Ardha wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 4:45 am
No, we can turn electrical signals in brains on and off, mess with neurotransmitters, map function of different areas, etc., then see reaction in organisms which we can record. That is not the same thing, it’s pure speculation that this causes a total cessation of the subjective experience of consciousness, or that consciousness is reducible to physical function only, and is non-falsifiable at any rate. Materialists tend to believe they simply don’t need to account for the fact that consciousness and qualia are non-falsifiable, but they are just avoiding the issue.
Can and have. It sounds more like you're scared that it might be the case. Again, so far the evidence points to consciousness being emergent of the brain. Unless you're gonna appeal to consciousness as some uncaused and independent force like a "soul" or something (which would violate dependent arising) I'm not sure you're in any position to really dog on materialism that much. Seems to have a better track record than anything else so far. Your reaction isn't that different from Christians or other spiritual types any time science seems to threaten this aspect of being human. For some reason consciousness seems to be the last bastion of mysticism.
They’ve hosted and collaborated with all kinds of respected names in neuroscience, etc. So, here you just really don’t know what you are talking about.
Pretty sure I do since organizations like that tend to be highly prone to bias. Mixing religion and science tends to do that.
DID is real, two people in one body, not so much.
Then you don't know much about psychology. It is, effectively, two people in one body. Same with split brain patients.
I've aware of the hard problem, but your link is 7 years old, that's more or less a fossil. Not to mention it doesn't really support it's own claims with that alternative framework. Though looking through it, it still supports the physicalist or materialist view of consciousness, though some parts in it raise red flags since it pretty much admits the alternate framework doesn't want to conclude it's physical, which is iffy. Again this just sounds like fear to me. Every time science seems to hint at material source of consciousness it seems to send spiritual types in a panic. I guess it's why AI is so threatening. Personally I find it exciting as it challenges our notions of our specialness.
I don’t think you understand Buddhism well enough to even know what would “nullify” it.
I know enough to know their conclusion would invalidate you. Not only would it call into question other sentient beings existing (since no objective reality if true) but also it would mean the idea of an independently existing "mind" or some odd that is the source of all this. It really would lead to solipsism.
“Someone told me”, sounds convincing.
I've talked to folks in the field and they pretty much say everyone is running rampant with interpretations when all they really are is the best guess of what the math means. But because they're weird people run off and try to use them for their own ends, like you and that article you cite. They also said any mention of QM without math isn't worth reading. The whole practice is heavy high level math that I KNOW you don't know and I don't either. But that won't stop people from dragging consciousness and other stuff to this.
The Wigner's friend I explained is not only highly contentious and debated, so far from settled (like a lot in QM) but it only applies to the quantum level. People forget that last part. But you can't really support the consciousness impacts quantum states without throwing out Buddhism with it.
I would recommend trying to find people who do this for their work and talking to them, but you'll likely get as far as I did as they said they would essentially have to teach me QM to explain it. This is why good science communication is important, otherwise people run off with things they don't understand. Just like the Alpha Wolf study.