Galileo and Consciousness

[torridon]

You talk of oxygen deprivation, which is a near death situation. A person has a OBE (Yes...Out of body experience) and you claim it is because of neurological reasons!!  That is absurd.
..

Not absurd at all, all our senses have neurological derivation.  Have you never lost your sense of balance ?  An OBE happens when your sense of proprioception (your sense of body position) misfires momentarily. We don't need to invent fantastical explanations for every odd or unusual episode.  That is known as 'losing the plot'.

[Sriram]

Not absurd at all, all our senses have neurological derivation.  Have you never lost your sense of balance ?  An OBE happens when your sense of proprioception (your sense of body position) misfires momentarily. We don't need to invent fantastical explanations for every odd or unusual episode.  That is known as 'losing the plot'.

OBE's are actual consistent experiences had by many people across the world. To explain it away in mere neurological terms is the problem.

[Gordon]

OBE's are actual consistent experiences had by many people across the world. To explain it away in mere neurological terms is the problem.

Is there a contrary explanation that corresponds to what we know about mental experiences (such as a feeling of being outwith one's body)?

[ProfessorDavey]

In any case, if a person has an OBE the simplest explanation is to accept that he had an OBE!  To assume that the brain for some reason, creates such illusions, is neither simple nor likely to be true.

You spend half your time fretting about 'why' rather than 'how' when 'why' is often not a relevant question.

Now you seem to be confused about 'what' rather than how - the 'what' of OBE is a perception of being out of one's body - that tells us nothing about how. We are addressing the 'how' - how is it that we perceive that we are outside our body, simply saying it is an OBE tells us nothing about the how.

Yet of course we have a perfectly sensible and evidence based explanation (albeit we still don't know all the details) - a neurological phenomenon. We need nothing more.

[ProfessorDavey]

OBE's are actual consistent experiences had by many people across the world. To explain it away in mere neurological terms is the problem.

Non-sense - we have the same basic neurobiology across the world so why would the notion that people across the world have similar experiences be inconsistent with a neurological explanation.

[ProfessorDavey]

Oh....our friend Occam again!     According to Occam (being a friar), God is the simplest explanation with least assumptions.

Nope - Occam is about the fewest necessary assumptions - if you have a perfectly reasonable explanation without the need to add the complexity of god (as we do) then adding in god is not a necessary assumption and falls foul of Occam.

[Enki]

What kind of evidence is that? Obviously, when people are deprived of oxygen they could very well have a OBE...similar to a NDE.  The evidence matches.

How does that prove that it is just a brain related phenomenon and not a real OBE?

Firstly, it doesn't prove it at all, because the job of science isn't to prove but to produce evidence, to give the most likely explanations for the evidence and to continue to collate evidence with as near objectivity as possible in order to challenge, support or modify such explanations.

Secondly, even assuming that there is a distinction between types of OBEs, you don't get to decide what is a 'real OBE' and what isn't.

Thirdly, many people have reported OBEs in all sorts of circumstances, including: as children, under the influence of drugs/chemicals, in a sleeping/waking state, during electrical stimulation of the brain, during NDEs, whilst under extreme stress, when there is a lack of oxygen. It is also worth empasising that during an NDE one cannot tell whether the NDE occurs before, during or after the brain flatlines. Also, a fairly recent study(Karolinska study) has shown that convincing OBEs can be induced in participants by using head mounted displays and the use of touch.

Fourthly, what evidence have you been able to produce for your own view that, in some way, something actually leaves the body? As far as I can see you rely almost exclusively on anecdotal accounts which hardly count as evidence, however much you may be convinced by them. Sam Parnia, in both his Aware studies, at least tried to test whether an OBE was real by producing targets which only the person could see whilst undergoing  this experience. As Dr Parnia said himself:

anybody who claimed to have left their body and be near the ceiling during resuscitation attempts would be expected to identify those targets. If, however, such perceptions are psychological, then one would obviously not expect the targets to be identified

 Parnia S; Waller D. G; Yeates R; Fenwick P. (2001). "A Qualitative and Quantitative Study of the Incidence, Features and Aetiology of Near-Death Experiences in Cardiac Arrest Survivors". Resuscitation. 48 (2): 149–156.

And the results, as with all other similar attempts so far, were negative.

[Gordon]

Came across this article this morning which is a fascinating read, about a modern robot dog with (it sounds like) 'dog' behaviours and it does make references to consciousness.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/10/dogs-inner-life-what-robot-pet-taught-me-about-consciousness-artificial-intelligence

I don't think I'd like to have one of these around the house.

[Sriram]

Came across this article this morning which is a fascinating read, about a modern robot dog with (it sounds like) 'dog' behaviours and it does make references to consciousness.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/10/dogs-inner-life-what-robot-pet-taught-me-about-consciousness-artificial-intelligence

I don't think I'd like to have one of these around the house.

