Science Deals with the Intangible

206 posts / 0 new
Last post
Spectrum Spectrum's picture
Science Deals with the Intangible

Newsweek

Science Deals with the Intangible

This discussion has been going on for a bit now. How might you see it in this corner of the world??

Timebandit
Sven Sven's picture

As I would expect, Sam Harris's refutation is excellent.

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

I guess I have the subject double up in terms of the value of how consciousness research and how it may be seen in relation to the perspective shared by Arthur Young- Consciousness Emerges From Light

IN a sense thinking about the persepctive here had me also wondering about how something massless can be affected.....so in a sense the pathway of the photon in terms of the analogy seems appropriate when affected by the grvaity of things. I might have provided the perspective of lensing/dilation as well here as to that affect when consciousness chooses? An attachment to things?

Aristotleded24

I remember once reading a Reader's Digest aritcle about prayer working, and one line seemed to sum it up accurately: "If you believe it does, no amount of proof is necessary. If you don't, no amount of proof will convince you." I think it's a similar thing here. Clearly many people who have had near-death experiences have described them in vivid detail, but I'm not sure the question of life after death is a subject that can be studied scientifically. For one, we'd need to find a way to die and then come back and talk about it.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

"For one, we'd need to find a way to die and then come back and talk about it."

 Actually it seems that is what this author is claiming and yes one either has faith or one doesn't.  I have friends who get way more out of sugar pills than I have ever experienced. I call it chasing the placebo effect they call it homeopathy.  Some may call it heaven but not me, I call it a hallucination.

What causes specific hallucinations is of some interest but I don't see them as providing proof that a white man lives in the sky and has a nice pad next door waiting for me if I spout the right nonsense while alive.

Aristotleded24

kropotkin1951 wrote:
"For one, we'd need to find a way to die and then come back and talk about it."

 Actually it seems that is what this author is claiming

Fair enough. I didn't read either the article or the rebuttal by Sam Harris, I was just making a general topic on the idea of life after death.

Slumberjack

Aristotleded24 wrote:
Clearly many people who have had near-death experiences have described them in vivid detail, but I'm not sure the question of life after death is a subject that can be studied scientifically.

I'm pretty sure that it can be studied scientifically, with the first statement of inquiry being a summons to 'bring forward the evidence.'  If the evidence doesn't hold up, or a run is put on the evidence to the point of total rout as Sam Harris demonstrates with his article, then scientific inquiry is suspended until further evidence is presented.  Evidence of life after death remains non-existent.  This is not to say that the proposition can't studied using other methods, but the serious part of the conversation is over at that point.

Timebandit

A science journalist's review of Alexander's "memoir".

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/10/proof_of_heaven_heaven_is_real_author_eben_alexander_is_a_neuro_evangelist.html

The rest of what you've posted, Spectrum, is a load of bafflegab based on unsupported assertions and wild extrapolations from work that's being done or speculations that have been made.  You're dealing with "what if" rather than "what the evidence supports".  Slumberjack is absolutely on the ball - pony up the evidence.  Until you can, it isn't a scientific question.  It remains an unknown, and an improbable one on the face of the lack of substance.

It's not up to "science" to prove or disprove life after death.  It's up to the people who make the claims to show us the evidence.  You can't just claim that there are pink sparkly unicorns on Antartica and then say "Prove there isn't!".  You made the claim, you support it.  Meanwhile, if you want to play What If, go write a sci fi novel.  That's where this kind of rank speculation belongs.

Oh, and let's not forget Dr Alexander's profit motive.  I'm sure his bank account will be much fatter after all this bullshit.

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

yep babble gook.. nope....changed my mind

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

Know what Time Bandit.......don't waste your time. You seem young to me in spirit, yet,  have a long way to go. Anyway, enough of your banter.:)

What we have learned

We have found consciousness can be described as an emergent property of the complex electromagnetic process generated from predictable biochemical and biological processes. Although the terms soul and mind may have been useful at one time to describe this process, they are no longer required. They are more like the term "phlogiston" that was employed to describe why things burned before modern chemistry emerged. When there is no electrical current moving through the parts of a television, there is no picture. When the specific electromagnetic patterns are not generated within the brain structures there is no consciousness or awareness.

Some individuals with very different brain structures show different electromagnetic correlates that are associated with their ability to discern stimuli others cannot detect. Counter clockwise rotation of weak magnetic fields around the skull at specific rates of change (derivatives) can affect subjective time and allow the average person to experience many of the altered states reported by practitioners of mystical traditions as well as "paranormal" phenomena. The critical variables, like any chemical reaction, are the complexity and specificity of the temporal parameters. One component of consciousness may be "sequestered" within second or third derivatives of very narrow bands of changes in frequency within the theta range. Our calculations of resonance, based upon the power changes within quantitative electroencephalographic measures, suggest that one electromagnetic source of consciousness may actually exist within the 10 cm region outside of and surrounding the cranium.

