Showing posts with label consciousness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label consciousness. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Consciousness, a subjective phenomena that cannot be measured objectively, cannot be produced by physical processes all of which are in principle measurable.


Consciousness is subjective experience. Subjective experience cannot be measured objectively. I know what blue looks like to me, but I cannot know what blue looks like to another person. We assume blue looks the same to everyone but we cannot know it does. All physical phenomenon are objective and measurable. In principle, physical phenomenon cannot produce something that cannot be measured. Since consciousness is a subjective phenomena that cannot be measured objectively, consciousness cannot be the result of any objective physical process. Consciousness must non-physical and therefore cannot be produced by the brain.


Copyright © 2014 by ncu9nc All rights reserved. Texts quoted from other sources are Copyright © by their owners.

Saturday, April 26, 2014

Update: ESP is not Produced by the Brain.


Update to the update: Additional updates have been made. Please see ESP is not produced by the brain. for the most up-to-date version.


Copyright © 2014 by ncu9nc All rights reserved. Texts quoted from other sources are Copyright © by their owners.

Friday, April 25, 2014

Near-death Experiences and Afterlife Phenomena


Recently I have learned of some beliefs about near-death experiences and afterlife phenomena which I disagree with. In this post, I provide information to support my own beliefs on these issues.

Contents

ESP or veridical perceptions that occur during an NDE are best explained by out-of-the-body consciousness.

During a near-death experience, sometimes people with no brain activity perceive something happening around them or they may perceive something they could not perceive with their normal senses even if they were conscious such as a vision of the operating room looking down from the ceiling, or a vision of a distant location. When the events in these perceptions can be verified as true, they are called veridical perceptions. These veridical perceptions are best explained by out-of-the-body consciousness. Some people may call these perceptions ESP, but they are still best explained as out-of-the-body consciousness.

Many NDEs occur during cardiac arrest. Residual brain activity is not sufficient to explain memories or conscious experiences that occur during cardiac arrest. And cardiac arrest causes amnesia and confusion shortly before and after the event.

Some people may suggest an abnormal brain state during the onset or recovery from cardiac arrest may produce clairvoyant visions of events that occur during cardiac arrest. If this is true, the clairvoyance must still be due to out-of-the-body consciousness. The same argument by which NDE researchers conclude that the lucid conscious experience of the NDE cannot be explained by it occuring before or after cardiac arrest can be used to conclude that clairvoyance occurring at the onset or recovery from cardiac arrest must be due to out-of-the-body consciousness. That argument is that the brain activity that occurs at the onset to, or recovery from, cardiac arrest is not capable of supporting lucid consciousness or memories. Any lucid conscious memories, such as those characteristic of NDEs, that occur anytime from the onset to cardiac arrest through the recovery from cardiac arrest, whether psychic or mundane, must be due to out-of-the-body consciousness.

In other words, if anyone is going to suggest that an abnormal brain state induced by cardiac arrest is responsible for producing ESP, that ESP must be due to consciousness existing out-of-the-body because the abnormal brain states that occur at the onset, duration, and ending of cardiac arrest are not capable of producing memories or supporting the lucid consciousness that is experienced during an NDE. At other times than the onset, duration, or ending of cardiac arrest, the brain is functioning normally and there is no abnormal brain state that might be attributed to the production of ESP. If ESP can produce conscious experiences that do not require the brain, then ESP must be due to out-of-the-body consciousness. In fact, in a subsequent section it will be shown that the best explanation for all forms of ESP is that ESP is not produced by the brain but is a capability of non-physical consciousness. In consideration of this and of all the evidence (below) that the mind can exist separate from the brain, the best explanation for veridical perceptions during NDEs is the spirit leaving the body and retaining memory of the event.

No physiological explanation can fully explain NDEs. Nothing that produces an abnormal brain state that can produce ESP, such as natural brain chemicals, or states of relaxation can produce experiences like NDEs. So it is not credible that veridical perceptions in NDEs could be caused by abnormal brain states that are known to cause ESP.

In most abnormal states the experiencer knows he is hallucinating or experiencing clairvoyance, but NDErs consistently say their experience is real. Those states in which hallucinations are mistaken for reality do not share significant characteristics with NDEs. Those states in which ESP is mistaken for out-of-body experiences involve hypnosis, self-hypnosis, or some type of induction technique. However NDEs are not induced, they are spontaneous, and they are not caused by anything remotely like hypnotic induction such as religious expectations, or cultural expectations.

Joe McMoneagle is a highly regarded parapsychologist, a remote viewer, and a near-death experiencer, and his statements on the subject indicate he believes that NDEs show that the afterlife is real. NDEs demonstrate, he says, "..that consciousness continues, and you don't really cease to exist as an individual..."

Back To Contents

ESP is not produced by the brain.

There is ample proof that ESP is real. However it is not possible for ESP to be caused by the brain because none of the laws of physics, including quantum entanglement, can explain how the brain might produce ESP. And in the case of telepathy, the unique structures in one brain will be meaningless to another brain. The existence of ESP is consistent with and mutually reinforcing to many other lines of reasoning that lead to the conclusions that consciousness is not produced by the brain and that consciousness can exist separate from the body.

