Why dualism?

[LarryS]

Some people see the fact that science can't explain nonsense as proof that science is incomplete or faulty. The nonsense exists in their worldview so since science says "no" it has to be wrong.

Are you suggesting that consciousness / first person subjective experience is nonsense?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Are you suggesting that consciousness / first person subjective experience is nonsense?

It's a meaningless distinction without difference used to promote nonsense.

"The first person subjective experience" is just wordy way of saying your own sensory input and trying to twist that into everyone getting their own personal pocket reality.

Again this all goes back to whether or not you want to pretend reality doesn't exist. It don't fine but there's literally zero point in even talking to you if you don't.

If think you live in Plato's Cave fine, but then by definition you live there alone.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

So what is Carroll talking about…and how is it related to that paragraph I included? I have suggested at least a dozen times that you actually present a response to that paragraph. So far you have avoided doing so just as many times.

Well, that's the thing - it's not related to that paragraph. This is why I've repeatedly said that if you want to address Carroll's arguments, then you'll have to post counter-arguments that actually address Carroll's arguments, rather than ones that don't.

 

[IanS]

I find the claim that "were to occur it would be detectable" somewhat question-begging. It presumes that it (OBEs) would occur in a way that is easily detectable through the known forces of nature (EM, weak, strong, gravity). But in fact, it's not so clear. For example, the electromagnetic vacuum energy of quantum electrodynamics is an enormous energy density, yet we can barely observe its indirect physical effects on visible matter other than in highly controlled experimental setups (e.g. Casimir plates in a hard vacuum). If OBEs (say) were mediated by the E&M vacuum energy (perhaps through correlations in the vacuum field modes or whatever), it would be extremely hard to detect those correlations (much harder than doing a Casimir effect experiment). Then of course, there's the fact that there are mediums in our physical universe whose constituents or physical origins we know next to nothing about - dark matter and dark energy (it's not clear yet if dark energy is really the same as the electromagnetic/weak/strong quantum vacuum energy, or something different). These two mediums constitute around 96% of the mass-energy content of the universe, yet the only way we know how to 'detect' them at the moment is by observing their gravitational effects at galactic and inter-galactic scales. If (say) the medium for OBEs (assuming they really are 'consciousness' displacing itself from the physical brain) was mediated by dark matter and/or dark energy, it would be hopeless right now to try and detect the physical effects of an OBE with earth-bound lab experiments, and probably impossible to infer OBEs from gravitational effects at galactic or inter-galactic scales. I can't think of any evidence or theory that can decisively rule out these two possibilities for the mediums of OBEs, and I highly doubt that your skeptical associates can either. But it would be interesting to hear how they might try.

What you suggest above is to make extremely speculative suggestions, in an attempt to associate the mental images described in NDE's, with such things as Dark Matter, or a Vacuum State Energy. What is the justification for that? ... where is the evidence to show that something called an NDE which apparently occurs as a thought process in the mind of a person when they are seriously unwell, has a separate physical existence outside the human body such as to interact with something so little known as the proposed Dark Energy of outer space? How does that happen? What evidence do you produce to show anything like that is happening?

Lets take a few steps back and be clear about what you think reported NDE's and OBE's actually are if they are not simply imaginary constructions of the physical brain, similar to the images which we all experience in dreams, or which many people experience as hallucinations under various medical conditions. That is - are you claiming that NDE's (or OBE's) are an example of something called "human conciousness" having a separate physical existence outside of the persons body after death?

Because that was in fact what Alexander and Moody were proposing in that YouTube debate. And in fact, it turns out that both Alexander and Moody have written commercially available books in which they make those claims. So there is the fact (apparently) they are profiting financially from the idea by selling the story to people in their books. IOW - afaik; what both Alexander and Moody are both claiming, is that so-called "conciousness" has a separate existence which persists as a spirit, soul, or ghost, which is linking you to an afterlife in contact with a heavenly creator God, and which is thereby proof of the existence of the Christian God. IOW - it's a Christian God-claim.

That's what they are saying.

What Novella was saying, and what that Wiki page also supports with a huge mass of referenced material, is that very few properly qualified neuroscientists, psychologists, or medics, agree with Alexander & Moody, and the vast majority say, as Novella said in the video, that all the properly verified experimental evidence and data, shows that the NDE's and OBE's are occurring within the physical structure of the brain. If you read that Wiki page, that is overwhelmingly the collective expert opinion. And in fact, even worse for the opposing side who believe that conciousness exists outside of and separately from the brain, the studies which have made those claims (e.g. Parnia and van Lommel) have been largely discredited if not completely refuted.

So; are you claiming that something called "conciousness", i.e. some sort of thinking process of awareness, exists outside of the human brain/body, and has a separate existence of it's own somewhere in disembodied space?

And if so - then what is this "existing conciousness" composed of?

If it's not composed of quantised fields of the type which physicists like Carroll now recognise as the compositional basis for everything in the entire universe, from the instant of the Big Bang until now (and infinitely far in the future, as far as we can tell), i.e. if it's not composed of those same field perturbations which we used to refer to as "particles", then what do you think it is composed of? Because if you say it's composed of something else, then you are proposing that all of current physics is fundamentally wrong ... and I think that is the only point which Sean Carroll is making about it as far as the particle-field aspects are concerned.