Link now dead.

Spectrum Spectrum's picture
Spectrum Spectrum's picture

What happens when you create this Self Awareness along with the experience of when you are dying?

Fidel

Timebandit wrote:

Oh, and let's not forget Dr Alexander's profit motive.  I'm sure his bank account will be much fatter after all this bullshit.

The profit motive is something I pointed out to certain people in thread discussions of the Interphone study partially funded by big cell phone companies, but certain babblers were having none of it. 

Apparently scientists are corruptible but never when on the take from big bizness known to have very deep pockets when it comes to "marketing" and lawyering-up, which is an odd rule of thumb if you ask me. Yes, there is an odour of hypocrisy wafting in around here and spoiling this thread.

Yes science rarely gets it wrong except when cash payments and other inducements are involved. People were warned by top scientists of the day that heavier than air craft would be impossible to produce. And they kept saying within weeks of the Wright bros' historic flight. Sometimes science requires engineers of the hands-on variety to test the boundaries.

Slumberjack

Fidel wrote:
Sometimes science requires engineers of the hands-on variety to test the boundaries.

Sure...as long as it doesn't involve the laying on of hands.

Timebandit

Fidel wrote:

Timebandit wrote:

Oh, and let's not forget Dr Alexander's profit motive.  I'm sure his bank account will be much fatter after all this bullshit.

The profit motive is something I pointed out to certain people in thread discussions of the Interphone study partially funded by big cell phone companies, but certain babblers were having none of it. 

Apparently scientists are corruptible but never when on the take from big bizness known to have very deep pockets when it comes to "marketing" and lawyering-up, which is an odd rule of thumb if you ask me. Yes, there is an odour of hypocrisy wafting in around here and spoiling this thread.

Yes science rarely gets it wrong except when cash payments and other inducements are involved. People were warned by top scientists of the day that heavier than air craft would be impossible to produce. And they kept saying within weeks of the Wright bros' historic flight. Sometimes science requires engineers of the hands-on variety to test the boundaries.

If you read the links I've posted, you'll see that Alexander is a surgeon.  He doesn't deal with the workings of the brain beyond cutting into it.  Now, if I wanted a tumor excised, he'd be the right guy to talk to.  Brain chemistry and hallucinations, not so much.  He's claiming expertise he doesn't have in the first place, and postulating conclusions that are not critically examined or thought through.  In fact, even if he was a neurologist or neuroscientist, I'd question his conclusions based on the information that both those links point out. His experience was no hands-on scientific test - it was a subjective experience that can be better explained than he's bothering to - and there'd be a whole lot less $$$ involved if he explained it with science rather than airy-fairy bullshit.

Yes, scientists can be swayed by profit motive.  I guess you have to look at things critically and see what jibes with what we already know.  Alexander's conclusions don't. 

Timebandit

Spectrum wrote:

Know what Time Bandit.......don't waste your time. You seem young to me in spirit, yet,  have a long way to go. Anyway, enough of your banter.:)

Oh, boo hoo hoo.  I don't get to be in the old souls club.  Wah.  I "have a long way to go", evidenced by my tendency to look at evidence rather than participate in the wanky-boys' circle jerk.

Yeah, missing out big time.

Or we could just take it that you simply don't want to actually address anything of substance.  I think I'll go with that hypothesis.  Unless of course you'd like to prove me wrong.
 

Spectrum wrote:

What we have learned

We have found consciousness can be described as an emergent property of the complex electromagnetic process generated from predictable biochemical and biological processes. Although the terms soul and mind may have been useful at one time to describe this process, they are no longer required. They are more like the term "phlogiston" that was employed to describe why things burned before modern chemistry emerged. When there is no electrical current moving through the parts of a television, there is no picture. When the specific electromagnetic patterns are not generated within the brain structures there is no consciousness or awareness.

Some individuals with very different brain structures show different electromagnetic correlates that are associated with their ability to discern stimuli others cannot detect. Counter clockwise rotation of weak magnetic fields around the skull at specific rates of change (derivatives) can affect subjective time and allow the average person to experience many of the altered states reported by practitioners of mystical traditions as well as "paranormal" phenomena. The critical variables, like any chemical reaction, are the complexity and specificity of the temporal parameters. One component of consciousness may be "sequestered" within second or third derivatives of very narrow bands of changes in frequency within the theta range. Our calculations of resonance, based upon the power changes within quantitative electroencephalographic measures, suggest that one electromagnetic source of consciousness may actually exist within the 10 cm region outside of and surrounding the cranium.

Link now dead.

Attribute your quote?  Who said this?