No physical mechanism in the brain has been demonstrated to cause ESP. ESP has been shown not to be limited by time and distance. ESP can reach into the past and future and is just as strong over short distances as it is for long distances. None of the known laws of physics can explain this. It has been hypothesized that quantum entanglement could explain ESP, because when two particles are entangled, determining a property of one particle will also determine a property of the other instantly, independent of distance between the two particles. However, quantum entanglement can not be the mechanism by which ESP occurs because for entanglement to occur, there has to be some mechanism by which entanglement is established. In lab experiments on entanglement, the entangled particles are created deliberately at the same time in the same location and then separated to demonstrate entanglement effects. While entanglement can occur in biological systems, as is seen in photosynthesis, in a biological system like photosynthesis, a mechanism for establishing entanglement is easy to explain because it occurs in a very small region at a specific time. However in the case of ESP, there is no mechanism by which entanglement between objects at separate locations could be established to produce forms of ESP such as telepathy and clairvoyance. Microtubules in brain cells have been proposed, by Stuart Hammeroff, as a mechanism for producing consciousness. It has also been proposed that quantum entanglement in that system could explain ESP, but again there is no way entanglement could be established between separate individuals.

Furthermore, even if there were some way to entangle a physical structure in one brain with, for example in the case of telepathy, a structure in another brain, there would be no correspondence between the meaning of those two structures to the consciousness of the individuals. The patterns in one person's brain will not make sense to any another person's brain. The pattens of neurons in the brain develop differently in each person according to their genetics and environment, and those patterns change over time due to neuroplasticity. The meaning of a physical structure or pattern in the brain of one person will be unintelligible to another person. Entangling two structures in different brains would not be able to convey any meaning to either person. Therefore, telepathy cannot be produced by the brain by means of quantum entanglement or any other physical means. The very existence of telepathy, therefore, is evidence that ESP is not produced by the brain, and also that consciousness is not produced by the brain i.e. that conscious is non-physical.

There are also several other independent lines of reasoning that lead to the conclusion that consciousness is non-physical and not-produced by the brain. One of these lines of reasoning, for example, is based on the fact that that consciousness is a subjective phenomena that cannot be measured objectively and therefore cannot be produced by physical processes since all physical processes are, in principle, measurable. The only way to know what is in the mind of another person is through ESP, such as telepathy, or telempathy, both of which are themselves subjective and unmeasurable by any objective physical means. Since consciousness is subjective and non-physical and cannot be measured by any physical process, ESP which can perceive aspects of another consciousness, must also be non-physical, and cannot be the result of any physical process in the brain.

People who believe that ESP is produced by the brain believe that some quantum effect must cause ESP because ESP is independent of time and distance. But there is a much better explanation for ESP that also explains why ESP is independent of time and distance. That explanation is the filter model of the brain. According to the filter model, consciousness is not physical and the brain does not produce consciousness but only filters it. The filter model explains all the facts that are explained by the production model such as the correlation between mental states and brain states, and the loss of functions due to brain injury. But the filter model also explains ESP and why it is not dependent on time and distance. According to the filter model, ESP is the means by which non-physical consciousness naturally interacts with its environment and because consciousness is non-physical it is not subject to the laws of physics or limited by physical parameters such as time and distance. The filter model also explains acquired savant syndrome where brain injury causes new talents to be uncovered and why brain injury sometimes result in development of ESP. These two effects are caused by brain injury that is like a hole in the filter that allows new aspects of consciousness to pass through it. The filter model explains loss of function injuries, such as amnesia, as being like a clog in the filter. The filter model also explains the unfiltered consciousness experienced by NDErs that includes veridical perceptions, 360 degree vision and colors not seen while in the body.

Philosopher Chris Carter believes consciousness is not produced by the brain and that the brain transmits consciousness. Parapsychologists who do not believe in survival have to explain afterlife phenomena as the result of ESP produced in the brain of a living person. Chris Carter's work demonstrates that those theories are pseudo-science.

Back To Contents

None of the materialist explanations can explain any of the many anomalous characterisitcs of NDEs such as how people are conscious when their brain is not functioning.

All of the materialist attempts to explain NDEs fail to explain any of the many anomalous characteristics of NDEs. NDEs cannot be explained by a lack of oxygen, a dying brain, hallucinations, religious expectations, cultural expectations, hearing about medical procedures after the fact, brain dysfunction, retinal dysfunction causing an image of a tunnel, brain chemicals such as ketamine, endogenous opioids, neurotransmitter imbalances, or hallucinogens including DMT, REM intrusions, epilepsy or seizures, psychopathology, unique personality traits, residual brain activity during unconsciousness, the experience occurring before or after brain activity stopped, evolutionary adaptation, depersonalization, memory of birth, medication, defense against dying, or partial anesthesia.

Dr. Eben Alexander is a neurosurgeon who experienced an NDE and he believes NDEs are are genuine afterlife experiences and that because of the way the brain is wired NDEs cannot be produced by the brain. He said, "...consciousness outside of the brain is a fact. It’s an established fact."

NDErs report their experiences seem more real than real, and memories of near-death experiences are more detailed than normal memories. This is the complete opposite of what you would expect from the fact of severely reduced or zero brain function during the NDE. NDEs due to cardiac arrest cannot be explained by residual brain activity during cardiac arrest or by having occurred before or after cardiac arrest. This demonstrates that NDEs involve a state of consciousness that is independent of the brain.

"The most important objection to the adequacy of all ... reductionistic hypotheses is that mental clarity, vivid sensory imagery, a clear memory of the experience, and a conviction that the experience seemed more real than ordinary consciousness are the norm for NDEs. They occur even in conditions of drastically altered cerebral physiology under which the production theory would deem consciousness impossible.

