Reductionism And Materialism Are Not Scientific Givens

[florduh]

But does Reason then deny Spirit because it was associated with the mythic systems?

Whether described or alluded to in old mythic terms or the newer scientific jargon, how do we know there IS a Spirit to deny? That is the basic question never addressed. It's as if everyone must surely just KNOW there is Spirit and the only question is how to talk about it.

 

For all the "spiritual" people who feel they're a beleaguered minority, I surely feel alone here!

[florduh]

But neither can it be proven that consciousness is a product of brain activity.

 

Ideas like this are what I take issue with. It's like saying steam isn't necessarily the product of heated water, but may exist independently of heat and water. Through manipulation of brain tissue, through drugs, electrical stimulation or surgery, consciousness is turn on, turned off, and altered. EEGs clearly show the relationship between brain manipulation and consciousness. If the brain doesn't produce consciousness, why do we need it? Why do we have no consciousness without it?

[NotBlinded]

OMG OM, you are at 1,666 posts. Can I have your car?

 

 

 

 

 

Just kidding!!!

 

 

 

 

[Neon Genesis]

The wife was in a separate room, she had no idea when her husband was sending an intention, and yet within two seconds of his beginning to stare at her she became “aroused”. How can that be explained by the placebo effect?

Women's intuition? I don't know the reason why it works, but even the article itself says that this study doesn't explain how it works either

"Physicists are very clear that the relationship is purely correlational and not causal," Sloan says. "There is nothing causal about quantum entanglement. It's good to be open-minded, but not so open-minded that your brains fall out."

 

Radin and others agree that that's what science says right now. But they say these findings eventually have to be explained somehow.

 

 

What is so wrong with scientifically testing the experience???? How does it hurt anyone? Quite frankly when it can be shown that our loving, compassionate intentions for another helps them, then that is a good thing. It confirms what we humans have known all along – that there is power in love….

I don't think anyone is saying scientists can't research this or that it's impossible for a soul to exist, but we're simply saying that going by Occam's Razor, we should go with the theory that's simplest instead of jumping to conclusions until more evidence presents itself. For example, people used to think NDEs were evidence of the soul and God, but it was later proved that NDEs are entirely natural and nobody thinks they're proof of the soul anymore. Maybe a soul could be exist but this case could also turn out to be like NDEs and are just more research that helps us better understand how the mind works even if it doesn't prove the soul is real. Right now even the article agrees these studies are too murky to jump to any conclusions about either way. And even if we presume that prayer and the soul are real, why is it that praying over an amputee doesn't cause the arm to grow back? Why is it that we can't get a million believers together to pray for cancer to be eliminated everywhere on Earth and it'll be healed right then and there if there's power in love? If the soul exists and consciousness can exist separately from the brain, how do we explain why people have Alzheimer? What about people who's entire personality changes in a completely opposite direction after their brain is damaged? Why do some people lose their memory when their brain is damaged if the consciousness exists separately from the brain? Even if the soul doesn't exist, these studies help us better understand how the mind works and I think they're valuable for that alone.

[NotBlinded]

But does Reason then deny Spirit because it was associated with the mythic systems?

Whether described or alluded to in old mythic terms or the newer scientific jargon, how do we know there IS a Spirit to deny? That is the basic question never addressed. It's as if everyone must surely just KNOW there is Spirit and the only question is how to talk about it.

 

For all the "spiritual" people who feel they're a beleaguered minority, I surely feel alone here!

It is based on this "knowing". It is not something material that can be measured other than the effects, which is really what science does, but that is not my point. I agree it's how to talk about it. But, it is no less real than the white background (substance/instanding) that these words appear on (outstanding). IMO, I think we need to include what material exists in and in relation to what when we study the "things".

 

Don't feel alone florduh. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and we are all just stating ours.

[florduh]

It is based on this "knowing".

So it's a matter of faith. I guess I can't argue with that.

[NotBlinded]

But neither can it be proven that consciousness is a product of brain activity.

 

Ideas like this are what I take issue with. It's like saying steam isn't necessarily the product of heated water, but may exist independently of heat and water. Through manipulation of brain tissue, through drugs, electrical stimulation or surgery, consciousness is turn on, turned off, and altered. EEGs clearly show the relationship between brain manipulation and consciousness. If the brain doesn't produce consciousness, why do we need it? Why do we have no consciousness without it?

