Re: Honest question - so why do scientists suport ToE?

On Sep 23, 9:31 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2008-09-24, tension_on_the_wire <tension_at_h...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 21, 6:26 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 16:55:38 -0700, tension_on_the_wire wrote:

[much snippage]

. . . when it is already so obviously clear that whatever
happens at death concerns emergent properties like life and mind,
which we already know are not explained by 3-dimensional paradigms.

No, we don't know that.  Nor do you know that, nor does anyone know that.
Belief is not the same as knowledge, no matter how hard you close your
eyes and wish.

There is nothing about life or mind which presents any problem to
conventional physical sciences (including chemistry and biology), or, in
other words, to your "3-dimensional paradigms".

Sorry I didn't see this post earlier, Mark.  I must have blinked while
scrolling.  Hard to catch the quickies amonst all these rolls of
script.

Your most recent statement there is, I'm afraid, not correct.  The
basic conundrum in the life science studies still remains, to define
the concept of life.  At best, so far, various properties of "life-
bearing" organisms have been listed as descriptions of the qualities
of life, but life itself still cannot be defined in a way that does
not get the definition broken by at least one form of organism, or is
so inclusive that it contains processes that are clearly not life-
bearing, such as fire.  But the ability of a living organism to
manifest any or all of those properites has not gotten science any
closer to defining what life actually is in 3-dimensional terms.  It
is not matter, and it is not just energy either.  If you have a 3-
dimensional definition of life, I'd very much like to hear it.

If any of this was suppose to contradict what Isaak said, it failed.
Let's review:

MI> There is nothing about life or mind which presents any problem to
MI> conventional physical sciences...

I think he'd be willing to grant you pretty much whatever latitude you
like in deciding what's alive and what is not, because he's confident
that whatever you choose, none of it would present any problems for
conventional physics.  Include viruses if you like.  

Gee, thanks for letting me include viruses, I feel so special. My
remarks were directed at much more controversial definitions of life
like prions. Viruses aren't half the problem that prions are when it
comes to defining life.

Include fire if
you like.  Fire doesn't present any problems for the physical sciences
either.

What on earth does that mean? Fire doesn't present any problems for
the physical sciences? That's deep. Doesn't actually say anything.
Are you saying that the physical sciences can explain fire as a life-
containing organism? What do you mean by "present any problems"?

Mark, whether you want to accept it or not, these issues have been
struggles in those fields for decades and are still unresolved. You
are only revealing your ignorance in insisting that it is all
explained. It is not. And I'm still waiting for a definitive 3-
dimensional explanation of life. Please, if it is there, type it out
for me. I know a lot of PhDs in the subject who would like to know,
as it is the Holy Grail of the life-sciences, in which I have two
related degrees. Please tell me what life is. And I will tell you
why that definition is either insufficient or too demanding.



As for the mind, it is even more clear that a 3-dimensional definition
will not do.  That will describe the brain, but the concept of a mind,
or independent, self-aware organism with the power of free will and
the ability to enact that free will upon the matter of brain cells,

Here's the thing: you pretend that the mind and the brain are different,
but they are inextricably linked.  We do not observe minds without the
corresponding physical brain.  

I pretend nothing. It is easily documentable that the two are
different AND are linked, although we do not know that this link is
inextricable. We know that the brain can exist without the mind, as
we can suppress all mind activity during anesthesia, without
suppressing all brain activity, and bring back an intact brain/mind/
person. We can also go further and suppress all brain activity
completely and still bring back a normal intact mind that did not
float off or die even though the brain was as inactive as a dead
brain. We know that the mind has more than one state of existence,
including an unconcsious one during sleep, where the link with the
brain is very very different from the one we use when awake, and very
tenuous as to 3-dimensional orientation and time orientation. We know
that the mind has yet another state which we cannot observe, during
coma, which has been very difficult to get at as it has no time
orientation at all, from the point of view of the mind. The awake
brain and its connection with mind is almost the only one we have made
any progress at understanding. We are currently investigating
documented incidents of near-death experiences, now, as yet another
possible state of mind with an even more tenuous connection with the
brain.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1842627,00.html?xid=feed-yahoo-full-healthsci

It is clear that the link between mind and brain is much more
complicated than you would have us believe. We are now aware that we
do not have the appropriate tools to observe the mind independent of
the brain. We do not assume that because we have not been able to
observe minds in the 3-dimensional sense, that they have no other way
or dimension to exist. Rather, anecdotal reports of various natures
give us circumstantial reason to think that it is, indeed, possible
for the mind to exist without the brain just as the brain can exist
without the mind. No need to jump all over why all those reports must
be false. I'm inclined to think that even with a great number of
hoaxes out there, some of those reports were made by sincere people
who accurately reported a personal experience. At any rate, with all
that is suggested by our observations, they merit investigation, such
as is being done at Cornell.



forcing them to fire in order to bring about change in a 3-dimensional
world, it has still not been explained by the most detailed of
neurophysiological studies.  