Last comment on that - what I think Carroll is saying is that as far as we know, if anything exists, such as the proposed existence of "conciousness" outside of the human body (i.e. separately, after death, as some form of spirit or soul), then it must be composed of the same quantum fields as everything else in this universe (because all of known physics now confirms that; according to Carroll). And in that case any such disembodied "conciousness" would instantly encounter all of the other fields that compose all of space, and it would be forced to interact with all of those fields in ways which we now completely understand at least at the level of scales large enough to be any part of the process that we have long-since identified as processes and disturbances taking place in the human brain (according to Carroll).

Therefore, according to what I think Carroll is saying (and I'm not saying I agree or disagree with him if this is his point) - he is saying that we now know enough about the "Standard Model of Particle Physics", to be as sure as we are ever likely to be, that if conciousness acts on a scale that is large enough to have any discernible effect in a human mind/body at all (e.g., anything much greater than the Plank scale ... length of 10*-33cm and times longer than 10*-43sec.), then we would have been able to have detected those interactions between the "particles" of conciousness and the surrounding fields, long ago.

I think that is what Carroll is probably saying.

But as I said to you before - you really do not need any of that in order to dismiss the likelihood of something called "conciousness" having an existence outside the physical structure and processes of the brain. Because, as Novella explained, and as that Wiki article and it's references show, there is now very clear evidence in neuroscience, psychology and various branches of medicine to show that conciousness is only a function the brain, and that earlier (or even current) beliefs to the contrary are not supported by any reliable evidence.

 

[IanS]

Carroll is effectively saying: The natural world is all that exists, and, we've searched high and wide and have found no medium to support consciousness outside of the brain . . . so therefore the brain is all we need to explain consciousness.

Yes, and what's wrong with Carroll pointing that out (the highlighted part)?

Almost every properly qualified research scientist in the world (certainly in core science of physics, chemistry, biology, relevant branches of maths etc.), says exactly the same thing! They all agree that over the course of the past century, if not two centuries or more, literally millions of scientists have conducted literally billions of experiments and established all of the current theories of sciences which are tested literally trillions of times a day (not just in specific lab experiments all around the world, but in the functioning of computers and all sorts of electrical, electronic, mechanical and other devices ... including human and animal bodies), and concluded that quote "The natural world is all that exists"!

There is zero credible evidence for any other world of the supernatural. Do you really fail to understand that?

If you really think there is genuine objective evidence to suggest that some other supernatural world exists, then get your evidence published in a properly objective scientific journal and all the worlds scientists can have good look at it and see what you are claiming to have discovered.

 

[LarryS]

It's a meaningless distinction without difference used to promote nonsense.

"The first person subjective experience" is just wordy way of saying your own sensory input and trying to twist that into everyone getting their own personal pocket reality.

Again this all goes back to whether or not you want to pretend reality doesn't exist. It don't fine but there's literally zero point in even talking to you if you don't.

If think you live in Plato's Cave fine, but then by definition you live there alone.

I can't figure out what you're trying to say as it pertains to anything being said here in this thread. Who's suggesting reality doesn't exist? What does that even mean? What's a personal pocket reality?

 

[LarryS]

Carroll's claim that only the natural world exists could be wrong or right, but it's purely circular - and it's an assertion. Ultimately he's saying what exists is what exists. It's an assertion because we've never found this 'natural world' . . . we can claim that the 'natural world' or 'matter' is a way or manner of seeing (and touching/smelling/tasting/hearing), but we've never found any natural world outside of seeing (and touching/smelling/tasting/hearing).
BTW, I don't use the term 'supernatural' - I don't even know what the term could even mean.

 

[IanS]

Carroll's claim that only the natural world exists could be wrong or right, but it's purely circular - and it's an assertion. Ultimately he's saying what exists is what exist.

No. He's saying what "exists" is the stuff we can detect (in various ways, ... inc. the stuff we can predict from theory and then later verify).

He's saying there is no good evidence for any other world that we cannot, or have not detected.

As for it being an "assertion" - it's an assertion which is supported by all known actual evidence. That is what he says.

It's an assertion because we've never found this 'natural world' .

What is merely just "an assertion"? I think you are getting yourself confused now.

We do not have to "find" this "natural world". The "natural world" that science tries to study and explain, is the world that we have detected all around us.

We have never detected any evidence at all of any other world.

And the evidence that we have for the existence of the world that we detect around us, and the explanations that we already have from science for almost every conceivable aspect of this world, is now vast, detailed & confirmed almost beyond un-scientific comprehension. That's what most scientists like Carroll are saying.

Evidence for the ultra simplistic and quite childish suggestion of some parallel reality or spirit world, is so far non-existent.

.... we can claim that the 'natural world' or 'matter' is a way or manner of seeing (and touching/smelling/tasting/hearing), but we've never found any natural world outside of seeing (and touching/smelling/tasting/hearing).
BTW, I don't use the term 'supernatural' - I don't even know what the term could even mean.

Now you seem to be disagreeing with yourself! Yes, indeed (as you now say yourself) - we have never found evidence for any other world except the one that we detect as the universe around us (except of course for possible multiverses ... but that's a perfectly natural conclusion from science as well ... there's nothing mystical about it).