- Bruce Greyson

A listener to a radio interview with NDE researcher Dr. Sam Parnia paraphrased his statements, "We now routinely overcome death, and the people he’s studying are 'like astronauts – we send them out to explore this other dimension' – they are going to the other side, and they’re able to tell us what they’ve experienced on the other side of death"

  • Interview of NDE Researcher Dr. Pim van Lommel
  • Interview with NDE researcher Dr. Melvin Morse.

    Back To Contents

    There are multiple independent forms of evidence which show that mind does not require matter for its existence.

    Evidence for the Afterlife.

    Neither ESP nor Super-psi can explain the evidence for the afterlife.

    • The evidence for the afterlife cannot be explained as super-psi.
      • Guy Lyon Playfair, William Roll, and Ian Stevenson all thought some poltergeist phenomenon were caused by spirits. They knew about unconscious PK but thougth survival was a better explanation when the phenomenon did not depend on the presence of a single individual.
      • Drop-in communicators demonstrate spirits have initiative and problem solving ability.
      • Cross-correspondences demonstrate spirits have initiative and are able to plan complex projects.
      • Others (see above link).
    • The Mediumship of Mrs. Piper
      • Certain characteristics of spirit communication vary with the spirit independently of the medium or the sitter. This is evidence that mediumship is due to communication with spirits and not a form of unconscious ESP. Some of these characteristics were: the speed at which the spirit learned to communicate, the spirit's skill at communicating once they learned to communicate, ability to communicate names. Many more of these characteristics are explained at the link.
    • Philosopher Chris Carter's work demonstrates that super-psi is pseudo-science. In an interview on SubversiveThinking.blogspot.com he says:
      In my work I present the evidence that provides a prima facie case for survival; demonstrate that alternative explanations, to the extent that they are testable, have been proven false; and then argue that to the extent these alternative explanations are not testable (such as elaborate fraud scenarios, or super-ESP) they are pseudo-scientific excuses for refusing to accept an otherwise straightforward inference from the evidence.
    • Mediums live with afterlife phenomena every day. They know all the fine details that do not get published in books and parapsychological studies. Many also experience other forms of ESP and they can tell the difference between spirit communication and ESP. Mediums say they perceive and communicate with spirits. They are the foremost experts in spirit communication and there are no better qualified experts on ESP and survival.

    The Cosmological Argument for a transcendent designer of the universe or multiverse shows that the universe or multiverse was designed by a mind that existed before there was any matter or even space itself. Our universe is so finely tuned to support life that it seems to have been designed. This was accepted by astronomers and cosmologists and caused them to invent multiverse theories. However in those theories the multiverse would have to be fine tuned so it doesn't really solve the problem. The conclusion is that a mind capable of design existed before any matter existed. This argument is so convincing to astronomers it converted many materialists to believers including astronomer Fred Hoyle. Albert Einstein also believed the universe was designed, as did Charles Darwin.

    Materialism Cannot Explain Consciousness

    Max Planck (Nobel Prize for Physics)

    Erwin Schrödinger (Nobel Prize for Physics)

    Back To Contents

    There is ample evidence that memory can be stored outside the brain.

    The facts of this have been covered above. Veridical perceptions that occur during NDEs, the evidence that NDErs are conscious when their brain is not functioning, all the evidence that mind does not require matter for its existence, and all the evidence for the afterlife all demonstrate that memory can be stored outside brain.

    Back To Contents

    Consciousness, mind, or spirit is required for matter to exist.

    Those who believe that mind requires a brain to exist, such as parapsychologists who mistakenly believe that ESP is produced by the brain are confounded by the results of quantum mechanics that show consciousness is required for matter to exist. You can't have any matter or any brain without consciousness first. In order to avoid this problem they may postulate an undeveloped awareness existed to bring matter into being. However if the facts are understood correctly, that, as shown above, that mind does not require matter for its existence, then there is no reason to postulate anything as unparsimonious as undeveloped awareness. In fact the founders of quantum mechanics , Max Planck (Nobel Prize for Physics) and Erwin Schrödinger (Nobel Prize for Physics), did not believe in undeveloped awareness, they understood that consciousness, mind, spirit was what caused matter to come into being.

    Another reason that undeveloped awareness is an unnecessary complication is that the cosmological argument demonstrates that the universe was designed by a mind. So there already exists a mind that could cause the matter of the universe to come into existence.

    Back To Contents

    Scientists are fallible. Alternative sources of truth exist.

    Scientists are fallible.

    Science is not a licensed profession. And scientist are not the only people who have the ability to discern truth. In fact, perceptual bias is a chronic problem that may cause Dr. Scientist to misjudge things that Joe Sixpack can assess objectively.

    I have long suspected that within the parapsychological community there is some prejudice against afterlife phenomena. Parapsycholoigst Dr. Carlos Alvarado confirmed my suspicion in an interview published at aspsi.org. The interview does not seem to be on the internet currently, but the link was: http://www.aspsi.org/feat/life_after/tymn/a076mt-a-Dr_Carlos_S_Alvarado_interview.php

    Dr. Alvarado said:

    For many workers in the field, survival research is not a main interest. To some extent this is academics as usual. People specialize in some areas and develop interests due to personality traits, life experiences, training, and employment opportunities, and parapsychology is no exception. Then there are concerns such as getting tenure and the belief that the area has many methodological difficulties. However, I believe that in some cases there is more than this. In some circles it is more “respectable” to conduct ESP experiments than working with survival-related phenomena such as apparitions or mediumship. I still remember how the director of a parapsychology unit within an university, wanting to keep a conservative image, discouraged students from pursuing topics such as apparitions for dissertation research.