Which is hardly justification for supernaturalism.  There is no problem
about the mind that requires abandoning materialism.

In which post do I ever attempt to justify supernaturalism? The
proposition of an emergent property functioning in a 5th currently
unobservable dimension is not supernaturalism. Not when extra
dimensions are now taken seriously as necessary to explain reality,
according to the extremely indisputable mathematic support of M-
theory. I'm not attempting a God of the gaps argument here, you
know. I'm presenting an argument for considering life and mind as
emergent properties which require another dimension to be observable
before we can make any categorical statement that the mind does not
exist without the brain. Then, and only then, would you have any
scientifically sound justification to claim that there is no life
after death, if you could prove it by direct observation of the
phenomenon in question in its dimension. Until then, there is nothing
unreasonable and nothing that flies in the face of any science that we
know about the proposition that mind might exist after disconnection
with the brain. And that, even, is not supernaturalism until you can
demonstrate a way in which it contradicts with any known science.
Without resorting to the God of the Yets.



Physical sciences have not been able to demonstrate a means by which
human thought interfaces with matter to effect change.  

Nonsense.  The brain is electrochemical in nature.  A great deal is
known about how thoughts (which are essentially electrical) interface
with muscles to effect change.

Thank you for the physiology lesson. I don't need a lecture as to how
the brain affects the muscles. I'm well aware of the mechanisms.
Much is known about the mechanisms to effect change, but nothing is
known about the mechanism which led to that decision to effect
change. The brain is electrochemical in nature, but the mind is not.
The mind is not a physical thing. Nor is thought. There is no
evidence that thoughts are electrical, but only that their
transmission is done via an electrochemical mechanism. Again you miss
the concept of interface. Where is the point at which a mind says
"I'm going to kick the doggie off the table", and the first firing of
a neuron aimed at the quadriceps muscle in the right leg? That
interface is not describable by electricity unless you want to propose
that there is an explained electrochemical phenomenon which stimulates
firing of a neuron without any observable cause as the invisible mind
trips a switch. Where is that switch? If you don't have it, then you
don't have the explanation you claim is so obvious.


It is as deep
a mystery as Uri Geller and his alleged spoons, in fact.

Oh dear Lord.  Geller was a fraud.

Oh dear Lord, thank goodness you told me.
Obviously I need a "sarcasm" sign to hold up for you.


The so-called psychic power phenomena have nothing
on the question of how your own mind can create an effect in your own
brain.  If you know of some explanation for that of which I was
previously aware, I'd love to hear about it.

Whether such an explanation exists or not is irrelevent.

It is very relevant to your claim that the mind and brain functions
are synonymous and fully explained by currently known 3-dimensional
science. I would like to hear the full explanation please. Even if
you think it is irrelevant. Sock it to me anyway, I can take it.

 That being
said, you are painting yourself into a kind of "mind of the gaps"
argument.  

No I am not. I am not attempting to suggest that until mind can be
explained, we must accept it as supernatural.
I am suggesting that your, and Mark Isaak's, and Rupert Morrish's
claim that mind and brain and thought are all sufficiently explained
by current 3-dimensional science is a false assumption and therefore
no argument at all against my claim that those emergent properties
need more than 3 or 4 dimensions to explain them (at least 5 are
needed) and that you cannot, therefore, suggest that life after death
is a suggestion that goes against known science. It does not. That
is my only claim in this subject.

Neuroscience has made remarkable strides in mapping the
functioning of the brain and how it affects our sense of self.  

I'm well aware, thanks. No one is disputing that brain functions can
effect or modify the sense of self. It is how the sense of self can
modify the brain to act which has yet to be sorted out. I've seen the
MRI and positron emission studies that map the locations of the brain
that light up during certain mental activities. That work shows where
certain processes are taking place in the brain, but goes no further
than anything else in determining how the brain lit up for those
mental activities, or, for that matter, whether it was the mental
activities that lit up that bit of brain and not the other way
around. These studies are at an extremely vague and inaccurate stage
right now, but only show gross anatomy locations and nothing in the
area of which we are discussing. I'm sorry to disappoint you if you
thought there was more known than that from these studies.


I've mentioned Paul Davies before, a theoretical physicist who writes
very well about the implications and ramifications of quantum theory
on these phenomena and considers the questions of "emergent
properties" and how they seem to exist outside the 3-dimensional
paradigm with which we are so familiar.  He describes it much better
than I and is definitely worth the read, if you are into learning more
about that.

In what sense does this imply that the use of the word "quantum mechanics"
suggest that physics is inadequate to describe the functioning of the
mind?

