Challenge to debunkers: Can you prove hallucinations are generated inside brain :-)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Oh yes, I know. I just can't get a grip on specifically what he's talking about in that paragraph.

"Surely it would be difficult to believe that one’s self could simultaneously inhabit all the replicas of one’s physical body that are constructed at the destination site, ..."

What is this "one's self" that is having difficulty deciding which copy of the body to inhabit? He seems to be assuming some sort of dualistic notion of self.

"Thus, you cannot be the pattern of your neural activity, your emotions, your memories, your personality traits, or your present hopes and dreams."

How does this follow?

~~ Paul

Well I haven't read his book yet. Indeed I've only read your quotes of him. If, as he seems to be doing, he's presupposing an enduring self, then it necessarily follows that materialism is wrong. So from your quotes he's simply begging the question.

[jacob]

I remember I read an article on the memory issue on the first Antimatters journal release. The article is by Stephen Braude. Here's the abstract below. I believe it does relate to this subject you're discussing:

Ever since Plato proposed that memories are analogous to impressions in wax, many have suggested that memories are formed through the creation of traces, representations of the things remembered. That is still the received view among most cognitive scientists, who believe the remaining challenge is simply to determine the precise physical nature of memory traces. However, there are compelling reasons for thinking that this standard view of memory is profoundly wrongheaded — in fact, disguised nonsense. This paper considers, firstly, what those reasons are in detail. Secondly and more briefly, it considers how trace-like constructs have undermined various areas of parapsychological theorizing, especially in connection with the evidence for postmortem survival — for example, speculations about cellular memory in transplant cases and genetic memory in reincarnation cases. Similar problems also emerge in areas often related to parapsychology — for example, Sheldrake’s (1981) account of morphic resonance.

The full text can be get in PDF format from here.

What do you think of it (if you take the time to read it)?

[mszlazak]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Well I gave you a very detailed argument about why computer programs (which you seem to accept could embody full consciousness) should be thought of as theorems - not things localised in time - and as far as I know, you have never responded - so what do you expect!

David

You gave me some comments but I haven't yet understood those as a coherent argument. It's probably just me but try it again!

------------

[Tor]

Originally Posted by mszlazak

Again Tor, you're repeating what I've said about Stapp's book. The majority is about the measurement problem in QT, other speculation on QT and his speculations. He then uses some fallacious arguments from William James and ones from determinism and "free-will" which he thinks requires a conscious "Self", giving him process 0. There really is "no meat" here to the issues that need addressing.

He then needs to make his approach general and can't do that without Whitehead but this essentially means the "Self" he starts with goes away. You do point out that the mind-dust "micro-self's" isn't what he wants and I can see why, hence my remark about their knowings of QT basis issues.

I guess, this means that these knowings aren't needed because they were not around in the distant past or that QT is incomplete. Stapp should have just written less about some things and more on other things.

As to the parapsychology experiments of people like Dean Radin. I am assuming just for the sake of argument that they show the existence of psi even though I don't believe they do. My point is that the data from these experiments are third-person data and if you believe the qualia theory of subjective experiences then by definition they are not something science can ever test for. Parapsychology isn't all that relevent. There is more but this should be enough to get you started.

---------------------

I do agree that Stapp could have done a better job in formulating his views. But I do also recognize that it's a work in progress, a first step. Also, a lot of people think perspectives, that take the QM/consciousness link seriously, might be the right way to go. Both well known physicists and other scientists. Check out the reviews of Quantum Enigma for a overview of what some of these people are saying (also includes some skeptics). I do not think I know it all, but I don't think those that scoff at the QM/consciousness connection (or believe that mind/consciousness is an illusion) do either. Most of them are very narrow minded in my opinion.

As to the rest of the arguments, I feel this is more a difference of how we view the world. You can't prove anything and I can't prove anything. It's all a matter of interpretation, as always in science (although I do think I've got more evidence on my side, but you don't accept it so..).

