Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Science and Technology => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on January 06, 2017, 08:54:53 AM
-
Article doesn't quite make case for headline shock!
https://qz.com/866352/scientists-say-your-mind-isnt-confined-to-your-brain-or-even-your-body/
-
Article doesn't quite make case for headline shock!
https://qz.com/866352/scientists-say-your-mind-isnt-confined-to-your-brain-or-even-your-body/
It might be a scientist that's saying it, but having read it he's not putting forward a scientific finding or theory, more a philosophical point of view.
O.
-
It might be a scientist that's saying it, but having read it he's not putting forward a scientific finding or theory, more a philosophical point of view.
O.
Yes, that's the point about it not live ng up to the headline. There's a bit of handwaving about maths, but the detail is mainly waffle.
-
However people might think of the brain/mind, it is all contained in the material inside the skull! It might vary in shape and weight according to health and age, but as I understand it, it can't be expanded beyond the skull, can it?! We can add more information which forms more synapses and links, but most of the 'expanding the mind' or going to 'higher levels' is, I think, pseudo-science.
-
However people might think of the brain/mind, it is all contained in the material inside the skull! It might vary in shape and weight according to health and age, but as I understand it, it can't be expanded beyond the skull, can it?! We can add more information which forms more synapses and links, but most of the 'expanding the mind' or going to 'higher levels' is, I think, pseudo-science.
I was using the title as a pun but I think that current thinking is that the exact idea of mind as in what controls behaviour in some form of decision making process may be wider than brain
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18779997
That said, I think the article in the OP doesn't make the case for it extending beyond the body.
-
Article doesn't quite make case for headline shock!
https://qz.com/866352/scientists-say-your-mind-isnt-confined-to-your-brain-or-even-your-body/
Given the obsession of scientists with material measurement and mathematical proof, it is unlikely that any clinching proof will be forthcoming soon. But I am glad that at least some scientists are making an effort to break the rather mundane and shallow idea of the Mind that is currently prevalent in scientific circles.
Meanwhile, it is obvious to most people in the world that the mind is much more than the brain and that the brain is only used as a platform, the way a computer hardware or a TV receiver is used.
-
Given the obsession of scientists with material measurement and mathematical proof, it is unlikely that any clinching proof will be forthcoming soon. But I am glad that at least some scientists are making an effort to break the rather mundane and shallow idea of the Mind that is currently prevalent in scientific circles.
Meanwhile, it is obvious to most people in the world that the mind is much more than the brain and that the brain is only used as a platform, the way a computer hardware or a TV receiver is used.
Argumentum ad populum fallacy
-
Argumentum ad populum fallacy
You science guys have conjured up so many 'fallacies' as part of your defense strategy that you could smugly throw one of them at anyone who opens his mouth to argue a point and immediately make him shut up! No questions asked. :D
Have fun!
-
You science guys have conjured up so many 'fallacies' as part of your defense strategy that you could smugly throw one of them at anyone who opens his mouth to argue a point and immediately make him shut up! No questions asked. :D
Logicians and philosophers rather than "science guys", with whom you're clearly obsessed.
A fallacy is an example of invalid logic - poor reasoning - bad thinking. No wonder you're complaining. Nevertheless, it's a mark of maturity to acknowledge when you're in the wrong, suck it up and get on with reasoning more clearly next time.
-
You science guys have conjured up so many 'fallacies' as part of your defense strategy that you could smugly throw one of them at anyone who opens his mouth to argue a point and immediately make him shut up! No questions asked. :D
Have fun!
Fallacies are not something derived from science. I note you indulge in your usual personal attacks when unable to deal with points. You need to stop personalising discussing.
Anyway the fallacy applies here because what most people might think isn't a way to get to what is correct.
-
Fallacies are not something derived from science. I note you indulge in your usual personal attacks when unable to deal with points. You need to stop personalising discussing.
Anyway the fallacy applies here because what most people might think isn't a way to get to what is correct.
I said it is obvious to most people. Which is true! Whether any scientist concurs with it or not is of no consequence at all.