Larry - what qualifications or education do you actually have in fundamental research science?

 

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
.... we can claim that the 'natural world' or 'matter' is a way or manner of seeing (and touching/smelling/tasting/hearing), but we've never found any natural world outside of seeing (and touching/smelling/tasting/hearing).
BTW, I don't use the term 'supernatural' - I don't even know what the term could even mean.

Now you seem to be disagreeing with yourself! Yes, indeed (as you now say yourself) - we have never found evidence for any other world except the one that we detect as the universe around us (except of course for possible multiverses ... but that's a perfectly natural conclusion from science as well ... there's nothing mystical about it).

Larry - what qualifications or education do you actually have in fundamental research science?

You could also mention that science has many other means at its disposal for detection of all manner of things. We don't only use our human senses.

 

[annnnoid]

Well, that's the thing - it's not related to that paragraph. This is why I've repeatedly said that if you want to address Carroll's arguments, then you'll have to post counter-arguments that actually address Carroll's arguments, rather than ones that don't.

So you don’t know how what Carroll says is related to that paragraph. Given that the paragraph was written by someone who IS familiar with Carroll’s argument, and who is also a theoretical physicist…I think I’ll take his word for it over yours.

What you suggest above is to make extremely speculative suggestions, in an attempt to associate the mental images described in NDE's, with such things as Dark Matter, or a Vacuum State Energy. What is the justification for that? ... where is the evidence to show that something called an NDE which apparently occurs as a thought process in the mind of a person when they are seriously unwell, has a separate physical existence outside the human body such as to interact with something so little known as the proposed Dark Energy of outer space? How does that happen? What evidence do you produce to show anything like that is happening?

I am not claiming that there is an explicit justification. You simply ignore the blindingly obvious and indisputable fact that no one has a clue what consciousness is, if it is a thing, and how it is created by the physical activity of the brain. This paragraph merely points out that, contrary to what Carroll asserts, if consciousness is mediated through one of those mediums then we most indisputably would NOT be able to detect it!

Lets take a few steps back and be clear about what you think reported NDE's and OBE's actually are if they are not simply imaginary constructions of the physical brain, similar to the images which we all experience in dreams, or which many people experience as hallucinations under various medical conditions. That is - are you claiming that NDE's (or OBE's) are an example of something called "human conciousness" having a separate physical existence outside of the persons body after death?

You can’t seem to write a single paragraph without launching into a whole pile of massive assumptions!!!!

…the assumption that dreams are imaginary.

What are dreams and why do we have them (no one has a clue)? Where has it been empirically established that they are imaginary…and what is the empirical definition of ‘imaginary’ under such circumstances.

Just a suggestion….I wouldn’t even bother trying to answer any of these questions. There are no empirical answers. Why don’t you take a moment and try and guess why there are no empirical answers. This is why your statements are nothing but assumptions.…but feel entirely free to waste your time looking?

What are ‘hallucinations’ …and how is it possible to empirically establish when someone is having one and how is it possible to empirically establish what exactly is happening and that it is fraudulent?

…and quite obviously…if NDE’s / OBE’s etc. happen…then some variety of some human ‘thing’ exists independently of a human body!

Because that was in fact what Alexander and Moody were proposing in that YouTube debate. And in fact, it turns out that both Alexander and Moody have written commercially available books in which they make those claims. So there is the fact (apparently) they are profiting financially from the idea by selling the story to people in their books. IOW - afaik; what both Alexander and Moody are both claiming, is that so-called "conciousness" has a separate existence which persists as a spirit, soul, or ghost, which is linking you to an afterlife in contact with a heavenly creator God, and which is thereby proof of the existence of the Christian God. IOW - it's a Christian God-claim.

…except that lots of folks who aren’t remotely Christian-God-believers have had this variety of experience…so this claim is yet more unqualified garbage!

…and what has the fact that they’ve written books / made money got to do with the veracity of the claims?

What Novella was saying, and what that Wiki page also supports with a huge mass of referenced material, is that very few properly qualified neuroscientists, psychologists, or medics, agree with Alexander & Moody

…and do you ever bother taking even two seconds to explore why that is?

…and even fewer of those same properly qualified neuroscientists, psychologists, or medics, can even begin to explain what consciousness is or how it is created. None actually.

But that never seems to stop anyone making all manner of utterly unsubstantiated claims that …’we know it can’t be this, that, or the other.’

We actually know no such thing!

, and the vast majority say, as Novella said in the video, that all the properly verified experimental evidence and data, shows that the NDE's and OBE's are occurring within the physical structure of the brain.

…of course, this ignores the rather significant FACT that we can’t even begin to explicitly or empirically adjudicate any of these phenomenon (or ANY subjective experience). But…like I said… that never seems to stop anyone (however dubiously qualified) from making all manner of utterly unsubstantiated claims!

Like I said...take some time and enlighten yourself about what current neural scanning technology can...and CANNOT...actually detect. Then you'll appreciate just how premature...and stupid, a lot of these claims are!

If you read that Wiki page, that is overwhelmingly the collective expert opinion. And in fact, even worse for the opposing side who believe that conciousness exists outside of and separately from the brain, the studies which have made those claims (e.g. Parnia and van Lommel) have been largely discredited if not completely refuted.