There are areas of consciousness that can be explained by this and others that can't. Chalmers calls it the easy and hard questions. You can't have one without the other. That is a dualistic way of viewing it not much different than the monotheistic belief that there is a conscious entity out there somewhere. That, I don't think, isn't what is being discussed here.

 

What you are turning off here is the easy questions such as AI would produce or "zombies". It's the experience of things that can't be explained by reductionist/materialist view alone.

 

When these people wake up, why are they not just like AI or unfeeling zombies, or better yet, Data on Star Trek? What does the brain "tune into"?

[NotBlinded]

I don't think anyone is saying scientists can't research this or that it's impossible for a soul to exist, but we're simply saying that going by Occam's Razor, we should go with the theory that's simplest instead of jumping to conclusions until more evidence presents itself. For example, people used to think NDEs were evidence of the soul and God, but it was later proved that NDEs are entirely natural and nobody thinks they're proof of the soul anymore. Maybe a soul could be exist but this case could also turn out to be like NDEs and are just more research that helps us better understand how the mind works even if it doesn't prove the soul is real. Right now even the article agrees these studies are too murky to jump to any conclusions about either way. And even if we presume that prayer and the soul are real, why is it that praying over an amputee doesn't cause the arm to grow back? Why is it that we can't get a million believers together to pray for cancer to be eliminated everywhere on Earth and it'll be healed right then and there if there's power in love? If the soul exists and consciousness can exist separately from the brain, how do we explain why people have Alzheimer? What about people who's entire personality changes in a completely opposite direction after their brain is damaged? Why do some people lose their memory when their brain is damaged if the consciousness exists separately from the brain? Even if the soul doesn't exist, these studies help us better understand how the mind works and I think they're valuable for that alone.

I don't think this calls for miracles, but a maybe a persausive element that is already present. People can't grow a limb back anymore than they can grow an additional limb. It's not really about changing but influencing...maybe.

 

Like, we grow our hair, but we can't change the color of it. We move our arms, but we don't know how we do it. Do we first decide to decide to move our arms or do we just do it? It's not that kind of omnipotence, but a more subtle verson.

[NotBlinded]

It is based on this "knowing".

So it's a matter of faith. I guess I can't argue with that.

Faith with observation.

[florduh]

What does the brain "tune into"?

I'm not sure what to make of that question.

[Shyone]

 

What you are turning off here is the easy questions such as AI would produce or "zombies". It's the experience of things that can't be explained by reductionist/materialist view alone.

 

When these people wake up, why are they not just like AI or unfeeling zombies, or better yet, Data on Star Trek? What does the brain "tune into"?

Why are you belittling AI? I happen to think that AI will produce more complexity, more intelligence, and more philosophy than humans ever have. We may witness intelligence and emotion orders of magnitude greater than our puny human brains are capable of expressing.

 

I can almost tell you when it will happen. Just as humans are smarter than apes which are smarter than dogs which are smarter than birds which are smarter than mice (etc.), computers will achieve that threshhold of computational capacity that allows for awareness, life and conciousness.

 

With about 100 billion neurons, an average of 1,000 connections per neuron and a computational rate of 200 computations per second per connection, the human brain is capable of about 20 million billion (2 times 1016) connection computations per second (ccps). http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=171133

 

Can you beat your computer at chess?

[Antlerman]

But does Reason then deny Spirit because it was associated with the mythic systems?

Whether described or alluded to in old mythic terms or the newer scientific jargon, how do we know there IS a Spirit to deny? That is the basic question never addressed. It's as if everyone must surely just KNOW there is Spirit and the only question is how to talk about it.

You seem to have missed my greater question which I am brought up for a reason. I'll bring that up again after I address this point as that's something I'd really like to discuss.

 

You seem to miss the point of this. What we are asking to look at is not some idea, that of a supposed "spirit", but of experience. What we are looking at is a existential knowing. Not some mythology about some gods or ghosts, some 'explanation' but some internal sense of being. These are existential questions, not 'please explain how we got here' sort of thing.

 

Inherent in these systems, in and amongst of course all the mythological aspects of it, is that existential question - being. What reductionism is, is the philosophical interpretation of the empirical examination of the exteriors of our existence, concluding that that is its essence. That - is a religious leap of faith to a conclusion that its tools of examination is not equipped or designed to examination. It's the replacement of one faith for another, one partial view of the world, for the opposite side of the coin - the purely material side.