And I suppose according to the 'fallacy' you named, till some scientist guy takes the final decision and waves a green flag...the observation cannot be considered as correct! Nice!
-
Given the obsession of scientists with material measurement and mathematical proof, it is unlikely that any clinching proof will be forthcoming soon. But I am glad that at least some scientists are making an effort to break the rather mundane and shallow idea of the Mind that is currently prevalent in scientific circles.
Why is mundane a problem? Whilst elaborate, earth-shattering discoveries are lovely, the progress of humanity has primarily been in incremental steps. Why is following the evidence 'shallow'? Depth is only celebratory when it's justified - an unsupported deep claim is just as invalid as an unjustified shallow one.
Meanwhile, it is obvious to most people in the world that the mind is much more than the brain and that the brain is only used as a platform, the way a computer hardware or a TV receiver is used.
Things that are obvious to many people often turn out to be not true. It might be obvious to many people that the mind is more than the brain (in the sense you mean), but if their opinion is based on a licked-finger held in the air during the break in Jeremy Kyle, I'm not too inclined to consider that opinion any more or less than anyone else's.
The mind is not 'the brain', but rather part of the pattern of activity within a brain: to use your computer analogy, it's not the computer hardware, but rather the programme that's being run on the hardware.
O.
-
I said it is obvious to most people. Which is true! Whether any scientist concurs with it or not is of no consequence at all.
And I suppose according to the 'fallacy' you named, till some scientist guy takes the final decision and waves a green flag...the observation cannot be considered as correct! Nice!
And that it might be obvious to most people has no impact on it's truth. Hence when mist people though the whole universe revolved around a static earth, it didn't make it true.
Further even if a scientist 'guy' comes along with a green flag, or a whole set of flags, it won't mean that it is true either since science us provisional and not a claim to truth.
-
Given the obsession of scientists with material measurement and mathematical proof, it is unlikely that any clinching proof will be forthcoming soon.
Damn them and their generally successful dependency on evidence and justifying their assumptions!!!
O.
-
Damn them and their generally successful dependency on evidence and justifying their assumptions!!!
O.
No....its not about reasoning, asking questions, looking for evidence etc. that I have any objection to. Many debates are encouraged even in spiritual matters. The Upanishads are full of them.
It is the rigidity, the closed perception of reality and the effort to somehow push all life experiences into the small world that science has managed to discover....that is the problem. We understand electricity and magnetism.....so everything should be explained only through electricity and magnetism....period!! This kind of narrow perception is what limits our understanding of life.
Just as religious people had their own set of rules and 'logic' to decide what is true and what is not...so now scientists have their own set of rules and 'logic' to decide what is true and what is not. Just as the former were not correct....so also the latter need not be correct either. They could be just as restrictive and narrow as the former.
-
It is the rigidity, the closed perception of reality and the effort to somehow push all life experiences into the small world that science has managed to discover....that is the problem.
And yet it is science which has revealed just how immense and complex the world actually is.
Tell me: do you have to work at being this wrong or does it come naturally?
We understand electricity and magnetism.....so everything should be explained only through electricity and magnetism....period!! This kind of narrow perception is what limits our understanding of life.
Magnetism isn't that well understood at all
Just as religious people had their own set of rules and 'logic' to decide what is true and what is not...so now scientists have their own set of rules and 'logic' to decide what is true and what is not. Just as the former were not correct....so also the latter need not be correct either. They could be just as restrictive and narrow as the former.
Unfortunately for the religous people you refer to, because they have no methodology for evaluating any claim about the world they have no means of distinguishing truth from falsity, no way of sorting the former from the latter.
-
No....its not about reasoning, asking questions, looking for evidence etc. that I have any objection to. Many debates are encouraged even in spiritual matters. The Upanishads are full of them.
It is the rigidity, the closed perception of reality and the effort to somehow push all life experiences into the small world that science has managed to discover....that is the problem. We understand electricity and magnetism.....so everything should be explained only through electricity and magnetism....period!! This kind of narrow perception is what limits our understanding of life.