Some extracts from the article.....

***********

“Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all?” Chalmers wrote. “It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does.” Twenty-five years later, we are no closer to understanding why.

But as the computer scientist Seymour Papert once noted, all the analogy has demonstrated is that the problems that have long stumped philosophers and theologians “come up in equivalent form in the new context”. The metaphor has not solved our most pressing existential problems; it has merely transferred them to a new substrate.

***********

Some issues I have with the robot dog (besides not wanting to own one)...

1. The dog merely behaves like a dog. It does not have the same experiences (qualia) as a real dog. It lacks consciousness.

2. The robot dog needs someone to run it. A real dog doesn't need anyone.

3. The robot dog has been developed by intelligent beings....which confirms the fact that intelligent beings are required to create and develop such things. The robot did not get created through random variations and natural selection.

[Outrider]

For a person with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

For a person without a toolbelt, you do an awful lot of complaining that a hammer is the wrong tool for the job. Especially when everyone else can see a nail, and you're adamant based upon, I don't know, karmic resonance or something, that this is in fact not a nail but a really smooth-sided screw...

Some convoluted explanation or the other is offered for every phenomenon because that is the only explanation possible given current scientific methods.

No. Because that's the conclusion from an iterative process of inspections, examination, testing and revision. It's not the only possible explanation, but it's the one with the best supporting evidence.

That is then taken as the final word.

No, that's the current best explanation until and unless something comes along which calls it into question. And, to head off your next run, 'what about mystic woo power' doesn't really call it into question.

Consciousness being an emergent property of the brain....is not a good enough explanation.

Not good enough for what? You? Who made you the gatekeeper? If you have a better explanation, bring it, but 'I don't like your explanation', which is your current stance is somehow unacceptable when we throw it back at your explanation of angel go-kart drivers riding around in the back of our spiritual headspace.

NDE's being mere hallucinations generated by a dying brain....is not a good enough explanation.

In what way? Does it fail to follow from established processes? Is it contradicted by the available evidence? Does it fail to explain the full extent of the observed phenomena? Or does it just not have a high enough woo-content for you?

You will say...'Ok...so provide us with the right explanation which can be examined  by our scientific methods'. No...the current scientific methods are just not good enough for certain phenomena. A microscope is not suitable to examine everything.

So don't use a microscope. What's the proper tool? We've repeatedly asked you for this alternate methodology that you seem so confident will provide a 'better' explanation, and we're still waiting. If you don't have something, then all your complaints amount to is 'waaahhhh, I want magic....'. Go ask Gandalf.

That is why there is a call among more and more people to overcome this situation...and to develop better and more suitable methods.

Come back when the universe has given you one.

This obviously, cannot happen in a day. It has to evolve and develop over time.

And if and when it does we'll have, potentially, a better explanation. Currently, we don't have that, we just have your recalcitrance around an incredibly successful, reliable, productive methodology that has produced a perfectly servicable explanation for these phenomena that we continue to investigate to gain an even better understanding of.

O.

[Stranger]

Some issues I have with the robot dog (besides not wanting to own one)...

1. The dog merely behaves like a dog. It does not have the same experiences (qualia) as a real dog. It lacks consciousness.

2. The robot dog needs someone to run it. A real dog doesn't need anyone.

3. The robot dog has been developed by intelligent beings....which confirms the fact that intelligent beings are required to create and develop such things. The robot did not get created through random variations and natural selection.

This made me laugh. First two points tell us how different the robot is to a real conscious dog, somewhat undermines the third point that tries to infer that they both require intelligence to create them.

That's before we get to your usual science-denial. There is endless evidence that dogs (and humans) did indeed come about by random variation and natural selection.

[Outrider]

“Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all?” Chalmers wrote. “It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does.” Twenty-five years later, we are no closer to understanding why.

Oh wow, he has an argument from incredulity!!! Well why didn't you say so, this changes everything...

O.

[Sriram]

Oh wow, he has an argument from incredulity!!! Well why didn't you say so, this changes everything...

O.

With your string of fallacies you people tie yourselves into so many knots that you can't even think freely anymore...   Luckily, the younger generation isn't so constrained.

[Sriram]

You spend half your time fretting about 'why' rather than 'how' when 'why' is often not a relevant question.

Now you seem to be confused about 'what' rather than how - the 'what' of OBE is a perception of being out of one's body - that tells us nothing about how. We are addressing the 'how' - how is it that we perceive that we are outside our body, simply saying it is an OBE tells us nothing about the how.

Yet of course we have a perfectly sensible and evidence based explanation (albeit we still don't know all the details) - a neurological phenomenon. We need nothing more.

'How' is mundane. It is important only for some people.  For me, the 'how' holds no interest. I am more interested in the 'why'. 