    Because of this prejudice, one may be justifiably suspicious of the views of those parapsychologists who may deny the genuineness of afterlife phenomena and claim they may be caused by ESP.

    Some people may try to excuse this prejudice as being due to ignorance. However ignorance is not an excuse for prejudice, it is a cause of prejudice. And I am less concerned with the feelings of parapsychologists and other pseudo-skeptics than I am concerned for the well being of experiencers that may be harmed by this prejudice. No persecuted minority ever won the rights and respect they deserve without fighting for them. And in our society, experiencers of afterlife phenomena are a persecuted minority. And this is one reason I am writing this post. To explain the seriousness of misinformation about afterlife phenomena, and the harm caused by claims that afterlife phenomena are due to ESP.

    It is unfortunate that in addition to the pseudo-skeptics who refuse to recognize the validity of any paranormal phenomena and who are preventing some sectors of society from accepting the evidence for the afterlife, there are also some parapsychologists who are muddying the waters with claims that ESP is the cause of afterlife phenomena. These parapsychologists ought to know from their own experience when someone from outside their field who is dreadfully ignorant about ESP publishes some pseudo-skeptical nonsense, how it creates unnecessary distractions for them because they have to constantly refute the same old canards. Yet the same parapsychologists are creating confusion and spreading misinformation and causing distractions for genuine afterlife researchers, such as those studying NDEs, and they are hindering the progress of the spread of the truth of the afterlife throughout society. Whether some parapsychologists do this intentionally to create greater appreciation for the capabilities of ESP and magnify the importance of their chosen field of study at the price of discrediting survival research, or because they are blinded by perceptual bias, it is harmful to individuals and society as will explained in a subsequent section.

    Alternative sources of truth exist.

    When deciding the best explanation for a phenomenon, the beliefs of experiencers must be considered. They are there on the spot. There is no one more qualified to asses their experiences than they are. NDErs consistently say their experiences are real and that is a strong argument in favor of the reality of their experiences. As shown above, none of the known causes of hallucinations or ESP can explain NDEs.

    The opinions of non-scientist experts should also be given due weight. The expertise of mediums is shown above in the links to different forms of mediumship. Mediums live with afterlife phenomena every day. They know all the fine details that do not get published in books and parapsychological studies. Many mediums also experience other forms of ESP and they can tell the difference between spirit communication and ESP. Mediums say they perceive and communicate with spirits. They are the foremost experts in spirit communication and there are no better qualified experts on ESP and survival of consciousness.

    Back To Contents

    Experiencers may be harmed by misinformation about afterlife phenomena especially if it comes from medical personnel.

    Misinformation about afterlife phenomena is harmful to experiencers like NDErs, people who experience spirit contact, and those suffering from grief. Misinformation published in medical journals can be particularly harmful. An NDEr who wakes up and starts to tell about her experience and is told, "it wasn't real it was just clairvoyance" will be harmed by that misinformation. Research shows that if the first person a near-death experiencer tells about her experience does not accept it as real, then it affects how she copes with it. She may keep it inside and not share it with other people. Feeling the need to keep secret something as awesome and life changing as a visit to heaven and meeting God can be painful. Sharing her experience with others is healthy for her and it also helps other people to learn about the afterlife.

    Mediums, like George Anderson, who during childhood are taken for psychiatric evaluation because they see spirits, are harmed if they are told their veridical perceptions are just ESP.

    It is very important for medical personnel to understand these experiences are real.

    I've seen many times the good mediumship can do. Even some parapsychologists acknowledge it may be therapeutic for those suffering from grief. I have been there at many Spiritualist church services where a grieving mother is given relief from the unimaginable distress caused by the loss of her child, when a medium brings through a communication from her child that shows her the child has not really died but is with Grandma in another realm.

    I've been involved in helping people experiencing spirit contact, children and adults, understand and cope with their experiences. I know the harm and confusion that misinformation about life after death causes. It is psychologically damaging for a person who is having these experiences, who may be ostracized at school, or who may have family members who thinks she is either crazy or satanic to be told her experiences are not real. When a person is having contact with spirits and she is getting veridical information and she exhibits no dysfunctions associated with mental illness, she needs accurate information about afterlife phenomena. Parapsychologists who should know better but won't admit the reality of spirits are part of the problem not part of the solution.

    Lastly, what could be more important to humanity than to know the universe was created and designed by an intelligence and that each human consciousness survives death?

  • The Harm Caused by Pseudoskepticism

    Back To Contents


    References:

    Back To Contents


    Copyright © 2014 by ncu9nc All rights reserved. Texts quoted from other sources are Copyright © by their owners.

  • Saturday, August 10, 2013

    Consciousness Cannot be an Emergent Property of the Brain


    (This article is an addendum to the section: Consciousness cannot be Explained as an Emergent Property of the Brain on my web page Skeptical Fallacies.)

    Materialists often try to explain how consciousness can be produced by the brain by saying it is an emergent property of the brain. However it is not possible for consciousness to be an emergent property of the brain.