I think you're failing to see where the evidence bit kicks in. It's not that scientists reduce things to just electricity and magnetism (there's gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces as well, at least for now). The problem you appear to have with science isn't that it tries to reduce what you want to talk about, it's that it finds no evidence for what you want to talk about. All the 'spiritual' and 'soul' and 'chakra' and 'higher levels of consciousness' don't have any evidence that they exist to be studied. If that were there, and it devolved to something that wasn't one of the (current) four fundamental forces, the scientific community would have a collective orgasm over it.
Just as religious people had their own set of rules and 'logic' to decide what is true and what is not...
Well, no, they didn't, they had (and have) an increasingly complex suite of navel-gazings to justify continued claims for which there is no ultimate foundation.
so now scientists have their own set of rules and 'logic' to decide what is true and what is not.
No, scientists have rules for how to define and explain what can be detected - if it can't be detected, science justifiably asks 'what makes you think this exists'?
Just as the former were not correct....so also the latter need not be correct either. They could be just as restrictive and narrow as the former.
They could be, but science follows the evidence. If you have no evidence for science to investigate, how do you tell you have anything at all?
O.
-
I think you're failing to see where the evidence bit kicks in. It's not that scientists reduce things to just electricity and magnetism (there's gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces as well, at least for now). The problem you appear to have with science isn't that it tries to reduce what you want to talk about, it's that it finds no evidence for what you want to talk about. All the 'spiritual' and 'soul' and 'chakra' and 'higher levels of consciousness' don't have any evidence that they exist to be studied. If that were there, and it devolved to something that wasn't one of the (current) four fundamental forces, the scientific community would have a collective orgasm over it.
O.
I said 'electricity and magnetism' only as examples.
You say...' don't have any evidence that they exist to be studied'. How do you know?
By using the same standard methods even where they are not applicable?!
This is why I keep using the microscope analogy. You cannot keep using the same old tools to examine widely different phenomena and keep concluding that 'they don't exist'!! That is blatantly wrong!
-
I said 'electricity and magnetism' only as examples.
Fair enough.
You say...' don't have any evidence that they exist to be studied'. How do you know?
Because if there's no effect, what evidence could there possibly be?
By using the same standard methods even where they are not applicable?!
This is why I keep using the microscope analogy. You cannot keep using the same old tools to examine widely different phenomena and keep concluding that 'they don't exist'!! That is blatantly wrong!
Which is fine, in and of itself, but you aren't offering a reliable methodology as an alternative. You're offering 'but I feel that...' as a credible and equally valid alternative to rigorous, peer-reviewed, evidence-based findings, and that's not going to wash. Science doesn't discount the possibility of other systems, per se, but you actually have to demonstrate the validity of your system.
You keep suggesting that there are situations where science isn't applicable, but what are those situations? Ethics? Justice? I'm not aware the science cuts in on those.
The existence of souls, reincarnation, chakras, energy lines... those are claims about the physical world, science is perfectly at liberty to investigate those claims and point out, in the absence of evidence, that there's no evidence for them. If you have another methodology lay it out for the world.
O.
-
I said it is obvious to most people. Which is true! Whether any scientist concurs with it or not is of no consequence at all.
That really is a very arrogant remark. Where are your facts and statistics to back up this dream world? The answer to that of course is nowhere.
And]
-
I said 'electricity and magnetism' only as examples.
You say...' don't have any evidence that they exist to be studied'. How do you know?
By using the same standard methods even where they are not applicable?!
This is why I keep using the microscope analogy. You cannot keep using the same old tools to examine widely different phenomena and keep concluding that 'they don't exist'!! That is blatantly wrong!
OH! FFS is all can contribute here
-
Fair enough.
Because if there's no effect, what evidence could there possibly be?
Which is fine, in and of itself, but you aren't offering a reliable methodology as an alternative. You're offering 'but I feel that...' as a credible and equally valid alternative to rigorous, peer-reviewed, evidence-based findings, and that's not going to wash. Science doesn't discount the possibility of other systems, per se, but you actually have to demonstrate the validity of your system.
