Why Physicalism is Wrong

[seeds]

I think the fact that the researchers had to wake the subjects up in order to ask them what they were dreaming about, pretty much says it all...
______

Does it? You appear to to not understand how experimenting has to work in this area.

Really? It all seems pretty straightforward to me.

In short, while the subjects are sleeping, the researchers, using fMRI imaging and EEGs, are able to observe increased activity in different areas of the brain (“hot zones”). And whenever the increased activity is noticed, they immediately wake the subjects up and ask them to describe what they were dreaming at that particular moment.

And after a long period of repeating that process, the researchers were able to develop a statistically-based algorithm that can predict (with an alleged 60% accuracy) that whenever a specific “hot zone” was active during sleep, the subjects would be dreaming about a fairly specific thing such as a building, or a person, or a letter, for example.

So what is it that you think I don’t understand?

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

...and literally measure the height and girth of the palm trees, or the distance between the trees and the water, etc., etc..

Can you measure such things in your dream? If you can then the neurons responsible for such actions will trigger and they'll have a map of that and maybe one day will be able to calculate what you dream is a 'measurement'.

Now I am certain that I don't need to point out to someone with your level of intelligence that a “map” is not the actual territory itself.

And that seems to be the crux of our disagreement.

Furthermore, I have absolutely no doubt that if we could awaken within the context of a dream and interact with and control the holographic-like fabric of our minds with the same degree of wakefulness and control that we possess over it when we are not sleeping, then yes, we could literally measure such things.

In fact, that represents a vital aspect of my (Idealistic/Berkeleyanish) theory on what our ultimate form and eternal destiny are all about, as is depicted in yet another series of my fanciful illustrations...





(For a clearer view of the dialogue, click on the following link and scroll down - http://www.theultimateseeds.com/the3sta ... rbeing.htm)

Now of course I don’t expect a hardcore materialist such as you, A_uk, to accept any of the above. I am just presenting my own personal (anti-physicalism) opinion on these matters.

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

And even more importantly, none of the tests offer the slightest clue as to the physiological details and whereabouts of the dreamer.

The whereabouts are the body that is asleep.

How in the world is the dreamer using the body to experience the multi-sensory (phenomenal) features of a dream when it is obvious that absolutely nothing that is seeable, touchable, hearable, smellable, and tasteable within the context of a dream is being presented to the body’s eyes, skin, ears, nose, and tongue?

All of those “widows” into the objective realm of this universe are completely vacant when a subject is peering inward and dreaming.

And if you want to narrow it down to just the brain (as in the old “brain in a vat” concept), then where, precisely, is the dreamer (and the dream island) located within the brain?

In other words, where in the context of sparks of electricity within the folds of grey matter does there exist a fully-conscious, self-aware entity (i.e., the subjectively positioned “I-AM”) who can willfully grasp and shape the fabric of its own personal being into absolutely anything it wishes?

And I truly hope that no one here is clueless enough to suggest that the paralyzed blob of material flesh lying there on the testing bed is what’s dreaming the dream.

Your body is not paralysed when dreaming...

According to a 2012 article in ScienceDaily...

Two powerful brain chemical systems work together to paralyze skeletal muscles during rapid eye movement (REM) sleep, according to new research in the July 18 issue of The Journal of Neuroscience...

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 131030.htm

(Bolding/underlining mine)

And of course, dreaming is alleged to occur most deeply and intensely during REM sleep.

Please don't tell me you are a dualist?

If by dualist you mean a person who can discern a clear difference between the essence of life and that of the essence of matter then, yes, I am a dualist.

Now it is just my personal opinion, but I highly doubt that future innovations of human technology will ever overcome the metaphysical barriers that prevent us from entering the closed and sovereign dimensions of each other’s minds (at least not in any literal sense).

Well they might not be able to become the other person but there're fair odds that they'll be able to image a close approximation of what one is dreaming about as there is no wafting-off to 'a parallel universe', just the universe of the CNS.

But that’s just it, when a human falls asleep and dreams, they are indeed “wafting-off to a parallel universe.”

In other words, our minds are literal parallel universes relative to each other – with each one being owned and presided over by a living, self-aware entity who possesses complete control over a substance that is capable of being formed into absolutely anything imaginable.

And that (IMO) is precisely what the concept of being “created in God’s image” truly means, as is depicted in the illustrations in my prior post.

(Again, these theories and ideas are just my own personal take on our situation, and the futility of offering them to hardcore materialists is not lost on me. Nor am I beyond admitting that I could be woefully wrong about all of it.)
_______

[Sabburi]

The article due to Bartley considers physicalism is wrong. But I think physicalism can not be dismissed and we should be open to physicalism. Two points I like to make in this regard are

1 There is no mental experience if there is no brain. The brain and mind are intimately connected.
2 In some simple cases we know well that altering brain processes through drugs can change the experience. For example we can reduce pain or induce sleep through drugs that modify the neurological processes. How come we experience this change? We are entitled to think that consciousness, however complex, can be understood in the future. When that happens we have to lose our mind

[QuantumT]

No new "groundbreaking knowledge" needed. It is well known that "observation" in the context of QM can be made by a device, with complete absence of human intervention.

A device!? Think about it for fucks sake! Pull your head outta your physicalistic bottucks!
Pieces of glass, plastic and metal causes the waves to collapse? That lacks sence, logic and real proof!
Logic and sence says it's the act of observing. You say it's some random bunch of atoms!
Even Einstein accepted it in the end, after years of struggle. Why can't you?

So no, it it's not true that events at subatomic level depend on an observing mind. That's the woo interpretation.

The collapse of the wave also happens on large scale objects.
https://www.livescience.com/19268-quant ... cules.html

And woo my bottucks!