    Consciousness has been empirically proved not to be an emergent property of the brain by several independent forms of empirical evidence for the afterlife. If consciousness can survive death, it cannot require a functioning brain for its existence.

    More empirical evidence that consciousness is not produced by the brain comes from the several independent forms of evidence for ESP. ESP is not produced by the brain. Precognition, remote viewing, psychokinesis, and telepathy are independent of time and distance and therefore cannot be explained by the known laws of physics including quantum entanglement. Thus, consciousness cannot be the result of any physical process in the brain.

    Simply saying consciousness is an emergent property does not explain anything because materialists cannot explain how consciousness emerges. "Emergence" is just an empty promise. Sir John Eccles the Nobel prize winning neurophysiologist called such promises superstitions.

    Things that "emerge" have to be the same general type of thing as the thing they emerge from. Consciousness is a fundamentally different type of thing than matter, therefore it cannot emerge from the brain which is composed of matter.

    An amorphous lump of matter probably won't roll. But if you shape that matter into a wheel it will roll. The ability to roll is an emergent property of matter. And you can explain using the known laws of physics why some forms of matter roll and others don't. By understanding momentum, center of mass, velocity, kinetic energy, friction you can explain how the ability to roll emerges from matter.

    A lump of inanimate matter is unlikely to spontaneously grow and reproduce. However life is an emergent property of matter. If you have a living cell you can explain the biochemical reactions by which a cell maintains itself, absorbs nutrients, and reproduces. By understanding atoms, atomic and molecular reactions, electron orbitals, stoichiometry, etc you can explain how a living cell works, how life emerges from matter.

    However, consciousness is not an emergent property of matter. Subjective experience which cannot be measured objectively cannot be the product of fundamentally different objective measurable phenomena such as neuronal activity in the brain. If you study a lump of brain cells, neither the laws of physics nor any biochemical reactions can explain why subjective experiences feel the way they do. Subjective experiences are known only in terms of subjective experience, not in terms of mathematics, or molecular models, or physics, or chemistry, or biology, or psychology, or sociology. Red looks red. Physics can tell you what wavelengths of light look red, and chemistry can tell you how light is sensed by the retina, and neurology can tell you how the signals from the optic nerve are processed by the brain, but none of that will ever tell a colorblind person what red looks like. Consciousness and physical processes are fundamentally different things.

    Thinking you will be able to explain how consciousness emerges by understanding more about a massive number of nerve cells is like trying to make a ham sandwich from bricks. You can't make a ham sandwich from bricks and piling up more and more bricks will never get you any closer to having a ham sandwich.

    The subjective experience of consciousness cannot be understood in physical terms therefore, consciousness cannot be a result of any physical process. Consciousness is a fundamentally different thing from any physical process.

    Copyright © 2013, 2014 by ncu9nc All rights reserved. Texts quoted from other sources are Copyright © by their owners.

    Sunday, May 19, 2013

    Darwinism must be false because matter cannot produce consciousness.


    If matter cannot produce consciousness, Darwinism must be false. Darwinism, the theory of evolution by natural selection, is a theory of how organisms, such as conscious human beings, evolved from simpler forms of matter through natural processes. If matter cannot produce consciousness, than it is impossible for conscious human beings to have evolved through natural selection and so Darwinism must be false.

    This concept was explained by Gary Gutting in Nagel's Untimely Idea on commonwealmagazine.org. This article contains three reviews of Thomas Nagel's book Mind and Cosmos. Gutting writes:

    Why does Nagel insist on a radical rejection of the materialist metaphysics rather than endorsing Chalmers’s dualistic supplement to it? Because, Nagel maintains, materialist accounts rely on Darwinian evolution, which is not capable of explaining the origin of consciousness from matter.

    But why is it impossible for consciousness to originate from matter? One line of reasoning that explains why matter cannot produce consciousness is suggested in the same article by physicist Stephen M. Barr:

    Even if one knew all the variables of a physical system, their values at one time or at all times, and the equations governing them, there would be no way to derive from that information anything about whether the system in question was conscious, was feeling anything, or was having subjective experiences of any sort.

    Barr is saying that the experience of consciousness, what you are feeling, what sensations feel like, is unexplainable by physics.

    You can describe brain states in terms of neurotransmitters and cell organization, and neuron firing patterns, and in as much detail as you like, but you will never be able to understand from that what it is like to feel happy or what it is like to see the color red. A physical description of brain a state is fundamentally different from an experience. You can't explain what an experience is like through brain states. You might be able to say such and such a brain state produces the feeling of happiness, but you can't explain, based on a description of brain states, what it feels like to experience being happy, or what it is like to experience seeing the color red. Consciousness is something that is fundamentally different from any material process.

    There are many other lines of reasoning and many independent forms of evidence that indicate that matter cannot produce consciousness. I have written about several of them on this blog and on my web site. Most of what I have written on the subject can be accessed from my article Materialism Cannot Explain Consciousness. This article links to discussions of philosophical arguments and also to several independent forms of empirical evidence that consciousness survives death. If consciousness can exist after the brain has died, then the matter in the brain cannot be responsible for the production of consciousness.

    Since matter cannot produce consciousness, conscious beings like humans cannot have arisen through any purely material process such as Darwinian evolution. Therefore Darwinism must be false.

    Copyright © 2013 by ncu9nc All rights reserved. Texts quoted from other sources are Copyright © by their owners.