....do yourself a favor and actually explore what it is you’re dismissing. But then again, I seriously doubt you have the slightest interest in learning the actual facts.

So; are you claiming that something called "conciousness", i.e. some sort of thinking process of awareness, exists outside of the human brain/body, and has a separate existence of it's own somewhere in disembodied space?

And if so - then what is this "existing conciousness" composed of?

I dunno…what are ‘you’ composed of?

If it's not composed of quantised fields of the type which physicists like Carroll now recognise as the compositional basis for everything in the entire universe, from the instant of the Big Bang until now (and infinitely far in the future, as far as we can tell), i.e. if it's not composed of those same field perturbations which we used to refer to as "particles", then what do you think it is composed of? Because if you say it's composed of something else, then you are proposing that all of current physics is fundamentally wrong ... and I think that is the only point which Sean Carroll is making about it as far as the particle-field aspects are concerned.

I’m not even beginning to propose that all current physics is currently wrong. The biggest problem with current physics, is that no one has a clue how it’s created or what it’s relationship is with reality.

Not…a….clue!

IOW…science can’t even being to explain its own existence!

What is interesting is the apparent current convergence of different metaphysical and scientific paradigms. Science is beginning to implicate something called an ‘informational’ universe. Which is rather curious…since if ‘consciousness’ is anything, it is ‘information.’ And then we have this curiosity called the laws of physics…which supposedly describes everything so well that just about every physicist alive now insists that reality follows laws.

IOW…it is not forces that cause things to be what they are or do what they do, it is laws (no one has a clue what a force actually is anyway). Of course…when pressed on the matter…any self-respecting physicist – upon being presented with the blindingly obvious implications of their ‘faith’ (cause FAITH is EXACTLY what it is)…runs away like a bunny rabbit being chased by a Nazgul!

…laws. What creates laws? Only one thing that we know of (how…inconvenient): consciousness…which just happens to be the very thing that the worlds most well known neuroscientist suggests exists as a fundamental feature of that very same reality.

Last comment on that - what I think Carroll is saying is that as far as we know, if anything exists, such as the proposed existence of "conciousness" outside of the human body (i.e. separately, after death, as some form of spirit or soul), then it must be composed of the same quantum fields as everything else in this universe (because all of known physics now confirms that; according to Carroll). And in that case any such disembodied "conciousness" would instantly encounter all of the other fields that compose all of space, and it would be forced to interact with all of those fields in ways which we now completely understand at least at the level of scales large enough to be any part of the process that we have long-since identified as processes and disturbances taking place in the human brain (according to Carroll).

…but we quite obviously do not even remotely completely understand these things. No one has a clue about what consciousness is, how it’s created, or how it works. Nor does anyone have a clue what quantum fields actually are or how they are created or why they seem to follow all the laws that so many physicists never stop insisting that they follow...or even if they do (or don't) actually follow laws. Nor does anyone have a clue what the relationship is between our remarkably astute physics and the reality that it so accurately and effectively describes and predicts.

…minor questions.

Therefore, according to what I think Carroll is saying (and I'm not saying I agree or disagree with him if this is his point) - he is saying that we now know enough about the "Standard Model of Particle Physics", to be as sure as we are ever likely to be, that if conciousness acts on a scale that is large enough to have any discernible effect in a human mind/body at all (e.g., anything much greater than the Plank scale ... length of 10*-33cm and times longer than 10*-43sec.), then we would have been able to have detected those interactions between the "particles" of conciousness and the surrounding fields, long ago.

I think that is what Carroll is probably saying.

That is what he’s saying...and he’s wrong. It is quite understandable that many suck up his crap. He is, after, a real live physicist who supposedly knows what he’s talking about… and this is stupidly complicated stuff. But there is lots of quite legitimate disagreement about lots of things in physics. 2+2 does not always = 4. Arguments get to a certain point…and then they end…unresolved.

But as I said to you before - you really do not need any of that in order to dismiss the likelihood of something called "conciousness" having an existence outside the physical structure and processes of the brain. Because, as Novella explained, and as that Wiki article and it's references show, there is now very clear evidence in neuroscience, psychology and various branches of medicine to show that conciousness is only a function the brain, and that earlier (or even current) beliefs to the contrary are not supported by any reliable evidence.

THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE!

…how is it remotely possible for there to be ‘clear’ evidence about something that has nothing remotely resembling an empirical definition / description and which no empirical science can even begin to adjudicate!?!?!!?

What there is…are lots of lots of very human scientists (idiots I call them) who are typically biased (this is a fact…go and find out why)…and who seem to have no problem connecting dots that should not be so explicitly connected.

And there’s lots of ‘reliable evidence’ that supports contrary conclusions…it’s just not evidence that can be empirically adjudicated. For example…if you were to experience an NDE today…you would be the only one in a position to come to conclusions about what happened.

…come to think of it…that’s not unlike just about everything you experience. You get to decide…about you.

Yes, and what's wrong with Carroll pointing that out (the highlighted part)?