ETA:  A link that works - http://home.primus.ca/~remedy3/Persinger,%20Michael.htm

Careful - much of Persinger's work is currently under debate because there is difficulty with replication.  Peer review hasn't been particularly agreeable.  The jury is still out on this one.

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

God Helmet

The "God Helmet" refers to an experimental apparatus originally called the "Koren helmet" after its inventor Stanley Koren

 

Yep be careful.....Behavioural Neuroscience

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a technique for noninvasive stimulation of the adult brain. Stimulation is produced by generating a brief, high-intensity magnetic field by passing a brief electric current through a magnetic coil. Compared with the growing number of clinical trial with rTMS, there are surprisingly few animal studies on its basic mechanisms of action, constraining the ability to perform hypothesis-driven clinical studies.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a technique for noninvasive stimulation of the adult brain. Stimulation is produced by generating a brief, high-intensity magnetic field by passing a brief electric current through a magnetic coil. Compared with the growing number of clinical trial with rTMS, there are surprisingly few animal studies on its basic mechanisms of action, constraining the ability to perform hypothesis-driven clinical studies.Transcranial magnetic stimulation

 

Of course this is information that when linked too had been changed and when you put up quote link to source it did not come up with original so I say dead. It still belonged to research work being done by Persinger

So, Link does not follow to its origination. So I guess the odds are that you select the first part of the wording and chances are you will come to a selection of what correlates in the wording used. (2000-2007 Neuroscience Research Group Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada)

One's cynicism is obvious even before you start the discussion and having dealt with this over and over again one tends to push aside for those who want a serious discussion. I do not want to waste my time with those who do not want to provide for evidence other then what they can comment on readily and not do their own work. Provide something that is contrary then and stop being so lazy. Show the science that said's it contrary and you may convince by such evidence.  Stop being a chorus of "the group?" Does not make you any more in good standing other then to say what's always been said and you never move forward.

I learned that such bias has been well formed.

With regard to the injustice of it all by corporation and such, it can wear on a person so you tend to see the profit motive coming up and you understand why when you are exposed over and over again to the same ole rhetoric you actually stop moving and are treading a vicious circle that is not healthy. Especially for the young ones here. It not just about the science here. It is about exploring our potentials and doing this for sometime I have no ready answers as one pretends to think I do.

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

So explain how such fields can affect consciousness, or, why they do not?

Can you concertize brainwaves to allow for experiences which others can see as well? Of course Persinger was not successful in terms of providing for a full blown Skeptic......so what is wrong with the method of inducement? Can it be done?

Timebandit

Whether these fields affect consciousness or not is still being debated. As I pointed out, there has been difficulty in other neuroscientists replicating Persinger's results, which is a part of the peer review process.

Basically, it's too early to explain why they do or do not - the underlying conclusion has not yet been established one way or the other.

I'm not sure you can claim to be having a serious conversation if you aren't even clear about the basis of what you're talking about.

I don't consider myself cynical, but I do expect claims to be backed up with evidence. If all you've got is a bunch of assumptions, overstatements and bafflegab, I'll call you on it. So far, that's all I've seen here. See, I'm not the one making grand claims, you are. So back 'em up, rather than demand that I (or anyone else, i do recall Slumberjack disagreeing with you and a much less narsty reeaction from you) put a bunch of work into debunking your bafflegab.

Not bring impressed over guys wanking about what ifs isn't cynicism.

Fidel

Timebandit wrote:

If you read the links I've posted, you'll see that Alexander is a surgeon.  He doesn't deal with the workings of the brain beyond cutting into it.  Now, if I wanted a tumor excised, he'd be the right guy to talk to.  Brain chemistry and hallucinations, not so much.  He's claiming expertise he doesn't have in the first place, and postulating conclusions that are not critically examined or thought through.  In fact, even if he was a neurologist or neuroscientist, I'd question his conclusions based on the information that both those links point out. His experience was no hands-on scientific test - it was a subjective experience that can be better explained than he's bothering to - and there'd be a whole lot less $$$ involved if he explained it with science rather than airy-fairy bullshit.

Yes, scientists can be swayed by profit motive.  I guess you have to look at things critically and see what jibes with what we already know.  Alexander's conclusions don't. 

I can just imagine how you might try to discredit Alexander had he not been a neurosurgeon for 25 years, was not trained in the scientific method, like all medical professionals are, and never worked at BYU and Harvard medical centres and racked up more hands-on practical experience with brain injuries and illnesses than very many scientists knowing didley about consciousness will ever acquire in their life times doing most of their research from inside university libraries. 