    Tuesday, October 9, 2012

    The Filter Model of The Brain is Falsifiable and Scientific


    I have updated my web page on Skeptical Fallacies to include the section The Filter Model of The Brain is Falsifiable and Scientific. An explanation of the filter model of the brain can be found here.

    A skeptic might say that the filter model of the brain is not scientific because it cannot be falsified. Any change in mental function can be explained by it. If conscious faculties are increased, as occurs during an NDE, it is explained by less filtering, if conscious faculties are decreased, as may occur after a stroke or during sleep, it may be explained by increased filtering. The theory accounts for any possibility and therefore it can't be falsified.

    This is a misrepresentation of falsifiability.

    For a theory to be scientific it must be supported by evidence. For a theory to be supported by evidence it must pass a test that could demonstrate the theory is false.

    If a theory makes predictions and you can design an experiment or make observations to test the correctness of those predictions empirically, then you can test the theory. If the experiments or observations show that the predictions are incorrect, then you have falsified the theory. This is the meaning of falsifiability. If the experiments or observations show that the predictions are correct then the theory has passed the test and can be considered to be supported by evidence and is therefore scientific.

    The filter model of the brain makes three correct predictions:

    1. The brain might be damaged in a way that is like a clog in the filter which should cause loss of some conscious capability.
    2. The brain might be damaged in a way that is like a hole punctured in the filter which should result in new or improved capabilities of consciousness.
    3. If the filter is removed from consciousness, then there should be unfiltered, expanded consciousness.

    The way to test the first two predictions is to observe the effects of brain damage. If you can find cases where damage to the brain causes loss of function and other cases where damage to the brain causes increased function, then those observations prove the first two predictions are correct. There are some forms of brain damage that do cause loss of function, for example, amnesia or senility in the aged. There are also cases of brain damage where there new or improved capabilities of consciousness are produced, such as ESP or in acquired savant syndrome. The third prediction is proved to be correct by near death experiences where people who come close to death experience leaving their body and experience unfiltered expanded consciousness. The evidence for the second and third predictions is detailed in the previous section.

    For a theory to be falsifiable, the theory must make specific predictions that can be tested with empirical observations. The filter model makes specific predictions about what types of effects on consciousness can be produced and those effects can be empirically measured. Brain damage can be detected by various methods such as MRI. Changes in functions of consciousness can be observed. Paralysis from a stroke, or new talents in the case of acquired savant syndrome are easy to observe. The reports of people who have veridical near death experiences are empirical observations made by the experiencers.

    The confusion over what an unfalsifiable theory is, is best understood by looking at this excerpt from Science, Pseudo-Science, and Falsifiability by Karl Popper, 1962, which explaines how an unfalsifiable theories is always confirmed:

    I may illustrate this by two very different examples of human behaviour: that of a man who pushes a child into the water with the intention of drowning him; and that of a man who sacrifices his life in an attempt to save the child. Each of these two cases can be explained with equal ease in Freudian and Adlerian terms. According to Freud the first man suffered from repression (say, of some component of his Oedipus complex), while the second man had achieved sublimation. According to Adler the first man suffered from feelings of inferiority (producing perhaps the need to prove to himself that he dared to commit some crime), and so did the second man (whose need was to prove to himself that he dared to rescue the child). I could not think of any human behaviour which could not be interpreted in terms of either theory. It was precisely this fact -- that they always fitted, that they were always confirmed -- which in the eyes of their admirers constituted the strongest argument in favour of these theories. It began to dawn on me that this apparent strength was in fact their weakness.

    The difference between the filter model of the brain and the psychoanalytic theories in the above excerpt is that the filter model of the brain makes specific predictions about brain damage and its effects that can be empirically observed. In the above excerpt, the description of the Adlerian theory does not involve testing predictions empirically. Drowning and saving are both predicted by feelings of inferiority and there is no mention of any empirical measurement of inferiority, the need to prove oneself or that this need caused the behavior. If one accepts the theory without empirical tests, then any behavior could be explained by inferiority. In the example of the Freudian explanation of the behavior, empirical measurements of the sublimation and repression are not mentioned either. Sublimation and repression are simply assumed as necessary to explain any behavior. However, if there were empirical measurements taken of repression, and sublimation, in real occurrences of behavior, then the Freudian theory could be tested.

    Copyright © 2012 by ncu9nc All rights reserved. Texts quoted from other sources are Copyright © by their owners.

    Friday, September 21, 2012

    If you believe your mind operates according to the laws of materialism, like a computer, it is irrational of you to believe anything.


    I have updated my web page on Skeptical Fallacies to include the following:

    Edward Feser, in his blog post, Popper contra computationalism, explains a flaw in any argument that the brain is a conscious computer operating according to the laws of materialism. First he shows that a purely physical system operating according to the laws of materialism, such as a computer, cannot explain rational thought. Then he points out that since materialism cannot explain rational thought, any argument asserting materialism is true cannot be considered rational. Therefore, the materialist's assertion that the mind is a purely physical system such as a computer is irrational. In other words, there can be no justification to believe in materialism or that the mind is a computer.

    Feser shows that materialism cannot explain our ability to reason:

    1. Materialism says that thinking is ultimately a mechanical process. Like a computer running a program, thought is a transition from one physical state to another caused by known laws of physics.
    2. Such a transition occurs due to physical laws not due to any inherent meaning in the physical states.
    3. But a "thought can serve as a rational justification for another only by virtue of" it's "meaning"....
    4. "If materialism is true, ... there is nothing about our thought processes that can make one thought a rational justification for another".
    5. "If materialism is true none of our thoughts is ever rationally justified."
    6. "This includes the thoughts of materialists themselves."
    7. "If materialism is true it cannot be rationally justified", materialism "undermines itself".