You keep suggesting that there are situations where science isn't applicable, but what are those situations? Ethics? Justice? I'm not aware the science cuts in on those.
The existence of souls, reincarnation, chakras, energy lines... those are claims about the physical world, science is perfectly at liberty to investigate those claims and point out, in the absence of evidence, that there's no evidence for them. If you have another methodology lay it out for the world.
O.
No....I don't have any methodology on a platter. I have discussed this many times.
Methodologies evolve and develop over decades and centuries. The current methodologies did not come about in a day because of one person. Similarly the methodologies to investigate such things as spirit, after-life etc will also not happen in a day.
But if methodologies have to develop, they have to be focused on for a start. Assuming that such phenomena don't exist and therefore such new methodologies are not necessary....is not the way forward.
-
No....I don't have any methodology on a platter. I have discussed this many times.
Then, in the absence of any methodology, any means by which claims which have no evidence of events which leave no trace and are indistinguishable from events that didn't happen, how are we to determine whether there's anything there?
Methodologies evolve and develop over decades and centuries. The current methodologies did not come about in a day because of one person. Similarly the methodologies to investigate such things as spirit, after-life etc will also not happen in a day.
But if methodologies have to develop, they have to be focused on for a start. Assuming that such phenomena don't exist and therefore such new methodologies are not necessary....is not the way forward.
Methodologies might start off imperfectly, certainly, but they have something to start from. The current range of sciences started off as 'natural philosophy' or somesuch, and evolved over time, but they were a gradually refined set of 'rules' for looking at things, trying eliminate preconceptions and biases and the like, and ending up with a system. An imperfect system, but a useful system nonetheless.
Even the basis for a methodology would be a start, otherwise all you have is unsubstantiated claims, and you don't need science to dismiss those, they can be dismissed on the same basis as they were claimed - absolutely nothing at all.
O.
[/quote]
-
The problem you appear to have with science isn't that it tries to reduce what you want to talk about, it's that it finds no evidence for what you want to talk about.
And that, mon brave, is it in a nutshell.
-
And that, mon brave, is it in a nutshell.
Even if there is some value in the concepts he wants to talk about, ideas - "beyond the scope, methods and tools of science", why the heck does he want scientists to drop their work, understanding and improving our material existence, and start investigating these phantasms instead?
Isn't that a job for shamans and poets?
-
Even if there is some value in the concepts he wants to talk about, ideas - "beyond the scope, methods and tools of science", why the heck does he want scientists to drop their work, understanding and improving our material existence, and start investigating these phantasms instead?
Isn't that a job for shamans and poets?
You want evidence that such other phenomena exist. You however don't want scientists to drop their 'useful' work and investigate such things because you believe they are phantasma (sic). You then again keep demanding evidence that they are not phantasma (sic).
As circular an argument as it gets! ::)
-
Then, in the absence of any methodology, any means by which claims which have no evidence of events which leave no trace and are indistinguishable from events that didn't happen, how are we to determine whether there's anything there?
Methodologies might start off imperfectly, certainly, but they have something to start from. The current range of sciences started off as 'natural philosophy' or somesuch, and evolved over time, but they were a gradually refined set of 'rules' for looking at things, trying eliminate preconceptions and biases and the like, and ending up with a system. An imperfect system, but a useful system nonetheless.
Even the basis for a methodology would be a start, otherwise all you have is unsubstantiated claims, and you don't need science to dismiss those, they can be dismissed on the same basis as they were claimed - absolutely nothing at all.
O.
So...your assumption is your conclusion.....?!
-
You want evidence that such other phenomena exist. You however don't want scientists to drop their 'useful' work and investigate such things because you believe they are phantasma (sic). You then again keep demanding evidence that they are not phantasma (sic).
As circular an argument as it gets! ::)
No, I don't want such evidence as there can be none. If there were any known material effects we would be investigating them. Many claims have been investigated and come to nothing. Why would you expect immaterial "energies" (as you don't like "phantasms") to have material effects that can be investigated using scientific methods?
There is value in many of these ideas and they can be investigated, but not objectively.