Of course the other alternative is to consider what Alexander has to say about his hands-on experience, and yes, it is a highly subjective experience which most people will not actually have until their expiry date arrives. But appealing to the authority of a bunch of academics no more enlightened about human consciousness than a surgeon in the dark ages knew anything about bacterial infection isn't very convincing imo. Science has a long way to go before it can tell us anything useful about grey matter and what occupies it. My TV set might be broken similarly, but I have no delusions that the sitcom Seinfeld will resume a 10th season if I have it repaired by the greatest electronics engineer alive today. It's just a plastic case with some circuit boards and other stuff, and I realize that the comedians themselves are nowhere near my living room let alone my cheap tv mass produced somewhere in Asia. They\ve been slicing up brains for centuries and aren't much wiser for it today. And don't hold your breath waiting for big pharma to discover the holy grail of consciousness or the mind-body paradox - those guys are happy gouging us for Tylenol version XXXVIII and laughing al the way to the bank with their 20 and 30 year patents on old drugs. So don't try to appeal to the authority of a bunch of greedy drug company CEO's and their shareholders, either, because we'll tear a strip out of them and all.

It seems that whenever capitalism is on its ass, and typically during ideal times of peace and trading freely with the rest of the world, that the money spigots are turned wide open for corporate welfare bums and bankers in general while the rest of society is told to tighten their belts including the people most capable of discovering breakthroughs and new technology. Capitalism is all about investing the least and extracting the most in good times. Beyond harvesting the lowest hanging fruit under ideal conditions it's a piss poor way to run things in general.

Slumberjack

Timebandit wrote:
 i do recall Slumberjack disagreeing with you and a much less narsty reeaction from you.

For our part though, the piece by Sam Harris that we've both endorsed does describe the assumption being made in the OP as the stuff of celestial butterflies and pink unicorns in Antarctica.  I was going for subtlety to try and balance things out.

Slumberjack

Aristotleded24 wrote:
I remember once reading a Reader's Digest aritcle about prayer working, and one line seemed to sum it up accurately: "If you believe it does, no amount of proof is necessary. If you don't, no amount of proof will convince you." I think it's a similar thing here.

Not at all. The fact of the matter is that for many believers, a request for proof is sometimes taken as an insult, or in some cases, outright blasphemy. Its often difficult to navigate under the condition that we enter into yet another test of endurance after we've exhausted our own inquiries into the matter. But we're not discouraged in the least with our search for evidence because its such an important question.

Quote:
Clearly many people who have had near-death experiences have described them in vivid detail, but I'm not sure the question of life after death is a subject that can be studied scientifically. For one, we'd need to find a way to die and then come back and talk about it.

It doesn't mean the question can't be taken up altogether. We can definitely study the societal effects of consciousness after death as a pathology, leaving aside for the moment the question of whether it exists at all. We have a subject involving millions, if not billions of people; we can take certain measurements across the vastness of a social landscape that encompasses thousands of variations; we have treasure troves and dungeons of evidence regarding the beneficial and negative effects. We have ourselves the basis of an inquiry.

Timebandit

Fidel, your latest post is a beautiful example of how people rationalize confirmation bias. The neurosurgeon, who is saying something you like, is a "good" expert who deals with brain injuries, etc, (although he doesn't actually, he is a surgeon whose published papers focus on surgical technique, no illnesses themselves), but the neuroscientists who actually study the workings of the brain, like Harris (whose field of inquiry is focused on this particular area) know absolutely nothing. Worse, they're lumped in with the big baddies - the pharmaceutical industry (Harris is not, actually) and the curse of capitalism.

Fascinating. But still irrational.

6079_Smith_W

Seems to me the title of this thread is a contradiction. If it is intangible, then it cannot be scientific..

Even theoretical physics is built on a foundation of hard evidence, and that is far different than what we are talking about here.

The fact that some fellow has a degree doesn't give his hallucinations any more weight than anyone else's.

Seeing as Newsweek (the print edition anyway) is going the way of the world weekly news, and will soon exist only in the imagination that cover is somehow appropriate.

Timebandit

There is also the fact that Alexander dismisses causes alternate to his conclusion out of hand, rather than examining what other causes might have factored in to his experience. I'd expect anyone who is in the sciences to at least consider Occam's Razor.

Fidel

Yes, well, I think the traditional Newtonian view of mind and matter was quietly overthrown since Darwin, Bertrand Russell and Thomas Huxley's time in the sun. I refuse to believe that we are all just sacks of neurons ruled by so many electro-chemical exchanges. I think that the reductionist-materialist view of reality and human biology was found to be lacking something some time ago.  I refuse to believe that my skin colour and ethnicity give me evolutionary advantage over black people and other ethnics as the old world view of science once professed.  If all that reductionist-materialist mumbojumbo  was still thought to be true today, then my being white and male and conscious on par with automata should get me a pass at the club house for masters of the universe. And I could argue at length using logic and common sense to show that it's  just not true. We've tended to reverse engineer and break things into smaller components to understand them better since childhood, but scientists have said that at some level of reduction individual parts of the physical brain no longer make sense apart from the whole.