I didn't make that claim. I said 3-dimensional science (or perhaps
Newtonian mechanistic science, or materialistic reductionism) did not
suffice to explain the existence of mind. I also said that quantum
theory has implications on the understanding of the phenomena I'm
discussing.

It is the only branch of physics which goes further in explaining the
mind than any other, now, primarily by the concepts I have explained
above. It demonstrates that a Newtonian or materialistic approach is
not sufficient, by the implications it makes about matter,
information, uncertainty and the observer as well as the importance of
consciousness in the determination of reality which has a direct
bearing on our understanding of mind and its interface with matter.

"Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it" --
Niels Bohr

Quantum theory makes evident a different kind of reality at the
microscopic level which operates based upon probabilities, rather than
predetermined mechanistic predictable reaction, or Newtonian physics.
The concept of a reality based upon seemingly random chance events at
the atomic level, only collapsible by observation from a mind into the
reality we think we see, translating on the macro level to a world of
concrete existence, which we are certain we do see, presents the same
interface problem that brain/mind presents. They are still trying to
unify the relevant fundamental forces of nature at that interface,
you'll note. The brain/mind coupling is essentially a coupling
between matter and information in a self-referent way that is also
seen in quantum theory. It has been described as a "Tangled
Hierarchy" or "Strange Loop" of seeming self-awareness that allows for
seeming instantaneous transmission of information faster than light,
such as the behaviour of photons in the two-slit experiment, or the
results of opening the catbox in Schroedinger's hypothetical
experiment. They hope it will someday also explain how the change in
a gravitational mass causes instantaneous changes in the behaviour of
any objects within that gravitational field, despite the apparent
light-speed limitation that should have ruled the time with which the
information about the change in mass was transmitted to the orbiting
objects. The quantum wave is, like the mind, a wave of knowledge or
information (again a non-3-dimensional concept), according to quantum
theorists, which gives information about the state of an atom, or a
photon, and now, possibly, a neuron without actually being an atom, a
photon or a neuron, and it does it defying the laws of Newtonian/
Einsteinian physics. It is a non-3-dimensional paradigm for the
description of emergent properties and makes possible the
understanding that all the materialistic deduction about neurons (or
atoms) will not be sufficient to explain the ultimate decision about
state when observation collapses the probability wavefront. The
idea now, after the introduction of M-theory, which reputedly will
unite the remaining fundamental forces in nature, is that there are at
least 6 or 7 more dimensions in our reality which are predicted though
unverifiable. It is these dimensions in which the possibility lies of
a "location" for these emergent properties, including the behaviours
of the quantum level of reality, which make it possible to understand
a universe in which transmission of information could, indeed, be
faster than light and not break any Einsteinian rules of light-speed
limitations. If these dimensions can permit information to bypass
spacetime, then information can exist there in a way we do not begin
to understand, and what is a mind other than information?

It should be understood that I am not suggesting that quantum theory
has been experimentally verified to be an operating factor in the
human mind, but rather, that the implications of quantum theory upon
the concept of observer and mind make these speculations valid enough
to be worth further investigation which is an idea accepted for
decades by theoretical physicists.

Certainly, between quantum theory and M-theory, unverified as it may
be, there lies a much more complete potential explanation for the mind
than any sad attempt at a 3-D nuts and bolts theory which currently
does not exist in completion anyway.

I hope, in questioning it, that you are indicating that you are
sufficiently familiar with quantum theory to discuss it with me. If
you do not understand enough about quantum theory to understand what I
just said, I'm sorry, but it would be a Herculean task to try
explaining it all to you over a newsgroup unless you want to pay
tutorial fees for a private course. I won't hold my breath.

--tension

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Honest question - so why do scientists suport ToE?
    ... basic conundrum in the life science studies still remains, ... and thoughts are also, in themselves, considered emergent properties ... of the mind. ... the heart stops and the brain no longer receives oxygen, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Honest question - so why do scientists suport ToE?
    ... Belief is not the same as knowledge, no matter how hard you close your ... basic conundrum in the life science studies still remains, ... That will describe the brain, but the concept of a mind, ... Otherwise minds would not be affected by brain damage, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Qualia Question
    ... By removing the gap between mind and brain - in all the words that are ... Just because I can't explain some aspect of the universe doesn't mean the ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Honest question - so why do scientists suport ToE?
    ... There is nothing about life or mind which presents any problem to ... That will describe the brain, but the concept of a mind, ... unless one wants to imply a collective emergent property such as the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Alan Wallace - Contemplative Science
    ... tions or properties of the brain. ... tion of holiness through the purification of the body and mind. ... jective, qualitative, mental processes by way of objective, quantitative, physi- ... contemplatives claim that with the achievement of a highly advanced degree ...
    (de.soc.weltanschauung.misc)