Almost every properly qualified research scientist in the world (certainly in core science of physics, chemistry, biology, relevant branches of maths etc.), says exactly the same thing! They all agree that over the course of the past century, if not two centuries or more, literally millions of scientists have conducted literally billions of experiments and established all of the current theories of sciences which are tested literally trillions of times a day (not just in specific lab experiments all around the world, but in the functioning of computers and all sorts of electrical, electronic, mechanical and other devices ... including human and animal bodies), and concluded that quote "The natural world is all that exists"!

…except that no one has a clue what the so-called ‘natural world’ actually is or where it comes from or why it seems to follow all these so-called laws…or if laws even exist (or not). Nor does anyone have a clue how ANY variety of science is created, or what explicit relationship it has (beyond descriptive) with the so-called ‘natural world’ (see above for some additional intriguing implications of that).

There is zero credible evidence for any other world of the supernatural. Do you really fail to understand that?

There is lots of credible evidence…it just depends on how you decide what ‘credible’ means.

For example…what ‘credible evidence’ do we have that ‘love’ exists. Absolutely zero. No science has ever come within light years of empirically establishing the existence of such a thing.

…so shall we conclude there is no such thing?

If you really think there is genuine objective evidence to suggest that some other supernatural world exists, then get your evidence published in a properly objective scientific journal and all the worlds scientists can have good look at it and see what you are claiming to have discovered.

…and when did ‘objective evidence’ become the standard by with the veracity of a phenomenon was adjudicated. If that is your standard…then you have just eliminated just about your entire existence.

Y’see where ignorance gets you!...you no longer exist. What a dilemma.

Now you seem to be disagreeing with yourself! Yes, indeed (as you now say yourself) - we have never found evidence for any other world except the one that we detect as the universe around us (except of course for possible multiverses ... but that's a perfectly natural conclusion from science as well ... there's nothing mystical about it).

It’s worth noting that there isn’t a shred of empirical evidence to support this idea of a multiverse. IOW…it’s nothing but metaphysics…which, of course…according to science… does not exist!

…and I can’t help but wonder at the far-beyond-Olympic level mental contortions that allow anyone to conclude that an infinite number of thus far utterly immeasurable / incomprehensible quantities (a universe) is somehow more parsimonious than a single universe with some variety of encompassing intelligence behind it.

Of course…either conclusion is virtually incomprehensible…but those suggesting the infinite universe idea actually argue that it is somehow more reasonable. With a single universe at least we have only a single infinitely incomprehensible quantity. With an infinite number…we have an infinite number of incomprehensible quantities.

Oh…sorry…I forgot the equally stupid argument that science will someday understand all.

…so tell me exactly how that is not exactly like a steaming slice of deep-fried gospel? AKA: faith!

So…somehow an infinite number of incomprehensible quantities is LESS parsimonious than a single incomprehensible infinite quantity.

…who’d have thunk it!

Evidence for the ultra simplistic and quite childish suggestion of some parallel reality or spirit world, is so far non-existent.

…when you stop insulting others conclusions I will stop pointing out how stupid and contradictory your own arguments are.

 

[annnnoid]

I’m sure you’re doubting the incompetence of so many of your high-priests of science. Scientists are human too…but in this one particular case (the brain / consciousness) misrepresentation and misunderstanding are almost to be expected:

"The human brain is the most complex object in the known universe ... complexity makes simple models impractical and accurate models impossible to comprehend."

Quite apart from all the documented biases and pressures that just about anyone with a smidgen of integrity acknowledges the existence of…the simple fact is that many researchers fall into the trap described in that statement. They extrapolate far beyond reason and / or they reason far beyond extrapolation. Because of the inherent incomprehensibility of the subject (the subject is, after all…the scientists themselves…and who really knows who and what they actually are!) many of these mistakes are either ignored or simply not even noticed.

Some of it actually is intentionally and / or unintentionally conspiratorial...in a typically half-assed kind of way. But much of it is simply a function of the subject. It is the most complicated subject there is. Period. Scientists are far from immune to its complexity...and are often more prone to error since epistemology (within which scientists are immersed...by definition) can so easily masquerade as ontology. IOW...the description is not the thing.

 

[IanS]

... <snipped to go to bottom line>

…when you stop insulting others conclusions I will stop pointing out how stupid and contradictory your own arguments are.

I have no idea what you said or wrote above that bottom line, because I did not read it. I'm not interested in what you've got to say.

But if you feel insulted ;- well, ... hard luck.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

So you don’t know how what Carroll says is related to that paragraph. Given that the paragraph was written by someone who IS familiar with Carroll’s argument, and who is also a theoretical physicist…I think I’ll take his word for it over yours.

Yes, you keep invoking this theoretical physicist of yours.

If we assume, for the sake of argument, that s/he actually exists, and really does have the qualifications you claim, then that doesn't change the fact that they seem to, at best, have misunderstood Carroll's arguments.

After much flailing about, you yourself finally said that Carroll was talking about things "at the energy, mass, and length scales relevant to everyday life". And then you provide a supposed counter-argument than invokes energy on a small scale which it explicitly says is incredibly difficult to detect except under highly-controlled laboratory conditions (and you later quoted Carroll verbatim saying "they can’t affect the atoms in your brain…because [...] they are so weak that they would have no affect [sic] on what the atoms are doing"), and gravitational effects which it explicitly says are on a galactic and intergalactic scale. Neither of those are within the bounds of what Carroll is talking about, and you should know that they are not because you've said so yourself. Twice.