Mario Beauregard wrote:
The brain can be weighed, measured, scanned, dissected, and studied. The mind that we conceive to be generated by the brain, however, remains a mystery. It has no mass, no volume, and no shape, and it cannot be measured in space and time. Yet it is as real as neurons, neurotransmitters, and synaptic junctions. It is also very powerful.
—from Brain Wars

I can't physically see gravity or even "dark energy" for that matter. I wouldn't suggest that these phenomena are not real, though. I think science just isn't able to fully explain them at this point in time. Could it be that human consciousness eludes direct audio-visual detection similarly?

 

Kaspar Hauser

Chomsky pulls the rug out from under the mind-body debate in this video. His argument is that there can't be a mind-body question because, since Newton, there hasn't been an intelligble concept of the body against which to contrast mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5in5EdjhD0

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

Some use there own subjectivity in order to justify their belief of what is needed when they are incapable of knocking themselves out of the loop they put themselves in. While appealing to the rationality and demands of science they can not provide any further points other then to show what limits them to such a discussion. Show not only their cynicism but there inability to speak on it to any degree thus reduce them self to that pixe dust explanation. Just get out of the way or at least try and have a serious discussion.

Scientists have speculated that the human brain features a "God spot," one distinct area of the brain responsible for spirituality. Now, University of Missouri researchers have completed research that indicates spirituality is a complex phenomenon, and multiple areas of the brain are responsible for the many aspects of spiritual experiences-Distinct 'God Spot' in the Brain Does Not Exist, Study Shows

The site referenced of Persinger was archived so original link was not function able so I said link dead. The fact is current article from 2012 underscores previous research work.

This is a directional point I infer as to the basis and exploration of consciousness by means and correlations to demonstrate biological sensitivity signals where focus of consciousness is understood in terms of spirituality. So ya, it could be a belief system.

How ever you say it, the fact that such governance is provided across the board is to look at the issues of the Larger consciousness system and how it is used. Even though I do not stand by (within the scope of that theoretical design) the belief system of the larger consciousness system, I reference for ease of statement to imply universality provided by the fact consciousness does exist or we just would not be talking.

So one is looking for a method and measure at the time of the NDE to monitor experience....and measure brain locations used while undergoing that experience. If no such measures exist then what areas are being measured that would relay such experiences?

In this sense then I am providing a fundamental question to what may be possible by experimental design to work the areas of consciosuness suspected used at the time of dying or dead. This maybe a ethical question at or about the time of death? When to call it?

6079_Smith_W

@ Spectrum

The onus is not on disbelievers to disprove the existence of fairies, Zeus, or the Easter Bunny. Nobody here is limiting anything.

But human spirituality does not prove that supernatural realms exist, nor does end of life research. Research has also shown that some motor and cognitive function is not located in one part of the brain, or that it can sometimes rewire itself to function elsewhere. That doesn't make it magic. By contrast, brain damage can also sometimes cause radical changes in personality. How does that happen if the spirit is an entity independent of the body?

I don't think anyone is saying there should not be legitimate scientific trials into things which are unknown, but if there is something there, well then let's see the money. Then we can talk.

Fidel

That's right, and no one is suggesting you show us the money, either. Bla bla blah! Just because the crappy economic system failing in lab experiments around the world since 14th century Italy and mired again in corruption and stagnation in the 21st century doesn't mean it's immune from criticism, either. Some logicians would say it's high time we changed tack.

The bad socio-economic system will not produce the money you suggest is required for basic research of consciousness. Big drug companies and their bought and paid-for politicos don't care about mental illnesses or brain disorders in general, like PTSD in soldiers they've used to murder innocent people on their behalfs.No pill can fix fucked-up. They are thinking now that brain-fuck induced by imperialism is probably permanent no matter how many electric shocks are applied to Frankenstein's patient. Yup, he's fucked, doc. We could try lobotomy, but we don't think his wife and kids will be too happy about it. And they still can't do head transplants as if a bad kidney or heart. Your noodle is so special that you should wear a safety helmet when cycling it's that irreplaceable.

Big pharma doesn't give a shit about anything but squeezing every last penny of profit from Tylenol v.98.621. white powders and potions, and other snake oil remedies while resting on their 20 and 30-year drug patent laurels handed them by Reagan and Mulroney and a parade of corrupt stooges after them. They tell us no one should have guarantees in this life, but kaputalists secretly love socialism for themselves and wouldn't have it any other way if they were to tell the truth.

Kaputalism is about picking the lowest hanging fruit as a rule. Don't hold your breath waiting for serious money to be invested in this one, either, Sparky. Much will have more, and that generally means less for the many. It's another unwritten rule of kaputalism. If they continue down the road of austerity for their corrupt governments and the poor while demanding more and more socialism for western world bankers who should be forced to attend gamblers anonymous meetings and the superrich, it probably means the end of the age of enlightenment and scientific inquiry into the hard questions in general. If unbridled kaputilism is the way forward, then we're prolly looking at a new dark ages. God help us.