To continue this would just be an exchange of opinions

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by mszlazak

You gave me some comments but I haven't yet understood those as a coherent argument. It's probably just me but try it again!
------------

Well you will have to refer back to my previous post, but there I effectively asked the question "What is a computer program?". I think I demonstrated that together with a given set of input/output (both of which might be empty if the program were simulating a brain engaged in thought), the whole lot acts as a (rather unusual) theorem. Yes, you may use a computer to plough through the steps, but that is (at least in principle) just for convenience. If you really believe a computer program (possibly executing) is conscious, then you are actually attributing consciousness to theorems! Running a program is really no more than a bureaucratic checking process - like you might check the steps in proving Pythagarus' theorem.

Why don't you forget for a bit about abandoning materialism (of which you are inordinately fond), and instead, simply explore with me some of the interesting consequences of deciding that computers have what it takes to be conscious - and to have experiences. After all, if you believe in materialism, you surely want to push it to the limit to see what turns up

David

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Are my memories stored in my brain or in the metamind? Sounds like the brain, but then there would have to be some sort of upload upon death.

No need for uploading theories yet, first you need to supply solid evidence all types of memory are within the brain. For example, where in the brain are long term memories stored? Can you provide evidence that memories are stored at the point of stimulation?

Since you raised the computer term 'upload', let us continue with your analogy. A computer system on the internet doesn't need to have all the websites it can access on its very own hard drive, the data can be remotely accessed. Yet some of it's data is local too. Other types of information can only be read in fragments and are not stored as a whole on computer (like streaming audio files under copyright protection). In fact if someone who didn't know how the whole internet system worked (just like we don't know how the brain works) they might apply pseudo-occam and state everything is generated by our hard drives and local computer system rather than an another invisible source.

Our physical brains are far in advanced of our internet structure, what makes you so sure nature didn't get there first? Why do you accept natural selection can create a complex brain beyond all current human knowledge, yet refuse to consider it could evolve a virtual reality?

I think the biggest problem is the lack of any evidence whatsoever of the transceiver and filter in my brain. You have to postulate that it happens invisibly at the quantum level or some such, which is just so hokey.

Of course the brain is filtering. Even as a materialist you would have to accept the brain is filtering from your consciousness irrelevant or useless memories. The fact we can forget or are at times forgetful shows the brain does filter memory. Or do you think people with psychological problems never suppress memories? If you accept multiple personality disorder exists then you have to accept the brain filters memory ....

Much of the materialist's argument is based upon 'false memory' ..... tell me what specific evolutionary advantage was the capacity to have 'false memories' that do not match physical reality? How could that evolve, what are these are an epiphenomenon of?

Our physical senses filter our sense of reality. We can only see, hear, etc. part of the spectrum, by being responsive to a narrow area these are effectively filtering. Much like a virtual reality goggles, headphones, etc. don not just offer new sensory experience, these also shut out our normal reality (like unwanted interference) but a fuller reality still exists when the goggles (eyes) ,headphones (ears) or computer interface (brain filter) breaks down and dies.......and just like an NDE suggests survival?

Weak telepathy most probably exists – the evidence has been there since 1890 when the first statistical experiments on telepathy were done, what has followed to me looks like the gradual shifting of goalposts by materialists. *If* we accept weak telepathy, the most probably explanation of the general weakness is that the brain evolved to filter it out as unwanted external interference, loss of sense of individuality, contradictory information to physical reality, etc. In fact if stronger telepathy is ever accepted to exist, due to natural selection, this points very clearly to an external mind, not a physical brain filtering the brain.

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian

I really don't know where to start with this. It's so completely confused and wrong headed from start to finish! So I won't bother starting with it -- I'll let Open Mind respond . Actually it'll be interesting to see if he says the same things as I would.

Ian, you are of course welcome to improve or contradict what I said. I would still enjoy reading it.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

No need for uploading theories yet, first you need to supply solid evidence all types of memory are within the brain. For example, where in the brain are long term memories stored? Can you provide evidence that memories are stored at the point of stimulation?

