Why dualism?

[IanS]

Everything that is in that paragraph is equally relevant to consciousness itself….which Carroll assumes is a direct function of the physics of bio-chemical activity.

…notice the word ‘assumes’. Nobody has a clue as to the phenomenology of consciousness (or even if it has a distinct phenomenology). There are some…such as Cristof Koch…who believe ‘consciousness’ occurs as some manner of fundamental feature of reality. Nor does anyone have a clue as to the direct relationship between the physical activity of the brain and cognitive activity.

I don't think the word or concept called "phenomenology" should be what any of us are talking about if the question is whether evidence from scientific studies supports claims that human conciousness exists independently of the brain.

What Carroll is saying is only what all genuine scientists should say (and it's what Novella also said repeatedly in that debate) - what Carroll "assumes" is that scientifically valid and properly gathered and examined material evidence, is the most reliable method we currently have for determining what is likely to be true vs. what is unlikely to be true.

As Carroll says in the film;- if you reject that scientific procedure and claim to have some better and more reliable way of finding the most likely explanations for any real material event in this universe, then (a) science has shown that you are wrong, and it's shown that literally billions of times over, and (b) you must as your alternative tell us what this other method of "knowing" actually is, and show by proper evidential explanation that your method works better than science.

So what is your un-scientific method for determining what is most likely to be right about such questions as whether the mind functions in the absence of any brain?

 

[LarryS]

Carroll’s claim boils down to this: That there is no known medium or mechanism that could account for NDE’s / OBE’s.

This is outside my 'personal knowledge space', but isn't Carroll making at least these two assertions:
1. reality is particle-based, and
2. we now know what the most fundamental particles are. By most fundamental I mean particles that can not be further reduced.

 

[Navigator]

The Hopeless Duality Of Man - (and our longing to engineer divinity)

I was listening to this short video by Jason Silva this morning and think it is has a place in this thread.

Video

 

[Thor 2]

I find it very hard to understand how anyone watching a debate such as that, could ever take the NDE/OBE claimants seriously for anything at all. They started off with one of them recounting his own amazing story of NDE/OBE, and continued with various extremely vague and highly unscientific claims about what neuroscience had supposedly established to support a claimed reality of conciousness after death. And from their they went progressively down hill to the point of eventually quite openly having no defence to the fact (pointed out to them by the Moderator and by Carroll) that they were actually asking us to believe that published neuroscience and philosophy had in fact confirmed what amounts to disembodied spirits, souls and ghosts.

Yes this is a favorite among theists. Near death experiences prove there is life outside the body.

Funny thing is all the near death experiences I have read about, describe an experience of ascending to some wonderful place that beckons, only to be wrenched back to their ailing bodies before they get there. You never hear about someone descending to some not so nice place before being tugged back do you?

 

[Aepervius]

Yes this is a favorite among theists. Near death experiences prove there is life outside the body.

Funny thing is all the near death experiences I have read about, describe an experience of ascending to some wonderful place that beckons, only to be wrenched back to their ailing bodies before they get there. You never hear about someone descending to some not so nice place before being tugged back do you?

That's because they don't advert those but roughtly 1/5 to 1/4 of NDE are reported as unpleasant.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

This is outside my 'personal knowledge space', but isn't Carroll making at least these two assertions:
1. reality is particle-based, and
2. we now know what the most fundamental particles are. By most fundamental I mean particles that can not be further reduced.

Actually, between the two videos that have been posted in the last day or two, he explicitly says the opposite of both of these things - 1. that reality is made up of waves and 2. that it's entirely possible that the particles that we know of may reduce down further.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I was listening to this short video by Jason Silva this morning and think it is has a place in this thread.

Video

Since it appears that you have to log in to Facebook in order to view that video and I wouldn't have a Facebook account if you paid me to, is there any chance you can sum up?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Hmm, I've had a look at his YouTube channel, and the very first video I looked at is him saying some incredibly basic stuff in an overly-verbose way and acting as if it's really profound:



To summarise the video - communication is how we try to convey ideas to each other, new forms of art like virtual reality are ways in which people express themselves just like older forms of art, and by communicating with each other we share things with each other. It's like listening to someone who's smoked way too much weed and thinks that they've discovered the secret of life, when what they're actually doing is saying that the sandwich they've just eaten tasted nice.