-
No, I don't want such evidence as there can be none. If there were any known material effects we would be investigating them. Many claims have been investigated and come to nothing. Why would you expect immaterial "energies" (as you don't like "phantasms") to have material effects that can be investigated using scientific methods?
There is value in many of these ideas and they can be investigated, but not objectively.
You are agreeing with me then... that.....reality could be composed of many aspects, of which only the material can be investigated by science and the non material cannot be objectively investigated! That is fine then!
But you feel that the non material can still be investigated...how?
-
Poetry, art, music, mythology. Religious practice - meditation, introspection. Physical activity - running, swimming, climbing. Talking, dreaming, sharing, loving, working ... by living your life? Suffering and dying.
Just don't assume that your experiences are necessarily worth anything to anyone else.
-
You are agreeing with me then... that.....reality could be composed of many aspects, of which only the material can be investigated by science and the non material cannot be objectively investigated! That is fine then!
But you feel that the non material can still be investigated...how?
There is matter and there is energy and there is transmutability between the two. Energy is the non material stuff, and we know a fair bit about it. Is there reason to believe there is in addition some other non-material stuff that is not energetic ?
-
So...your assumption is your conclusion.....?!
My conclusion is that if you don't even have the basis of a methodology to offer, you've given me no reason to accept your claim. Science has a methodology, it has a justification for the claims it makes. Those claims can prove to be wrong, when further data emerges, that's fine, but with the best information available you have a basis for your claim.
Without a methodology you just have an assertion, and assertions can be dismissed with an equally (in)valid counter-assertion: Oh no it isn't!
O.
-
My conclusion is that if you don't even have the basis of a methodology to offer, you've given me no reason to accept your claim. Science has a methodology, it has a justification for the claims it makes. Those claims can prove to be wrong, when further data emerges, that's fine, but with the best information available you have a basis for your claim.
Without a methodology you just have an assertion, and assertions can be dismissed with an equally (in)valid counter-assertion: Oh no it isn't!
O.
The methodologies that you are binding yourself with are precisely the limitations I am referring to. If you always need a methodology to observe and understand the world....it automatically imposes a severe limitation on you.
You are living.... and living itself is an experience and a source of information. The 'objective reality' stuff that we have gotten obsessed with has only limited applicability. Life and death are still subjective. So are Mind and Consciousness....as also the Self. Most life experiences are subjective.
What we refer to as 'objective reality' is just the framework within which we exist. By understanding that we don't understand ourselves. We still remain external observers to all reality. So...what is it that observes? What is the subject?
It is only through introspection and an understanding of our mind that we begin to understand ourselves. And it is incorrect to just brush of the subjective reality as imaginary or delusional.....something the brain does.
The subjective aspects of reality often meet the objective world. These effects can be observed and even perhaps documented. But to accept them as genuine effects of a real phenomenon, we need to develop appropriate methodologies and systems that can do the job.
But for this to happen, we need to take subjective experiences seriously and as part of the reality of this world. This is what is missing.
For example, if we all are born blind and only one person can see Light, would it be an objective reality or merely a subjective experience of one person?!
-
Measuring subjective experience is notoriously problematic though. So unreliable that science has mostly eliminated it altogether to date concentrating on objective approaches. If we can use an insentient instrument to take a measurement we can be pretty sure it isn't going to lie or have an off day or be subject to mood swings or be mistaken or have subconscious agendas or desires of its own. Humans by contrast are chock full of such issues and this introduces noise into the data which is hard to eliminate. And all that presupposes that what you are measuring is amenable to calibration anyway; it is not easy to measure feelings.
-
Measuring subjective experience is notoriously problematic though. So unreliable that science has mostly eliminated it altogether to date concentrating on objective approaches. If we can use an insentient instrument to take a measurement we can be pretty sure it isn't going to lie or have an off day or be subject to mood swings or be mistaken or have subconscious agendas or desires of its own. Humans by contrast are chock full of such issues and this introduces noise into the data which is hard to eliminate. And all that presupposes that what you are measuring is amenable to calibration anyway; it is not easy to measure feelings.