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

In a nutshell, what Karim showed was that each time a memory is used, it has to be restored as a new memory in order to be accessible later. The old memory is either not there or is inaccessible. In short, your memory about something is only as good as your last memory about it. Joseph LeDoux

Fidel you are stuck in a loop too:) You are a sympton of Babble.:)

 

C: Why is this research so important?

Karim Nader: There are a lot of implications. All psychopathological disorders, such as PTSD, epilepsy, obsessive compulsive disorders, or addiction—all these things have to do with your brain getting rewired in a way that is malfunctioning. Theoretically, we may be able to treat a lot of these psychopathologies. If you could block the re-storage of the circuit that causes the obsessive compulsion, then you might be able to reset a person to a level where they aren’t so obsessive. Or perhaps you can reset the circuit that has undergone epilepsy repeatedly so that you can increase the threshold for seizures. And there is some killer data showing that it’s possible to block the reconsolidation of drug cravings.

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Spectrum

The onus is not on disbelievers to disprove the existence of fairies, Zeus, or the Easter Bunny. Nobody here is limiting anything.

Crap :) Even if Fidel agrees.:) You've obviously shown where you mind is directed? I have said nothing of Fairies Zeus or the Easter Bunny....right?:) Your being subjective

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Research has also shown that some motor and cognitive function is not located in one part of the brain, or that it can sometimes rewire itself to function elsewhere. By contrast, brain damage can also sometimes cause radical changes in personality. How does that happen if the spirit is an entity independent of the body?

I removed some of your subjectiveness  from the quote above, all except for your question. I have been talking when at home and that conciousness in the NDE may be seen as similar too, as everyday consciousness.:) Yet that consiousness can travel far from home....I do specuate that like the photon from astrophysical sources as they arrive to thebackdrop of our perceptions we see it as coloured telling us something about its travel(Fermi).

I would certainly like to learn more of the photons story as Arthur saids it) as it describes it source:) Not just using the gravitational waves to see how it affects LIGO lasers baseline? Oh! the jury is still out there.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
I don't think anyone is saying there should not be legitimate scientific trials into things which are unknown...

 

At least we cleared up where you want to limit the conversation.... the part about money is more of the same ole bullshit here.

6079_Smith_W

... only if you don't understand the meaning of the saying "show me the money".

I should have known better than to use a metaphor that could be taken literally and used to blame the evil powers that are covering up The Truth, rather than just seeing my simple point about lack of evidence.

 

 

Kaspar Hauser

I take it that no one's watched the Chomsky video, then.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Spectrum wrote:

In a nutshell, what Karim showed was that each time a memory is used, it has to be restored as a new memory in order to be accessible later. The old memory is either not there or is inaccessible. In short, your memory about something is only as good as your last memory about it. Joseph LeDoux

MedicineNet wrote:

Neuroplasticity: The brain's ability to reorganize itself by forming new neural connections throughout life. Neuroplasticity allows the neurons (nerve cells) in the brain to compensate for injury and disease and to adjust their activities in response to new situations or to changes in their environment.

Brain reorganization takes place by mechanisms such as "axonal sprouting" in which undamaged axons grow new nerve endings to reconnect neurons whose links were injured or severed. Undamaged axons can also sprout nerve endings and connect with other undamaged nerve cells, forming new neural pathways to accomplish a needed function.

For example, if one hemisphere of the brain is damaged, the intact hemisphere may take over some of its functions. The brain compensates for damage in effect by reorganizing and forming new connections between intact neurons. In order to reconnect, the neurons need to be stimulated through activity.

I think the breakthroughs in neuroplasticity like Karim Nader's are quite fascinating and show both promise and danger as we learn to "reprogram" the brain to deal with things like PTSD.

6079_Smith_W

@ Kaspar Hauser

I didn't have 90 minutes to spare, but I did read this:

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2010/06/chomsky-on-mind-body-problem.html

Whatever questions Chomsky raises about perception and body, on a far more coarse level if you kill the body it stops and no longer sustains the conscious mind. Whether that consciousness goes on from there to some other plane has not been proven.

Certainly not by that Newsweek article.

 

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

... only if you don't understand the meaning of the saying "show me the money".

I should have known better than to use a metaphor that could be taken literally and used to blame the evil powers that are covering up The Truth, rather than just seeing my simple point about lack of evidence.

 

 

 

I took it as supply the research money but I meant something different for others....so you shouldn't take it so literal?:)

6079_Smith_W

@ Spectrum #37

No, I meant show me some evidence and then we can talk. And I haven't a clue what you're refering to there.

