uncomfortable to have even more questions at our disposal. Nature never gave any promises of simple answers, and there is a lot of uncertainty in the world. That's a fact of life, so we better start embracing it instead of hiding from it with denial of the facts.

>>9680741

I think the point was that our clearly best source of evidence for people being is that they testify that they are tired.

The world is built upon the epistemic value inherent to testimonies. Science itself is built on trusting others when they report that they have done something.

>>9659789
We arent because its nonsense

>>9691062
>Are you even aware of the plethora of possible interpretations of QM?

Yes, I am. Copenhagen and GRW. Everett. Bohm. What does that than to do with my question? Seemingly nothing.

>>9691062
>Already back then, we had good reasons if we sat on top of the literature to be at least skeptical of materialism on empirical grounds.

Goddamnit. So, if I read that chapter, it will lay out all of the evidence? Before I do that, and before I probably waste that much time, I'm going to need you to summarize it. Is it just NDEs, psychics / spiritual mediums, and total memory recall under hypnosis?

Also, I'm still waiting for your answer. Do you really mean to say that you believe that people like John Edward can talk to the dead?!

>>9691032
> Do you have any citations to scholarly physicists

The Feynman video above. Literally a nobel physicist, and arguably the greatest physicist of our generatiom. Also check out Hume. This is a common misunderstanding of science and causation. We never have a fundamental misunderstanding of what causes anything. All we ever have is correlation that shows causation when proper attempts are made at accounting for confounding variables.

>>9691062
>Are you even aware of the plethora of possible interpretations of QM?
Wait, are you that idiot from the other thread who insisted that Tom Campbell, the author of My Big Toe, is right about the special place of conscious observers in quantum mechanics? If so, goddamn I've been trolled well today.

Fixing typos:

>>9691032
> Do you have any citations to scholarly physicists

The Feynman video above. Literally a Nobel physicist, and arguably the greatest physicist of our generation. Also check out Hume. This is a common misunderstanding of science and causation. We never have a fundamental understanding of what causes anything. All we ever have is correlation that shows causation when proper attempts are made at accounting for confounding variables.

>>9692839

Why do you consider it nonsense?

>>9693014

So 4 of them? Have you heard of the von Neumann interpretation?

>What does that than to do with my question?

That QM allows for the conscious observer to decide where the electrons end up in some interpretations?

>>9693018

>So, if I read that chapter, it will lay out all of the evidence?

That chapter is not about NDE evidence, it is about the fact that physics allow for the survivalist interpretation of NDEs. In other words, nothing in QM forbids NDEs from being transcendental in nature.

>Before I do that, and before I probably waste that much time, I'm going to need you to summarize it. Is it just NDEs, psychics / spiritual mediums, and total memory recall under hypnosis?

Go and take a loot at all three chapter summaries on Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/Science-Psychic-Phenomena-House-Skeptics/dp/159477451X/
https://www.amazon.com/Science-Near-Death-Experience-Consciousness-Survives/dp/1594773564/
https://www.amazon.com/Science-Afterlife-Experience-Immortality-Consciousness/dp/1594774528/

There you can see what will be discussed in all of those books.

>Also, I'm still waiting for your answer. Do you really mean to say that you believe that people like John Edward can talk to the dead?!

No, I think you're confusing me with some other poster in this thread.

>The Feynman video above. Literally a nobel physicist, and arguably the greatest physicist of our generatiom. Also check out Hume.

Yes but these people are not saying, like you are, that the EM field is equivalent to the hard problem of consciousness in terms of explaining.

>>9693053

>Wait, are you that idiot from the other thread who insisted that Tom Campbell, the author of My Big Toe, is right about the special place of conscious observers in quantum mechanics?

No.

>>9693053
That was me. Campbell is the only physicist with the guts to tell the truth. I do agree with what the above poster is saying though

>>9694391
>That QM allows for the conscious observer to decide where the electrons end up in some interpretations?
So, going full pseudoscience, ala The Law Of Attraction, ala the book "The Secret". Do you really believe that? Are you really that gullible?

>Yes but these people are not saying, like you are, that the EM field is equivalent to the hard problem of consciousness in terms of explaining.
Yes, they are. The hard problem of consciousness the question "how does A cause B?". That is precisely the sort of question which science cannot answer. It's also not an interesting question. People who ask the question don't understand science. It's the same sort of question "how does mass cause gravity?", aka "how does energy cause spacetime to bend?". It's just not an interesting question, but it's also the exact same sort of question.

>>Also, I'm still waiting for your answer. Do you really mean to say that you believe that people like John Edward can talk to the dead?!
>No, I think you're confusing me with some other poster in this thread.

>https://www.amazon.com/Science-Psychic-Phenomena-House-Skeptics/dp/159477451X/

Seems like you still believe it though. You believe that charlatans like John Edward can actually talk to the dead. I don't have the words to describe how gullible you are.

>That chapter is not about NDE evidence, it is about the fact that physics allow for the survivalist interpretation of NDEs. In other words, nothing in QM forbids NDEs from being transcendental in nature.