 

Now back to my original question: Why is that the claim of the pursuit of knowledge, the love of reason and rationality should be so set against anything that sounds like something out of our past mythic systems? I am a very rational person with a high degree of critical thinking, and I find that to be near the same level of thought as the religious, not in the particulars of detail of arguments for the view, but in 'spirit' of it, the phobic closure to anything outside that system. Two side of the same coin - regardless of 'empirical evidence'. It's an existential question, not a question of 'evidence'. That's like LNC trying to make his religion believable. The entire premise is flawed to the core. "Evidence" is not the sole definer of absolute truth.

 

So.. again, if we are genuinely "open-minded", then I ask "what if?" How would you respond if it meets the criteria of double-blind, peer-reviewed, repeatable experiment? And moreover, what if the entire paradigm we use in science is ill-equipped to examine this?? Are you of the faith that what we have is the authoritative system? Sort of like the religious' claim of having "the Word of God"? Is this making the point at all? Have we really left behind mythic systems??

 

For all the "spiritual" people who feel they're a beleaguered minority, I surely feel alone here!

I don't feel beleaguered at all. That I might be in a minority is irrelevant. I am intelligently aware, confident, and fully at peace with where I am at this point. That's what matters.

[Open_Minded]

If all particles and quarks are entangled, and our minds are governed by particles and quarks, it wouldn't be a huge stretch to concede to some degree to O_M's view. At least we could admit to the possibility there is some level of interconnectedness.

Thanks HanSolo… hopefully science will someday prove this type of entanglement within the human consciousness. Until then I applaud those who pursue rigorous scientific study of the possibility.

 

I agree that scientifically testing this - and any other - hypothesis or experience has value, not matter what the results of that testing may be. At the same time, it seems to me that you've leapt to a conclusion which is not in the data.

 

Rather than confirming that "there is power in love," what this test shows it that there is an element of connectedness which can develop between people over time. All of the test subjects were in romantic relationships - it's not like they just picked people off the street at random and had them think loving thoughts towards complete strangers. In fact, most studies of that kind show no effect at all.

 

So it's not merely that "love" in the abstract has been shown to have a measurable effect on physically separated human beings. Rather, what has been shown is some sort of physiological/emotional "entanglement" between people who love one another.

We agree… and this is precisely what I was thinking of when I said, “power in love”.

 

It seems to me that the word "entanglement" is particularly appropriate here, because it is similar to what happens with quantum entanglement. Two quanta, once entangled, will continue to be "in sync" over vast distances. Theoretically, this entanglement continues regardless of the distance between the entangled quanta. If both are spinning clockwise and are 50 million light-years apart, and an outside force reverses the spin of one, the spin of the other will simultaneously reverse. It's not even cause-and-effect, because the change is simultaneous.

 

So what seems to be the case is that human beings can become "entangled" over time. Perhaps this is evidence that at least part of the function of the mind is outside of the brain. Perhaps it is evidence of subtle changes the brain causes in as-yet-unmeasured dimensions or areas of influence. We don't know yet - we have only begun to encounter this phenomenon in a measurable way. It will be interesting to see what lies behind the curtain.

Again, we agree.

 

The thing that fascinates me about this is the manner of rejection of these ideas, despite the use of control groups, double-blind studies and whatnot.

Antlerman, this is one of the reasons I started the thread. After several hundred years of the clockwork universe, western minds are so accustomed to the reductionist paradigm that we don’t allow ourselves the freedom of mind to explore valid scientific research.

 

Just because the clockwork universe is the primary western view of the cosmos, reality, consciousness, etc… does not make it the most accurate view. If one considers oneself a “free thinker” then one should have the wisdom to be open to valid scientific research, even if it challenges the mind.

 

BTW, it's nice to see such a lively, interesting discussion! We're already at 3 pages on the first day, and all of it is good. Welcome back OM!

Hey Antlerman - it’s great to be on board again.

Forget built. How about inherent.

On this point we agree completely.

 

OMG OM, you are at 1,666 posts. Can I have your car?

OK you got me????? What happens at 1666 posts??????

 

The wife was in a separate room, she had no idea when her husband was sending an intention, and yet within two seconds of his beginning to stare at her she became “aroused”. How can that be explained by the placebo effect?