You see, even after quoting him directly, you still seem to be unaware of what his arguments actually are. Because if you weren't, you wouldn't be quoting irrelevancies as if they were some kind of smoking gun.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

…so this claim is yet more unqualified garbage!

…and do you ever bother taking even two seconds to explore why that is?

[...]

Then you'll appreciate just how premature...and stupid, a lot of these claims are!

....do yourself a favor and actually explore what it is you’re dismissing. But then again, I seriously doubt you have the slightest interest in learning the actual facts.

[...]

It is quite understandable that many suck up his crap.

[...]

What there is…are lots of lots of very human scientists (idiots I call them) [...]

…and I can’t help but wonder at the far-beyond-Olympic level mental contortions that allow anyone to conclude that an infinite number of thus far utterly immeasurable / incomprehensible quantities (a universe) is somehow more parsimonious than a single universe with some variety of encompassing intelligence behind it.

[...]

Oh…sorry…I forgot the equally stupid argument that science will someday understand all.

…so tell me exactly how that is not exactly like a steaming slice of deep-fried gospel? AKA: faith!

…when you stop insulting others conclusions I will stop pointing out how stupid and contradictory your own arguments are.

Yes, it does get tiring when someone's main mode of communication is to be rude and insulting, doesn't it? It would take a fair amount of hubris and hypocrisy for that person to then start tone-policing, though, wouldn't it?

 

[JoeMorgue]

You could also mention that science has many other means at its disposal for detection of all manner of things. We don't only use our human senses.

Once during a conversation with a Woo Slinger they dropped a big "gotcha" on me with "How does your precious science know if there are colors we can't see?"

Apparently no one ever introduced him to the concept of the infrared or ultraviolet parts of the spectrum.

 

[annnnoid]

I have no idea what you said or wrote above that bottom line, because I did not read it. I'm not interested in what you've got to say.

But if you feel insulted ;- well, ... hard luck.

You're not interested in what I have to say????...then why on earth did you write all this:

What you suggest above is to make extremely speculative suggestions, in an attempt to associate the mental images described in NDE's, with such things as Dark Matter, or a Vacuum State Energy. What is the justification for that? ... where is the evidence to show that something called an NDE which apparently occurs as a thought process in the mind of a person when they are seriously unwell, has a separate physical existence outside the human body such as to interact with something so little known as the proposed Dark Energy of outer space? How does that happen? What evidence do you produce to show anything like that is happening?

Lets take a few steps back and be clear about what you think reported NDE's and OBE's actually are if they are not simply imaginary constructions of the physical brain, similar to the images which we all experience in dreams, or which many people experience as hallucinations under various medical conditions. That is - are you claiming that NDE's (or OBE's) are an example of something called "human conciousness" having a separate physical existence outside of the persons body after death?

Because that was in fact what Alexander and Moody were proposing in that YouTube debate. And in fact, it turns out that both Alexander and Moody have written commercially available books in which they make those claims. So there is the fact (apparently) they are profiting financially from the idea by selling the story to people in their books. IOW - afaik; what both Alexander and Moody are both claiming, is that so-called "conciousness" has a separate existence which persists as a spirit, soul, or ghost, which is linking you to an afterlife in contact with a heavenly creator God, and which is thereby proof of the existence of the Christian God. IOW - it's a Christian God-claim.

That's what they are saying.

What Novella was saying, and what that Wiki page also supports with a huge mass of referenced material, is that very few properly qualified neuroscientists, psychologists, or medics, agree with Alexander & Moody, and the vast majority say, as Novella said in the video, that all the properly verified experimental evidence and data, shows that the NDE's and OBE's are occurring within the physical structure of the brain. If you read that Wiki page, that is overwhelmingly the collective expert opinion. And in fact, even worse for the opposing side who believe that conciousness exists outside of and separately from the brain, the studies which have made those claims (e.g. Parnia and van Lommel) have been largely discredited if not completely refuted.

So; are you claiming that something called "conciousness", i.e. some sort of thinking process of awareness, exists outside of the human brain/body, and has a separate existence of it's own somewhere in disembodied space?

And if so - then what is this "existing conciousness" composed of?

If it's not composed of quantised fields of the type which physicists like Carroll now recognise as the compositional basis for everything in the entire universe, from the instant of the Big Bang until now (and infinitely far in the future, as far as we can tell), i.e. if it's not composed of those same field perturbations which we used to refer to as "particles", then what do you think it is composed of? Because if you say it's composed of something else, then you are proposing that all of current physics is fundamentally wrong ... and I think that is the only point which Sean Carroll is making about it as far as the particle-field aspects are concerned.

Last comment on that - what I think Carroll is saying is that as far as we know, if anything exists, such as the proposed existence of "conciousness" outside of the human body (i.e. separately, after death, as some form of spirit or soul), then it must be composed of the same quantum fields as everything else in this universe (because all of known physics now confirms that; according to Carroll). And in that case any such disembodied "conciousness" would instantly encounter all of the other fields that compose all of space, and it would be forced to interact with all of those fields in ways which we now completely understand at least at the level of scales large enough to be any part of the process that we have long-since identified as processes and disturbances taking place in the human brain (according to Carroll).