You are obsessed with measurement.....which is a fallout of your science background. This itself could the problem. New generations may have to think beyond measurements.
How will blind people 'measure' light? How can that one person who sees light convince all the blind people that Light exists?
-
You are obsessed with measurement.....which is a fallout of your science background. This itself could the problem. New generations may have to think beyond measurements.
Well, I just hope that if that happens, the people doing said thinking are not designing or constructing planes.How will blind people 'measure' light? How can that one person who sees light convince all the blind people that Light exists?
The human species has been around for a million years or so, and in that time they have learnt that measurements made of the world around them, when found to be consistent and objective over a long period of time can be relied upon by others, whether blind or not, and do not need re-measuring every time. If this had not been the case, we would have become extinct.
-
The methodologies that you are binding yourself with are precisely the limitations I am referring to. If you always need a methodology to observe and understand the world....it automatically imposes a severe limitation on you.
Without a methodology, though, you're just throwing out innumerable equally invalid claims.
You are living.... and living itself is an experience and a source of information. The 'objective reality' stuff that we have gotten obsessed with has only limited applicability. Life and death are still subjective. So are Mind and Consciousness....as also the Self. Most life experiences are subjective.
Right, but what are they subjective experiences of? Whilst some subjective experiences are all well and good (and some aren't), it's difficult to determine how to improve them in a reliable fashion if you just settle for subjectivity.
What we refer to as 'objective reality' is just the framework within which we exist. By understanding that we don't understand ourselves. We still remain external observers to all reality.
How do you know, unless you examine it. Without a methodology to determine if your subjective claim (or, at least, my subjective experience of reading what I think is your subjective claim) how do we actually know if we're external observers to reality, or simply complex parts of a more complex universe struggling to organise itself against ongoing entropy?
So...what is it that observes? What is the subject?
Why ask the question if you're happy with your subjective determination that we're external?
It is only through introspection and an understanding of our mind that we begin to understand ourselves.
Perhaps - certainly I'm inclined to agree with you - all we're differing on is how we understand that mind. You're looking for introspection, I'm looking to neurology, information theory and biochemistry.
And it is incorrect to just brush of the subjective reality as imaginary or delusional.....something the brain does.
Does it? My subjective experience is that my subjective experience is, at best, questionable - that's probably just something my brain does from it's subjective understanding, right?
The subjective aspects of reality often meet the objective world. These effects can be observed and even perhaps documented. But to accept them as genuine effects of a real phenomenon, we need to develop appropriate methodologies and systems that can do the job.
But for this to happen, we need to take subjective experiences seriously and as part of the reality of this world. This is what is missing.
I'm not sure where it is that you think we're ignoring our experiences; what we're not doing is accepting all of them uncritically, that's a different thing.
For example, if we all are born blind and only one person can see Light, would it be an objective reality or merely a subjective experience of one person?!
It would be an objective reality that would be demonstrable with scientific equipment - much as, say, radio waves and gamma rays are. We're all blind to them, but we can practically demonstrate them, derive predictions from our understanding, and then validate those predictions. We might still have an imperfect understanding, but we've demonstrated that we've an imperfect understanding of something that's actually there, because it has effects.
O.
-
You are obsessed with measurement.....which is a fallout of your science background. This itself could the problem. New generations may have to think beyond measurements.
How will blind people 'measure' light? How can that one person who sees light convince all the blind people that Light exists?
Measurements are good; being precise enables us describe and model mathematically. This is at the heart of the problem of using subjective experience, it isn't easily amenable to rigorous quantification. If asked how hungry I am , I can only answer vaguely, a bit, not much, ravenous etc . How bright is that light - very, dim, etc not really very precise.
Subjective experience varying so much from person to person is another issue; there is no way to ascertain if my experience of redness is the same as your experience of redness. Everyone's experience is unique to them as everyone's brain is entirely unique. We try to bypass the unreliable reporter problem wherever possible by for instance using galvanic skin response or magnetic resonance technology that way we can at least get some measurements regarding subjective responses although that still falls short of bona fide subjective reporting.