    If you believe the brain is a conscious computer, it is irrational of you to believe anything. If you believe anything, you must believe materialism is false, the brain is not a conscious computer, and the mind is not produced by the brain.

    Copyright © 2012 by ncu9nc All rights reserved. Texts quoted from other sources are Copyright © by their owners.

    Wednesday, September 19, 2012

    The Human Brain is not A Conscious Computer


    I have updated my web page on Skeptical Fallacies to include the following:

    A skeptic may say that materialism can explain consciousness because the brain could be a conscious computer. As evidence to support this position, he may cite the paper Computing Machinery and Intelligence by Alan Turing. This paper is about a test for computer intelligence that has come to be called the Turing test. The Turing test involves two people and a computer. One person communicates remotely with both the computer and the other person. If he can't tell which is the person and which is the computer, then the computer passes the Turing test.

    Turing argued that if you can't distinguish a computer from a person and if you doubt a computer is conscious, you must also doubt other people are conscious. Since we accept that people are conscious, if a computer passes the Turing test, the computer should be considered conscious too.

    However, there are several reason it is incorrect to use this paper as evidence that the brain is a conscious computer.

    • Turing believed in the evidence for ESP and he felt a computer couldn't reproduce it.
      (9) The Argument from Extrasensory Perception

      I assume that the reader is familiar with the idea of extrasensory perception, and the meaning of the four items of it, viz., telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition and psychokinesis. These disturbing phenomena seem to deny all our usual scientific ideas. How we should like to discredit them! Unfortunately the statistical evidence, at least for telepathy, is overwhelming. It is very difficult to rearrange one's ideas so as to fit these new facts in. Once one has accepted them it does not seem a very big step to believe in ghosts and bogies. The idea that our bodies move simply according to the known laws of physics, together with some others not yet discovered but somewhat similar, would be one of the first to go.

      ...

      If telepathy is admitted it will be necessary to tighten our test up. The situation could be regarded as analogous to that which would occur if the interrogator were talking to himself and one of the competitors was listening with his ear to the wall. To put the competitors into a "telepathy-proof room" would satisfy all requirements."

    • Turing wrote that the proof of his belief that a computer could pass the Turing test would only occur when a computer actually passed the Turing test. He incorrectly believed this would happen by the end of the twentieth century. However, it is already the second decade of the twenty first century and no computer has ever passed the Turing test. So there is no actual evidence that a computer can pass the Turing test.
      The only really satisfactory support that can be given for the view expressed at the beginning of §6, will be that provided by waiting for the end of the century and then doing the experiment described.

      From §6:

      I believe that in about fifty years' time it will be possible, to programme computers, with a storage capacity of about 109 [10^9], to make them play the imitation game so well that an average interrogator will not have more than 70 per cent chance of making the right identification after five minutes of questioning. The original question, "Can machines think?" I believe to be too meaningless to deserve discussion. Nevertheless I believe that at the end of the century the use of words and general educated opinion will have altered so much that one will be able to speak of machines thinking without expecting to be contradicted.

      Clearly this prediction has not come to pass.

    • Even if a computer could pass the Turing test, that would not prove human consciousness is produced by the brain. There is a large amount of evidence that human consciousness survives the death of the body. A computer cannot imitate this. Any theory to explain human consciousness has to account for that evidence. You can't ignore empirical evidence because it contradicts a theory. A theory must be consistent with the empirical evidence, otherwise the theory is wrong.

    Philosophers have also addressed, and rejected the possibility that consciousness could be produced by a computer. Edward Feser discusses this in his blog posts Popper Contra Computationalism and Kripka Contra Computationalism

    Copyright © 2012 by ncu9nc All rights reserved. Texts quoted from other sources are Copyright © by their owners.

    Monday, September 17, 2012

    If materialism was true, you would not know you are reading these words.


    I have updated my web page on Skeptical Fallacies to include the fallacy: Humans are biological machines that operate strictly according to physical laws.

    Humans are more than biological machines that operate strictly according to physical laws.

    According to materialism, humans are biological machines and everything about us can be explained by the physical descriptions of the atoms that make up our body and brain. If that were true, there would be no need for consciousness because all the functions of a machine are determined by its physical structure. A machine does not need to be conscious to function. Therefore, according to materialism, consciousness should not have evolved because there is no need for it. If materialism were true, consciousness would not exist. Since you are aware of reading these words, you know that consciousness does exist and therefore materialism is not correct. Humans are more than just biological machines. Materialists will answer this by saying consciousness is an emergent property, or an illusion, or an epi-phenomenon of the brain. These are also fallacies which are explained in the two following sections.

    Copyright © 2012 by ncu9nc All rights reserved. Texts quoted from other sources are Copyright © by their owners.

    Tuesday, September 4, 2012

    Is Self-directed Neuroplasticity Evidence That Consciousness is not Produced by the Brain?


    There is a lot of discussion on an internet forum I follow about self-directed neuroplasticity. Some people feel that self-directed neuroplasticity is evidence that consciousness is not produced by the brain.

    I disagree with this opinion.