You might think the 'why' is not relevant because it is beyond the scope of your scientific methods.....but for me it is important and represents the intent and purpose behind the world and our lives. 

[Outrider]

With your string of fallacies you people tie yourselves into so many knots that you can't even think freely anymore...   Luckily, the younger generation isn't so constrained.

OK, Zoomer... I wasn't aware there was an age-based exemption to flawed logic, but hey.

O.

[jeremyp]

To assume that the brain for some reason, creates such illusions, is neither simple nor likely to be true.

Have you ever had a dream?

[torridon]

'How' is mundane. It is important only for some people.  For me, the 'how' holds no interest. I am more interested in the 'why'. 

You might think the 'why' is not relevant because it is beyond the scope of your scientific methods.....but for me it is important and represents the intent and purpose behind the world and our lives.

If you paid attention to the 'how' you'd come to understand that the 'why' is spurious.  This is a typical religious attitude, being disinterested in the actual world around them and, instead, investing all their thinking in some baseless fantasy world beyond this one.  If we had more realists and fewer fantasists, we'd have fewer problems in the world, such as climate change.

[Sriram]

If you paid attention to the 'how' you'd come to understand that the 'why' is spurious.  This is a typical religious attitude, being disinterested in the actual world around them and, instead, investing all their thinking in some baseless fantasy world beyond this one.  If we had more realists and fewer fantasists, we'd have fewer problems in the world, such as climate change.

When you focus on the 'how' the mind automatically becomes microscopic. It becomes Zoom-In and loses the ability to Zoom-out and see the big picture. That is why many science enthusiasts are unable to relate to the 'why' question. Not because it is actually irrelevant, but because they are unable to relate to it and see its relevance.

Climate change is one thing science and technology need to be forever blamed for. Religious activities and spirituality did not lead to climate change. It is selfish greed and short sighted use of science that has resulted in climate change.

[torridon]

When you focus on the 'how' the mind automatically becomes microscopic. It becomes Zoom-In and loses the ability to Zoom-out and see the big picture. That is why many science enthusiasts are unable to relate to the 'why' question. Not because it is actually irrelevant, but because they are unable to relate to it and see its relevance.

If you understood how complex real world phenomena are, you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them as 'mere mechanism'.  The experience of vision for instance is hugely complex process, but you are happy to hand waive it all away as mere mechanism to preserve a baseless belief that seeing is some part of the fantasy world beyond the material world

[Sriram]

If you understood how complex real world phenomena are, you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them as 'mere mechanism'.  The experience of vision for instance is hugely complex process, but you are happy to hand waive it all away as mere mechanism to preserve a baseless belief that seeing is some part of the fantasy world beyond the material world

Mechanisms are very complex....but they nevertheless arise spontaneously in nature due to the influence of consciousness (not random variations).  So, understanding and focusing on consciousness is more meaningful than taking a microscopic view and focusing entirely on mechanisms.

[torridon]

Climate change is one thing science and technology need to be forever blamed for. Religious activities and spirituality did not lead to climate change. It is selfish greed and short sighted use of science that has resulted in climate change.

A significant percentage of the remaining hardcore climate deniers are coming from a religious angle.  Typically American evangelicals, they believe humans have been 'placed' in the world and the world was created for us to exploit and they cannot believe the climate is a stochastic geophysical system. And then there are those that believe this world is unimportant, it is the after life which is the real deal.  See Mr Burns for details.  If we all accepted more of reality and less of fantasy then we would be motivated to better look after this world.

[Gordon]

Mechanisms are very complex....but they nevertheless arise spontaneously in nature due to the influence of consciousness (not random variations).  So, understanding and focusing on consciousness is more meaningful than taking a microscopic view and focusing entirely on mechanisms.

In what was does, for instance, consciousness influence complex weather systems?

[Sriram]

In what was does, for instance, consciousness influence complex weather systems?

Consciousness could work at many  levels.  It could be like computer networks that link different machines and systems at different levels.

Individuals, communities, countries, religions could all be connected through consciousness in various ways. At one level it could be like the internet with global influence.

[Gordon]

Consciousness could work at many  levels.  It could be like computer networks that link different machines and systems at different levels.

Individuals, communities, countries, religions could all be connected through consciousness in various ways. At one level it could be like the internet with global influence.

You've used 'could' some 4 times in that post, so it reads to me like pure speculation.

No one doubts that consciousness plays a role in the affairs of people, such as the examples in your second para, but I'm struggling to see any basis for a presumption that consciousness is a factor outwith neurology, such as in relation to weather systems.

[Outrider]

Mechanisms are very complex....but they nevertheless arise spontaneously in nature due to the influence of consciousness (not random variations).

I'd like to say 'citation needed' here, but that needs to be a fucking HUGE citation, so...

CITATION NEEDED

O.