 

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Spectrum #37

No, I meant show me some evidence and then we can talk. And I haven't a clue what you're refering to there.

 

I think I may have spoken to the wrong thread..sorry:) Show me the evidence? Okay,  you have nothng further to add to the subject I take it?

 

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

double post in the future:)

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I think the breakthroughs in neuroplasticity like Karim Nader's are quite fascinating and show both promise and danger as we learn to "reprogram" the brain to deal with things like PTSD.

The memory part should have help explain the article and the point raised about his memory of it? Any physiological effects may have been about his perspective  resting in the experience as it is retold and raises question for him about what he now believes,  about what he had always believed? In terms of rewiring, I didn't take note.

Jill Taylor Bolte?

6079_Smith_W

Spectrum wrote:

 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Spectrum #37

No, I meant show me some evidence and then we can talk. And I haven't a clue what you're refering to there.

 

I think I may have spoken to the wrong thread..sorry:) Show me the evidence? Okay,  you have nothng further to add to the subject I take it?

 

Well since this seems to have deteriorated into a word game, no I don't think I do have anything more to add right now.

I'll let you know if something piques my interest.

 

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

Kaspar Hauser wrote:

I take it that no one's watched the Chomsky video, then.

Any points on the OP that resonated with you with regard to Chomsky that may be spoken to here? Perspective about the Mind Body Problem as you might see it with regard to the article?

3:09 the imperfections of the mechanical philosophy

33 minutes

109m Q&A good question

Thanks

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Spectrum wrote:

The memory part should have help explain the article and the point raised about his memory of it? Any physiological effects may have been about his perspective  resting in the experience as it is retold and raises question for him about what he now believes,  about what he had always believed? In terms of rewiring, I didn't take note.

You have a lot of unanswered questions it seems.  Get back to us when you have a bit more than "may have been about."  There is science in neuroplasticity research especially in the tracking of the effects that various visual and auditory stimuli have on the path chosen by the brain to accomplish a specific task.  Wiring is a crude shorthand for the complexity of the process going on but the neural pathways can indeed be changed by external stimuli. London cabbies seem to have adapted an interesting biological response to a complex memory problem.  That is a good example of science dealing with intangibles.

BBC wrote:

Brain changes

The hippocampus is at the front of the brain and was examined in Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scans on 16 London cabbies.

The tests found the only area of the taxi drivers' brains that was different from the 50 other "control" subjects was the left and right hippocampus.

You want to go where?: London's toughest taxi routes Palladium, Soho to Liverpool Street Station: complex one-way system at both ends
Chelsea to Tower Hamlets Town Hall: crosses and recrosses the Thames
Spaniards Road, Hampstead, to Bromley-by-Bow: requires knowledge of 48 streets
Dr Maguire said: "One particular region of the hippocampus, the posterior or back, was bigger in the taxi drivers.

"The front of the hippocampus was smaller in the taxi drivers compared to the controls.

"This is very interesting because we now see there can be structural changes in healthy human brains."

The posterior hippocampus was also more developed in taxi drivers who had been in the career for 40 years than in those who had been driving for a shorter period.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/677048.stm

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

I push back on the limitations inferred by others so as to direct my mode of operation, "in a question form," so as to move forward and not be stalled in my efforts. I believe I have made clear the difficulties as a logical directed outcome in presentation.

Internet development today asks how evolutionary consequence may be to influence forehead development( ahem......frontal cortex) when thought with regard to full brain used and direction is revealed in the keyboard displayed in the comment box. So while not being a cabby.....your a writer, a journalist. What MRI imaging would actually represent your correlative use of brain research information collection and pathway construction?

Chomsky refers back to this evolutionary inherent trait of human being identification in uteri manifestation. While referencing innate points of discussion it is interesting that such innateness may be limited to block of time or a  frame of reference in the evolutionary development of that consciousness.

Chomsky discusses the euclidean direction of development toward the evoking apparent correlation in of historical development. While there is some difficulty as to pointing out this feature in the Amazon tribe child toward such comprehension. A triangle is used and it's comprehension as to the lines  of expression is explicit toward the imperfection of that triangle perceived.

See: A Priori Intuition of Space?

Link above brought forward contradictory data in  relation to the subject of innateness discussed by Chomsky.

There are a lot of things discussed that are included in the overall discussions I have had with others about how we perceive consciousness and perspectives shared by others that questions how it is that consciousness can be perceived apart from the body. How difficult it would be to make this measure if possible at all?

The empirical method is generally taken to mean the approach of using a collection of data to base a theory or derive a conclusion in science. It is part of the scientific method, but is often mistakenly assumed to be synonymous with the experimental method. The empirical method is not sharply defined and is often contrasted with the precision of the experimental method, where data are derived from the systematic manipulation of variables in an experiment. Some of the difficulty in discussing the empirical method is from the ambiguity of the meaning of its linguist root: empiric.