I don't give a fuck about that. For the umpteenth time - do you or do you not have a source that gives a proper summary of the evidence in favor of your position? Enough with the creationist tactic of attacking materialism. Attacking materialism does not make your position correct by default. What is the positive evidence that you actually have for your position?

Fuck this gay nigger shit.

Why is nobody researching DMT?

>>9694678
>It's just not an interesting question, but it's also the exact same sort of question.
What laughable bullshit. It's a very interesting question but you know that it's an impossible question to answer with your worldview so you adopt the "fox and the grapes" attitude and claim it's "not interesting" to absolve yourself of it.

This attitude started with Niels Bohr and Einstein rightly shit on him for it, if you're not interested then you've thrown up the white flag and given up on the search for truth

>>9694762
No, the attitude started with Hume with his piece on "constant conjunction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_conjunction

It was a fact about scientific inquiry from the start. Science is not in the business of answering the question "how does A cause B?" at a fundamental level. That's not the purpose of science. It's also a question that cannot be answered by any other means, either.

>>9694779
More evidence that Hume was a brainlet who was way out of his depth.

>>9694779
>That's not the purpose of science
The fundamental purpose of science is to expand our understanding of how the world works. At some point materialists tried to redefine it so that it's only searching for regularities in physical phenomena and nothing more, because they got frightened of the implications of actually knowing the truth. "Ok we can stop here, we know that if X then Y and that's enough, no need to go any further." They're intellectual cowards who spit on the great tradition of science to search for truth.

>>9694808
Go ahead. Try to answer how any one thing causes something else. Then, imagine a smart 5 year old child asking "but why is it that way instead of something else?". You're just wrong, and obviously so. Really, try hitting me with one counter example. Explain to me how one thing causes another thing, without using a reductionist answer.

>>9695521
The moon causes the tides

>>9695666
How does it cause the tides? It seems rather mysterious. How does something so far away cause rises and falls in the level of the oceans?

>>9695680
Pick up something heavy at the end of a cord and swing it around. You feel it pull you toward it as it swings. The moon does the same to the Earth and 'pulls' the water on the side toward it as it orbits.

>>9695692
Ok. But how does it pull? What is the mechanism of the pulling? I don't see anything touching, which is normally how something pulls on something else.

PS:
You're wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwChk4S99i4

>>9660432
solipsism niggas btfo

>>9694678
>So, going full pseudoscience, ala The Law Of Attraction, ala the book "The Secret". Do you really believe that? Are you really that gullible?

"Really?" is not a refutation of the von Neumann interpretation. Tell me how it is wrong, or continue being irrelevant.

>Yes, they are.

According to you, yes, you've made that clear. But do you have a source where it is explicitly articulated by them themselves, that these two different problems are equally hard to solve for science?

>Seems like you still believe it though. You believe that charlatans like John Edward can actually talk to the dead. I don't have the words to describe how gullible you are.

Huh? You do know that there's a difference between parapsychology as a science and individual TV mediumships, right?

>For the umpteenth time - do you or do you not have a source that gives a proper summary of the evidence in favor of your position?

I've just linked you Chris Carter's entire trilogy. In there is everything you need. The evidence, the explanation how QM is compatible with survivalism, everything. If you read that entire trilogy, you won't walk away feeling like something hasn't been properly explained to you.

>>9696547
I'm not going to be tricked again. You gave a paper and said the evidence was there. You lied. That was your chance. I'm not going to waste my time by reading 3 whole fucking books. Give me a summary of the kinds of evidence, and cite the page numbers which cite the particular evidences of this kind.

>>9697911
>I'm not going to be tricked again. You gave a paper and said the evidence was there. You lied. That was your chance.

Huh? Dude what are you even talking about? The paper in the OP /does/ contain evidence. Your moving of the goalposts à la "I need an undefined amount of more than this because muh paradigm" isn't even a scientific objection to begin with.

>I'm not going to waste my time by reading 3 whole fucking books. Give me a summary of the kinds of evidence, and cite the page numbers which cite the particular evidences of this kind.

So when even more evidence is presented, you refuse to read it unless someone holds your hand all the way through?

Here's a tip: Either grow up and take your time to research this topic thoroughly and responsibly, or quit being such an outstanding demonstration of the Dunning Kruger effect with your endlessly uninformed replies.

>>9699202
I linked and cited above where the paper says that it does not contain a proper summary of the available evidence, and that providing a summary of such evidence is not the point of the paper.

>>9699679

Yeah but that was the Neal Grossman paper "Who's Afraid of Life After Death?", and the explicit purpose of that particular paper was /not/ to review the evidence but to explain why people were recalcitrant to dispassionately evaluate this type of evidence in the first place.

That /one/ of all the papers that has been linked does not concern itself with the evidence does /not/ negate the very definite existence of plenty of well-documented evidence presented in many of the other papers and/or books throughout this thread.

As another poster noted, you're responding just to respond.