Of course, perhaps his other videos, including the one referenced above, are much more profound and interesting, but I don't think I've got the willpower to watch more of them, unless given a compelling reason to do so.

 

[IanS]

This is outside my 'personal knowledge space', but isn't Carroll making at least these two assertions:

1. reality is particle-based, and
2. we now know what the most fundamental particles are. By most fundamental I mean particles that can not be further reduced.

Re. Q1 - I don't think Carroll says anything there about claiming to know what "reality" is, does he?

Afaik, what Carroll says is the same as almost all genuine physicists say. Which is that we can only deal with the universe as we detect it.

It's not scientists, but afaik philosophers who have for centuries (if not thousands of years) proposed that the apparent reality of the universe around us, may be "unreal". I don't know what evidence they offer to support that as a serious proposal. But afaik there is no scientifically credible evidence for such ideas.


Re. Q2. No - I think he says that we still cannot be sure whether the currently known "particles" (which most quantum physicists would now describe as concentrated disturbances of wave-forms in various energy fields that are thought to comprise all of space-time) will in the future be shown to actually consist of more subdivisions, i.e. composed of several more patterns of wave-forms.

I think what Carroll has said in other videos (see the link below) is that the currently known "particles" are not ever going to be said to have been a complete illusion, as if they never existed in any way at all. In that sense he says that those "particles" will always remain part of known & accepted physics, but he allows for the possibility that we may of course learn more about the properties of any of those "particles", and that future discoveries may of course change the way we describe them and the way we think about them.

To understand much more of what Carroll says about all of that, see this video of another presentation by Carroll at Fermilab in 2013 -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEKSpZPByD0


Footnote to add - By the way just to be clear about something important which may be getting overlooked here - in those videos Carroll is not telling you about some "pet theory" of his own. He's always describing what most theoretical quantum physicists and cosmologists now say is their best explanation of all these things he's talking about ... he's describing the generally agreed picture in current physics (it's actually been "current" for at least 40 years!).

 

[Thor 2]

That's because they don't advert those but roughtly 1/5 to 1/4 of NDE are reported as unpleasant.

That's interesting. Can you point me in the direction of where I can get this information?

 

[Navigator]

Yes this is a favorite among theists. Near death experiences prove there is life outside the body.

For some this would be the case, and for others it is compelling subjective evidence and is not solely theists who experience such.

Funny thing is all the near death experiences I have read about, describe an experience of ascending to some wonderful place that beckons, only to be wrenched back to their ailing bodies before they get there. You never hear about someone descending to some not so nice place before being tugged back do you?

Not ordinarily - especially not from the theist camp. Most of those type experiences tend to come from people who were not overly religious before their NDE and became Theists after it.

However there are plenty of stories which relate to being taken to view less inviting situations.

OOBE experiences related to Astral Travel often report unpleasant realms - the Astral realm itself being described as not only layered but vast and containing all sorts of heavens and hells and everything else humanly imaginable (and even not humanly imaginable) places in between.

That's interesting. Can you point me in the direction of where I can get this information?

'Google' would be a good place to start- type in 'Astral experiences' for example and then have a gander at some of those. Also Astral related message boards have many members (or at least they did when I used to frequent them) only too eager to share their experiences.

 

[Aepervius]

That's interesting. Can you point me in the direction of where I can get this information?

I would have to look again through the sewage of info on NDE (too much woo mixed) but a start could be the wiki which cite much lwoer number than mine :

Some NDEs have elements that bear little resemblance to the "typical" near-death experience. Anywhere from one percent (according to a 1982 Gallup poll) to 20 percent of subjects may have distressing experiences and feel terrified or uneasy as various parts of the NDE occur, they visit or view dark and depressing areas or are accosted by what seem to be hostile or oppositional forces or presences

indley, JH; Bryan, S & Conley, B. (1981). 'Near-death experiences in a Pacific Northwest population: The Evergreen study – Anabiosis 1. p. 109.