[Arising_uk]

… Pieces of glass, plastic and metal causes the waves to collapse? That lacks sence, logic and real proof! …

So you're saying that if no-one was around your house wouldn't have burnt down? That you won't come back to a blackened husk?

[QuantumT]

So you're saying that if no-one was around your house wouldn't have burnt down? That you won't come back to a blackened husk?

You should read replies. They sometimes answer things!
Like the one with the DVD player, where the TV and audio are shut off, while it's still playing!
Nobody sees it, but the data still flows.
It happens. Just not visually!

[Noax]

No new "groundbreaking knowledge" needed. It is well known that "observation" in the context of QM can be made by a device, with complete absence of human intervention.

A device!? Think about it for fucks sake! Pull your head outta your physicalistic bottucks!
Pieces of glass, plastic and metal causes the waves to collapse? That lacks sence, logic and real proof!
Logic and sence says it's the act of observing. You say it's some random bunch of atoms!
Even Einstein accepted it in the end, after years of struggle. Why can't you?

Copenhagen interpretation is not an interpretation of reality (and was never meant to be), but merely an epistemological interpretation. It asserts that the wave function is not real, but merely a representation of someone's knowledge of a system. So looking at something changes that knowledge, and thus the wave function (a description of the knowledge of the one observer) changes (collapses). That is hardly controversial. In poker, I don't know the cards my opponent is holding until I observe them, and the equivalent to the wave function of those cards changes from some probability to some certainty. The cards don't actually change.

So Copenhagen makes no claim that any real change occurs to a system when an observation of it is made. Any interpretation that claims this seems not to take into account that observation is an effect, not a cause.

So what you are describing (e.g. computer monitors emitting waves, not photons, only when nobody is in the room) is consistent with most other bits of physics you quote, which is just stuff you make up. Your interpretation has no name until you give it one, but 'Copenhagen' is already taken.
Perhaps you should push the Von_Neumann–Wigner interpretation, where consciousness has real causal effect, but what you've been describing is more of a pooma interpretation. Wiki doesn't even have an entry for that one, but perhaps it should since it seems to be quite common outside of the physics community.

[Arising_uk]

You should read replies. They sometimes answer things! …

Well I was waiting for your reply.

Like the one with the DVD player, where the TV and audio are shut off, while it's still playing!
Nobody sees it, but the data still flows.
It happens. Just not visually!

So essentially you agree that a 'consciousness' is not needed to trigger the fire?

[QuantumT]

Copenhagen interpretation is not an interpretation of reality (and was never meant to be), but merely an epistemological interpretation. It asserts that the wave function is not real, but merely a representation of someone's knowledge of a system. So looking at something changes that knowledge, and thus the wave function (a description of the knowledge of the one observer) changes (collapses). That is hardly controversial. In poker, I don't know the cards my opponent is holding until I observe them, and the equivalent to the wave function of those cards changes from some probability to some certainty. The cards don't actually change.

I should not have used it directly, but instead have pointed to the logical consequence of it. My bad.

So Copenhagen makes no claim that any real change occurs to a system when an observation of it is made. Any interpretation that claims this seems not to take into account that observation is an effect, not a cause.

I couldn't disagree more!
The act of measurement/observation affects the system, causing the set of probabilities to reduce to only one of the possible values immediately after the measurement/observation.
So, from our perspective, it looks like the particles "know" if they are observed or not. Bohr realised that, and spoke the famous words. And if that is not truly shocking, what is?!

So what you are describing (e.g. computer monitors emitting waves, not photons, only when nobody is in the room) is consistent with most other bits of physics you quote, which is just stuff you make up. Your interpretation has no name until you give it one, but 'Copenhagen' is already taken.
Perhaps you should push the Von_Neumann–Wigner interpretation, where consciousness has real causal effect, but what you've been describing is more of a pooma interpretation. Wiki doesn't even have an entry for that one, but perhaps it should since it seems to be quite common outside of the physics community.

Maybe I'll do that.
And I don't make stuff up. I draw logical conclusions, that the science community refuses to do themselves.
Somebody has to do it. I'm somebody!

So essentially you agree that a 'consciousness' is not needed to trigger the fire?

Yes, I agree! The triggering of the fire and the consequences of the fire, will occur without an observer. But only inside the framework of the computer. Thereby it becomes an invisble event, from any perspective.

[Arising_uk]

…

Yes, I agree! The triggering of the fire and the consequences of the fire, will occur without an observer. But only inside the framework of the computer. Thereby it becomes an invisble event, from any perspective.

Great so we agree, consciousness is not needed to collapse these mythical 'waves'.

[QuantumT]

Great so we agree, consciousness is not needed to collapse these mythical 'waves'.

How, you reached that conclusion, is however, very mysterious...
Thinking you've won a silly argument, changes nothing.

[Arising_uk]

How, you reached that conclusion, is however, very mysterious...
Thinking you've won a silly argument, changes nothing.

I thought you hadn't paid attention.

So are you now saying that you think your house won't burn down if you aren't there to observe it doing so?

[QuantumT]

So are you now saying that you think your house won't burn down if you aren't there to observe it doing so?

If you are on a Windows OS, try to hit Ctrl/Alt/Del and choose the Job List. Then choose the Processes fan. You will se a long list of programs running in your computers background. According to your logic, those processes are myths, because they are not visible.

[Arising_uk]

If you are on a Windows OS, try to hit Ctrl/Alt/Del and choose the Job List. Then choose the Processes fan. You will se a long list of programs running in your computers background. According to your logic, those processes are myths, because they are not visible.

Again proving my point that a consciousness is not needed to trigger your 'wave' collapse.