    Self-directed neuroplasticity is the phenomenon whereby the brain is altered by conscious thought. Meditation and cognitive therapy are conscious processes that have been shown to alter the brain.

    However, some people believe the brain cannot be capable of modifying itself and therefore self-directed neuroplasticity shows that consciousness must be independent from the brain.

    The reason I don't consider this to be correct is as follows:

    1. Ordinary neuroplasticity is not controversial. Neurons in the brain alter their connections during any process that involves learning.

    2. If you want to demonstrate that self-directed neuroplasticity is different from ordinary neuroplasticity and is evidence that consciousness is not produced by the brain, you have to start from the premise that consciousness is produced by the brain and try to show that premise leads to a contradiction. If you start from the premise that consciousness is not produced by the brain you are starting from the point you are trying to prove. Those who believe that self-directed neuroplasticity is evidence that consciousness is not produced by the brain often ask "who is doing the meditation that alters the brain" - as if this implied consciousness was not produced by the brain. However that implication is the point to be proved not an assumption you can start with.

    3. Self-directed neuroplasticity, like the placebo effect, demonstrates that consciousness can influence the brain and therefore consciousness is not an illusion or an epiphenomenon of the brain.

    4. Do the two statements 1) consciousness is produced by the brain, and 2) consciousness is not an illusion or an epiphenomenon of the brain - constitute a contradiction?

    5. No. Consciousness might be produced by the brain and also influence the brain. For example, one part of the brain might influence another part of the brain. As an analogy, a computer system or network of computers can be programmed to allocate and reallocate resources depending on changing usage requirements. You could try to refute this point by saying in self-directed neuroplasticity consciousness alters the part of the brain that is responsible for consciousness. If you do that, you are admitting that the brain produces consciousness which is what you are trying to disprove.

    6. You cannot argue that it is impossible for the brain to alter itself, because in self-directed neuroplasticity consciousness has effects on the brain that alter consciousness. Cognitive therapy and meditation are both conscious processes that alter the brain and have effects on consciousness. If consciousness can alter itself, which is not in dispute, you are admitting there are conscious systems that can alter themselves and therefore there are no grounds to argue that the brain cannot produce consciousness and alter itself.

    7. Therefore self-directed neuroplasticity, whereby consciousness alters the brain, does not provide evidence that consciousness is not produced by the brain.

    I think there is so much confusion over this issue because people who believe consciousness is not produced by the brain bring that opinion to the debate and they don't realize how it influences their reasoning. They start from that premise and don't realize it. They often refer to some other phenomenon that is evidence consciousness is not produced by the brain as if it bolstered their argument. But that is just another way of assuming the premise they are trying to prove or proving the premise by alternate means. In order to show self-directed neuroplasticity is evidence that consciousness is not produced by the brain, you have to start from the premise that consciousness is produced by the brain and try to show that leads to a contradiction. Otherwise you are starting with the premise you are trying to prove. However as I have tried to show above, that premise does not lead to a contradiction.

    However there is a large amount of evidence from other phenomena that does show consciousness is not producecd by the brain.

    Further reading on self-directed neuroplasticity:

    Copyright © 2012 by ncu9nc All rights reserved. Texts quoted from other sources are Copyright © by their owners.

    Tuesday, August 28, 2012

    Materialism Cannot Explain Consciousness


    It is very easy to demonstrate that materialism cannot explain consciousness. First, show that none of the materialist explanations for consciousness are valid:

    Next, provide evidence that consciousness is not produced by the brain or any physical process and that it survives death:

    Then, preemptively refute the skeptical criticisms of this evidence:

    Copyright © 2012, 2014, 2016 by ncu9nc All rights reserved. Texts quoted from other sources are Copyright © by their owners.

    Monday, June 8, 2009

    Brain Injury Expands Consciousness

    There was a very interesting article published in the dailymail.co.uk on June 1 2009:

    Masterstroke: Man who couldn't even draw stickmen wakes from brain surgery... as a talented artist

    For most, stroke and brain surgery can be devastating but for Alan Brown it sparked a previously unseen talent... as an artist.

    When Alan, 49, emerged from a gruelling 16-hour operation following his stroke, he found he had become a reborn 'Michelangelo' and was able to paint and draw with incredible detail.

    This is strong evidence that the brain does not produce consciousness but restricts it. I discussed this topic previously in the post Scientific Theories of Psychic Phenomena Part 3 The commonly held materialist view of the brain is that it produces consciousness. However the view that consciousness exists independently from physical matter and the brain filters or transmits consciousness has more empirical support.

    Chris Carter explains this in his article:

    Does Consciousness depend on the Brain?

    The argument in its essence is that the transmission and production hypotheses are equally compatible with the facts materialism tries to explain - such as the effects of senility, drugs, and brain damage on consciousness - but that the hypothesis of transmission has the advantage of providing a framework for understanding other phenomena that must remain utterly inexplicable on the basis of the materialistic hypothesis. The materialists simply deny that these other phenomena even exist, as they rightly realize that the existence of these phenomena threatens their ideology with extinction.

    It is extremely unlikely that a brain injury could cause the same changes in the brain that learning a skill would produce. If an injury to the brain can give a person a new talent, that suggests that the talent originally existed in the non-physical consciousness but the brain was restricting that talent from expressing itself in the physical organism. The stroke may have damaged the part of the brain that restricted the talent from emerging. This might then allow the patient to become more fully conscious of his innate abilities.