The mind body problem is dismissed in this talk below as to demonstrate that the pathway to empirical methods had been established by Newton. For sake of clarity one would have to refer back to Chomsky video to clarify this issue and how we move forward in today's world having arrive at a settled perspective about the mind body problem.

Further to this discussion in terms of the evolutionary the status quo of consciousness has not changed for 50000 years and example to help direct that perspective were raised in the contrast of a baby born in a tribe in the Amazon being raised in our modern day society and function quite well and a baby born in this modern society doing equally as well in the tribe.

Bold emphasized in order to provide a move toward this explanation outside of the NDE consideration... to see the theoretical position adopted and the attempts at an empirical method toward the development of that theory.

In the Q&A part of the lecture there is some correspondence in which a question is asked about this correlation of bits. Chomsky's reference to Wheeler in that context.

Spectrum Spectrum's picture
Slumberjack

kropotkin1951 wrote:
That is a good example of science dealing with intangibles.

This is not a good way for science to be dealing in things to be sure, but hopefully one day soon, there'll be an accounting of what some of today's scientific tinkers and peddlers implicate themselves in, preferably before a tribunal.

Sinister Automatons

Quote:
‘Before they were blind, deaf and dumb,’ exults Mark Maybury, chief scientist for the U.S. Air Force. ‘Now we’re beginning to make them to see, hear and sense.’

Quote:
‘I became myself capable of bestowing animation upon lifeless matter!’ boasts Victor Frankenstein in Mary Shelley’s great gothic novel.

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

Maybe you can explain the science of emotions for us and how it apples to the perspectve of belief structures? It limitations, and it's freedoms? While subjective, we all experience emotions? Unless, your a psychopath:)

Sinister Automatons link does not work pointing towards comment.

 

6079_Smith_W

So are we just talking about consciousness and the brain's electro chemical system? Because, that's really a far cry from that Newsweek article, which was equivalent fo claiming Defending Your Life was a documentary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defending_Your_Life

Not to mention, again, that the fact that a scientist has a hallucination does not make it scientific.

That Joe Dispenza lecture was great, though all of it was very grounded in the physical nature of the body. And any consciousness there is is limited by that physical structure.

Are there things about consciousness which we don't understand? Of course. Might there be some supernatural basis to some of it? Again, perhaps, although the fact is once we understand what is behind something it is no longer supernatural, is it?

To portray any of this as "untangible" kind of defeats the purpose, unless one is more fascinated with the mystery, or speculations that don't have much foundation, than with trying to find out what is actually happening.

After all, every researcher in every field knows there are far more unanswered questions than answered ones. Despite the fact that the subject in this case is us, it is no more a big deal than in any other field.

(edit)

Funny too, that everyone talks about these white light down the tunnel visions. Very few people want to mention the visions of hell and paranoid nightmares that are also very common - and just as vivid - when people are ill or close to death.

 

 

Slumberjack

Spectrum wrote:
Maybe you can explain the science of emotions for us ...  

I'm not a scientist.  For me it makes sense that emotions are formulated at the biological level as adaptive responses to external criteria, or more specifically, as the product emanating from an inherent capacity to process criteria.  Animals exhibit emotional responses as well as humans do, but very little writing on the subject of animal emotion, at least that I'm aware of, has sought to interpret it as a separate phenomenon from their bodies, certainly nothing that has received general acceptance by either science or pre-science.  Emotion in their case is correctly attributed to their natural, adaptable instincts.

The idea that human emotion constitutes evidence validating non-material belief, or that there is a separate compartment from the physical self that houses our nature in the form of a soul, or some other form of telekinetic propulsion system for human existence, was taken up by Erich Fromm in his 'personal understanding' approach to behaviour considered as being of the authentic type, in contrast to individual conformity with behaviour that is appropriate to the existing cultural norms.  The question of authentic vs. the inauthentic is what we're contending with in threads of this nature.

I don't know if it is true that psychopaths are void of emotion.  It may very well be that their emotions are exhibited in a similar manner to that of predatory animals, where in the case of an animal, no questions are raised in relation to morality governing behaviour.  Psychopathic emotions are likely the result of internalized societal governance mechanisms being switched off until nothing remains but the predatory animal instincts of an individual who thus becomes ill-suited to their surroundings.  Btw, on the subject of human nature, Chomsky's view was deconstructed by Foucault many years ago.

The problem for us today is that the Copernican principle concerning observable material space hasn't been successfully transposed for use amongst other forms of thought; that which continues to insist on subscribing to ourselves not only a central place among all things, but a very special one at that which is capable of transcending all material boundaries.  Lofty cathedrals were and continue to be built to house this view of ourselves.

Pages