Why do I have to do that? Why don't you have to supply solid evidence that memories are stored elsewhere, including an explanation for why there is apparently no transceiver and why just about every sort of memory is affected by damage to the brain?

Here is my evidence: Every single memory we have found so far is located in the brain. That suggests they all are, until evidence appears to the contrary.

Since you raised the computer term 'upload', let us continue with your analogy. A computer system on the internet doesn't need to have all the websites it can access on its very own hard drive, the data can be remotely accessed. Yet some of it's data is local too. Other types of information can only be read in fragments and are not stored as a whole on computer (like streaming audio files under copyright protection). In fact if someone who didn't know how the whole internet system worked (just like we don't know how the brain works) they might apply pseudo-occam and state everything is generated by our hard drives and local computer system rather than an another invisible source.

How would they explain the purpose of the Internet connection? How would they explain the presence of an image that was nowhere on the hard drive?

Of course the brain is filtering. Even as a materialist you would have to accept the brain is filtering from your consciousness irrelevant or useless memories. The fact we can forget or are at times forgetful shows the brain does filter memory. Or do you think people with psychological problems never suppress memories? If you accept multiple personality disorder exists then you have to accept the brain filters memory ....

I was talking about a filter on the transceiver.

Much of the materialist's argument is based upon 'false memory' ..... tell me what specific evolutionary advantage was the capacity to have 'false memories' that do not match physical reality? How could that evolve, what are these are an epiphenomenon of?

There is no evolutionary advantage to "false memories." There simply is no significant disadvantage to having them. Things only have to evolve to work well enough for survival.

~~ Paul

[mszlazak]

Originally Posted by Tor

I do agree that Stapp could have done a better job in formulating his views. But I do also recognize that it's a work in progress, a first step. Also, a lot of people think perspectives, that take the QM/consciousness link seriously, might be the right way to go. Both well known physicists and other scientists. Check out the reviews of Quantum Enigma for a overview of what some of these people are saying (also includes some skeptics). I do not think I know it all, but I don't think those that scoff at the QM/consciousness connection (or believe that mind/consciousness is an illusion) do either. Most of them are very narrow minded in my opinion.

As to the rest of the arguments, I feel this is more a difference of how we view the world. You can't prove anything and I can't prove anything. It's all a matter of interpretation, as always in science (although I do think I've got more evidence on my side, but you don't accept it so..).

To continue this would just be an exchange of opinions

The book "Quantum Enigma" also does not claim that understanding quantum mechanics requires a conscious observer. In fact, the authors (Rosenblum and Kuttner) are explicit that understanding quantum mechanics, for all practical purposes, need not address the issue of consciousness. They rather note that physics has encountered consciousness. This is exactly how Fred Kuttner responded to one part of Michael Nauenberg's critique of his book.

Also, I think you're distorting the situation with your remarks about people scoffing at the QM/consciousness connection. No one I've read scoffs at it, they just point out what's presumed, why arguments are fallacious and why it's most likely a step-backwards.

But I guess you think it's all just opinions so you don't take yourself seriously and neither will I.

Happy trails.


-----------

[mszlazak]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Well you will have to refer back to my previous post, but there I effectively asked the question "What is a computer program?". I think I demonstrated that together with a given set of input/output (both of which might be empty if the program were simulating a brain engaged in thought), the whole lot acts as a (rather unusual) theorem. Yes, you may use a computer to plough through the steps, but that is (at least in principle) just for convenience. If you really believe a computer program (possibly executing) is conscious, then you are actually attributing consciousness to theorems! Running a program is really no more than a bureaucratic checking process - like you might check the steps in proving Pythagarus' theorem.

David

Are you saying that the computer isn't needed to run the programs like the bakery isn't needed to make the recipies? So cooking recipies and programs are just theorems?

----------------------