Therefore, according to what I think Carroll is saying (and I'm not saying I agree or disagree with him if this is his point) - he is saying that we now know enough about the "Standard Model of Particle Physics", to be as sure as we are ever likely to be, that if conciousness acts on a scale that is large enough to have any discernible effect in a human mind/body at all (e.g., anything much greater than the Plank scale ... length of 10*-33cm and times longer than 10*-43sec.), then we would have been able to have detected those interactions between the "particles" of conciousness and the surrounding fields, long ago.

I think that is what Carroll is probably saying.

But as I said to you before - you really do not need any of that in order to dismiss the likelihood of something called "conciousness" having an existence outside the physical structure and processes of the brain. Because, as Novella explained, and as that Wiki article and it's references show, there is now very clear evidence in neuroscience, psychology and various branches of medicine to show that conciousness is only a function the brain, and that earlier (or even current) beliefs to the contrary are not supported by any reliable evidence.

 

[annnnoid]

Yes, you keep invoking this theoretical physicist of yours.

If we assume, for the sake of argument, that s/he actually exists, and really does have the qualifications you claim, then that doesn't change the fact that they seem to, at best, have misunderstood Carroll's arguments.

After much flailing about, you yourself finally said that Carroll was talking about things "at the energy, mass, and length scales relevant to everyday life". And then you provide a supposed counter-argument than invokes energy on a small scale which it explicitly says is incredibly difficult to detect except under highly-controlled laboratory conditions (and you later quoted Carroll verbatim saying "they can’t affect the atoms in your brain…because [...] they are so weak that they would have no affect [sic] on what the atoms are doing"), and gravitational effects which it explicitly says are on a galactic and intergalactic scale. Neither of those are within the bounds of what Carroll is talking about, and you should know that they are not because you've said so yourself. Twice.

You see, even after quoting him directly, you still seem to be unaware of what his arguments actually are. Because if you weren't, you wouldn't be quoting irrelevancies as if they were some kind of smoking gun.

Like I said...he's got a masters degree in theoretical physics. You have...nothing. Get back to me when you manage to find an actual argument.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Like I said...he's got a masters degree in theoretical physics. You have...nothing. Get back to me when you manage to find an actual argument.

Whether or not I have a masters degree in theoretical physics doesn't affect whether or not something of which "we can barely observe its indirect physical effects on visible matter other than in highly controlled experimental setups" is "at the energy, mass, and length scales relevant to everyday life" (it's not). Nor would it affect whether or not somethings for which "the only way we know how to 'detect' them at the moment is by observing their gravitational effects at galactic and inter-galactic scales" are "at the energy, mass, and length scales relevant to everyday life" (they're also not).

That you have retreated back to throwing empty insults, rather than actually being able to offer a counter-argument is telling, though. Especially as the only counter-argument you could make would be to assert that both of those things are "at the energy, mass, and length scales relevant to everyday life", and I think even you realise that one is a non-starter, as it explicitly contradicts your alleged physicist friend.

Perhaps you would do better to correspond with your alleged theoretical physicist and ask him/her whether they have any arguments which do address what you have explicitly agreed it was that Carroll actually said.

 

[IanS]

So you don’t know how what Carroll says is related to that paragraph. Given that the paragraph was written by someone who IS familiar with Carroll’s argument, and who is also a theoretical physicist…I think I’ll take his word for it over yours.




I am not claiming that there is an explicit justification. You simply ignore the blindingly obvious and indisputable fact that no one has a clue what consciousness is, if it is a thing, and how it is created by the physical activity of the brain. This paragraph merely points out that, contrary to what Carroll asserts, if consciousness is mediated through one of those mediums then we most indisputably would NOT be able to detect it!




You can’t seem to write a single paragraph without launching into a whole pile of massive assumptions!!!!

…the assumption that dreams are imaginary.

What are dreams and why do we have them (no one has a clue)? Where has it been empirically established that they are imaginary…and what is the empirical definition of ‘imaginary’ under such circumstances.

Just a suggestion….I wouldn’t even bother trying to answer any of these questions. There are no empirical answers. Why don’t you take a moment and try and guess why there are no empirical answers. This is why your statements are nothing but assumptions.…but feel entirely free to waste your time looking?

What are ‘hallucinations’ …and how is it possible to empirically establish when someone is having one and how is it possible to empirically establish what exactly is happening and that it is fraudulent?

…and quite obviously…if NDE’s / OBE’s etc. happen…then some variety of some human ‘thing’ exists independently of a human body!




…except that lots of folks who aren’t remotely Christian-God-believers have had this variety of experience…so this claim is yet more unqualified garbage!

…and what has the fact that they’ve written books / made money got to do with the veracity of the claims?




…and do you ever bother taking even two seconds to explore why that is?

…and even fewer of those same properly qualified neuroscientists, psychologists, or medics, can even begin to explain what consciousness is or how it is created. None actually.

But that never seems to stop anyone making all manner of utterly unsubstantiated claims that …’we know it can’t be this, that, or the other.’

We actually know no such thing!




…of course, this ignores the rather significant FACT that we can’t even begin to explicitly or empirically adjudicate any of these phenomenon (or ANY subjective experience). But…like I said… that never seems to stop anyone (however dubiously qualified) from making all manner of utterly unsubstantiated claims!