ETA: So far I am only finding nothing I could cite but they all agree that between <20% are distressing and some very rare are unpleasant/hellish.

This one has a few quote but i am unable to check them...

http://iands.org/distressing-near-death-experiences.html

 

[Aepervius]

This one is promising if you can find it :
Greyson B, Bush NE. "Distressing near-death experiences". Psychiatry. 1992 Feb;55(1):95-110.

 

[Thor 2]

For some this would be the case, and for others it is compelling subjective evidence and is not solely theists who experience such.

Now did I say that? I just said that theists use this as proof there is life after death. I did not imply it was only theists that have these experiences.

Not ordinarily - especially not from the theist camp. Most of those type experiences tend to come from people who were not overly religious before their NDE and became Theists after it.

Oh really? Some examples please.

However there are plenty of stories which relate to being taken to view less inviting situations.

Be interesting to see these. But the point I am making is the theists don't trend to trot these out.

OOBE experiences related to Astral Travel often report unpleasant realms - the Astral realm itself being described as not only layered but vast and containing all sorts of heavens and hells and everything else humanly imaginable (and even not humanly imaginable) places in between.

I was just referring to NDEs if you would like to review my post.

'Google' would be a good place to start- type in 'Astral experiences' for example and then have a gander at some of those. Also Astral related message boards have many members (or at least they did when I used to frequent them) only too eager to share their experiences.

As stated above but please do you own research if you want to pursue this.

 

[Thor 2]

I would have to look again through the sewage of info on NDE (too much woo mixed) but a start could be the wiki which cite much lwoer number than mine :

indley, JH; Bryan, S & Conley, B. (1981). 'Near-death experiences in a Pacific Northwest population: The Evergreen study – Anabiosis 1. p. 109.

ETA: So far I am only finding nothing I could cite but they all agree that between <20% are distressing and some very rare are unpleasant/hellish.

This one has a few quote but i am unable to check them...

http://iands.org/distressing-near-death-experiences.html

Thanks Aepervius that was interesting reading. I noted the following:

Near-death experiences (NDEs) are often profound psychospiritual events. Most near-death experiencers (NDErs) report that their experience was dominated by pleasurable feelings such as peace, joy, and bliss. However, less commonly, some NDErs have reported that their experience was dominated by distressing, emotionally painful feelings such as fear, terror, horror, anger, loneliness, isolation, and/or guilt.

This would seem to be somewhat out of kilter with the Christian view that most of use are destined for the wailing and gnashing of teeth place however.

 

[JoeMorgue]

A good page long digression about some good old Woo proves the point.

"Dualism" is "Woo the Gaps" in such a way as to always have a gap. Put a gap between our perception and reality and you'll always have a place for your Woo to go.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Why dualism? Because this here cognitive worldview ain't big enough for two overlappin' epistemologies.

Occam's Razors, at dawn.

 

[IanS]

*** Whopping big quoting error below from LarryS -

Originally Posted by*IanS*
Carroll’s claim boils down to this: That there is no known medium or mechanism that could account for NDE’s / OBE’s.
*** see below for who actually said the above, because it did not come from IanS.

This is outside my 'personal knowledge space', but isn't Carroll making at least these two assertions:
1. reality is particle-based, and
2. we now know what the most fundamental particles are. By most fundamental I mean particles that can not be further reduced.

LarryS - I just noticed that you have the above quote attributed to me. But it's not anything I ever said. The words you quote actually came from annnnoid!

That's actually a rather serious mistake, because it quotes me as saying something with which I had just profoundly disagreed!

Here is the true quote of annnnoid saying the above -

Carroll’s claim boils down to this: That there is no known medium or mechanism that could account for NDE’s / OBE’s etc., and that if they were to occur they would be detectable. This is utter garbage…especially for a qualified physicist (thus I question his credibility…with good reason).

 

[Navigator]

Oh really? Some examples please.

To quote Thor 2

"do you own research if you want to pursue this."

(if you have an itch then do your own scratching dude.)

Have a nice day...

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

What is it with people promoting paranormal beliefs and lack of understanding of burden of proof?