Like I said...take some time and enlighten yourself about what current neural scanning technology can...and CANNOT...actually detect. Then you'll appreciate just how premature...and stupid, a lot of these claims are!




....do yourself a favor and actually explore what it is you’re dismissing. But then again, I seriously doubt you have the slightest interest in learning the actual facts.




I dunno…what are ‘you’ composed of?




I’m not even beginning to propose that all current physics is currently wrong. The biggest problem with current physics, is that no one has a clue how it’s created or what it’s relationship is with reality.

Not…a….clue!

IOW…science can’t even being to explain its own existence!

What is interesting is the apparent current convergence of different metaphysical and scientific paradigms. Science is beginning to implicate something called an ‘informational’ universe. Which is rather curious…since if ‘consciousness’ is anything, it is ‘information.’ And then we have this curiosity called the laws of physics…which supposedly describes everything so well that just about every physicist alive now insists that reality follows laws.

IOW…it is not forces that cause things to be what they are or do what they do, it is laws (no one has a clue what a force actually is anyway). Of course…when pressed on the matter…any self-respecting physicist – upon being presented with the blindingly obvious implications of their ‘faith’ (cause FAITH is EXACTLY what it is)…runs away like a bunny rabbit being chased by a Nazgul!

…laws. What creates laws? Only one thing that we know of (how…inconvenient): consciousness…which just happens to be the very thing that the worlds most well known neuroscientist suggests exists as a fundamental feature of that very same reality.




…but we quite obviously do not even remotely completely understand these things. No one has a clue about what consciousness is, how it’s created, or how it works. Nor does anyone have a clue what quantum fields actually are or how they are created or why they seem to follow all the laws that so many physicists never stop insisting that they follow...or even if they do (or don't) actually follow laws. Nor does anyone have a clue what the relationship is between our remarkably astute physics and the reality that it so accurately and effectively describes and predicts.

…minor questions.




That is what he’s saying...and he’s wrong. It is quite understandable that many suck up his crap. He is, after, a real live physicist who supposedly knows what he’s talking about… and this is stupidly complicated stuff. But there is lots of quite legitimate disagreement about lots of things in physics. 2+2 does not always = 4. Arguments get to a certain point…and then they end…unresolved.




THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE!

…how is it remotely possible for there to be ‘clear’ evidence about something that has nothing remotely resembling an empirical definition / description and which no empirical science can even begin to adjudicate!?!?!!?

What there is…are lots of lots of very human scientists (idiots I call them) who are typically biased (this is a fact…go and find out why)…and who seem to have no problem connecting dots that should not be so explicitly connected.

And there’s lots of ‘reliable evidence’ that supports contrary conclusions…it’s just not evidence that can be empirically adjudicated. For example…if you were to experience an NDE today…you would be the only one in a position to come to conclusions about what happened.

…come to think of it…that’s not unlike just about everything you experience. You get to decide…about you.




…except that no one has a clue what the so-called ‘natural world’ actually is or where it comes from or why it seems to follow all these so-called laws…or if laws even exist (or not). Nor does anyone have a clue how ANY variety of science is created, or what explicit relationship it has (beyond descriptive) with the so-called ‘natural world’ (see above for some additional intriguing implications of that).




There is lots of credible evidence…it just depends on how you decide what ‘credible’ means.

For example…what ‘credible evidence’ do we have that ‘love’ exists. Absolutely zero. No science has ever come within light years of empirically establishing the existence of such a thing.

…so shall we conclude there is no such thing?




…and when did ‘objective evidence’ become the standard by with the veracity of a phenomenon was adjudicated. If that is your standard…then you have just eliminated just about your entire existence.

Y’see where ignorance gets you!...you no longer exist. What a dilemma.




It’s worth noting that there isn’t a shred of empirical evidence to support this idea of a multiverse. IOW…it’s nothing but metaphysics…which, of course…according to science… does not exist!

…and I can’t help but wonder at the far-beyond-Olympic level mental contortions that allow anyone to conclude that an infinite number of thus far utterly immeasurable / incomprehensible quantities (a universe) is somehow more parsimonious than a single universe with some variety of encompassing intelligence behind it.

Of course…either conclusion is virtually incomprehensible…but those suggesting the infinite universe idea actually argue that it is somehow more reasonable. With a single universe at least we have only a single infinitely incomprehensible quantity. With an infinite number…we have an infinite number of incomprehensible quantities.

Oh…sorry…I forgot the equally stupid argument that science will someday understand all.

…so tell me exactly how that is not exactly like a steaming slice of deep-fried gospel? AKA: faith!

So…somehow an infinite number of incomprehensible quantities is LESS parsimonious than a single incomprehensible infinite quantity.

…who’d have thunk it!




…when you stop insulting others conclusions I will stop pointing out how stupid and contradictory your own arguments are.

You're not interested in what I have to say????...then why on earth did you write all this:

I write replies for the sake of various other people here. But I'm not interested in what you've got to say about it.

 

[Donn]

I write replies for the sake of various other people here. But I'm not interested in what you've got to say about it.

And they are appreciated. At least this keeps him busy and soaks up the stupid that would pox the world in some other way.