Women's intuition? I don't know the reason why it works, but even the article itself says that this study doesn't explain how it works either

 

Hello Neon… you are right. The article doesn’t explain how it works either. But… here’s the thing. Whatever it is – it is not a local placebo response. It is not a response generated by the wife’s beliefs (which would be placebo). If it was women’s intuition somehow her consciousness had to “know” that her husband was thinking of her at precisely the correct moment. Call it “women’s intuition” call it “distant healing” call it what ever you want. But, what ever it is, it is NOT confined to one person’s consciousness.

 

Two people are sharing in the experience – across a distance and through an electromagnetically shielded chamber with no classical way of “knowing” what the other is doing. This is experience is what Einstein would have called “spooky action at a distance”. Only he was referring to quantum entanglement, not human consciousness.

 

Now, serious scientists are questioning (and I believe legitimately so) whether quantum entanglement is a factor in consciousness.

 

So.. again, if we are genuinely "open-minded", then I ask "what if?" How would you respond if it meets the criteria of double-blind, peer-reviewed, repeatable experiment?

Excellent question Antlerman, I look forward to the response.

[Open_Minded]

What is so wrong with scientifically testing the experience???? How does it hurt anyone? Quite frankly when it can be shown that our loving, compassionate intentions for another helps them, then that is a good thing. It confirms what we humans have known all along – that there is power in love….

I don't think anyone is saying scientists can't research this or that it's impossible for a soul to exist, but we're simply saying that going by Occam's Razor, we should go with the theory that's simplest instead of jumping to conclusions until more evidence presents itself. For example, people used to think NDEs were evidence of the soul and God, but it was later proved that NDEs are entirely natural and nobody thinks they're proof of the soul anymore. Maybe a soul could be exist but this case could also turn out to be like NDEs and are just more research that helps us better understand how the mind works even if it doesn't prove the soul is real. Right now even the article agrees these studies are too murky to jump to any conclusions about either way. And even if we presume that prayer and the soul are real, why is it that praying over an amputee doesn't cause the arm to grow back? Why is it that we can't get a million believers together to pray for cancer to be eliminated everywhere on Earth and it'll be healed right then and there if there's power in love? If the soul exists and consciousness can exist separately from the brain, how do we explain why people have Alzheimer? What about people who's entire personality changes in a completely opposite direction after their brain is damaged? Why do some people lose their memory when their brain is damaged if the consciousness exists separately from the brain? Even if the soul doesn't exist, these studies help us better understand how the mind works and I think they're valuable for that alone.

Neon... show me where I said any of this is proof of God or that a soul exists?

 

You say go with the simplist explanation. I'm good with that.... serious scientists are using legitimate methodology to try and find out what the simplist explanation is... Time will tell and as I said before "the proof is in the pudding".

 

Meanwhile... it's wise for the rest of us to remember that reductionism and materialism are not scientific givens. We need to remain open to other possibilities, even possibilities that defy our current world view.

[florduh]

And moreover, what if the entire paradigm we use in science is ill-equipped to examine this?

I think it is, by definition. Science observes the observable. It can't examine "what ifs."

 

I'll get back to this as soon as I can. Too tired right now.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

So.. again, if we are genuinely "open-minded", then I ask "what if?" How would you respond if it meets the criteria of double-blind, peer-reviewed, repeatable experiment?

But aren't religion and science supposed to be in two separate magisteriums; religion answers why questions and science answers how questions; and neither of them will ever clash like NOMA and most liberal Christians say?

[Antlerman]

And even if we presume that prayer and the soul are real, why is it that praying over an amputee doesn't cause the arm to grow back? Why is it that we can't get a million believers together to pray for cancer to be eliminated everywhere on Earth and it'll be healed right then and there if there's power in love? If the soul exists and consciousness can exist separately from the brain, how do we explain why people have Alzheimer?

What it appears you are doing here is taking a consideration of the efficacy of 'prayer', to use that term, and equating it with the entire mythology surrounding it of healing lepers, the lame, the blind, raising the dead, etc. One does not equal the other. Healing amputees would be on the level of mythology. Many times myth has a basis in reality.

 

What about people who's entire personality changes in a completely opposite direction after their brain is damaged? Why do some people lose their memory when their brain is damaged if the consciousness exists separately from the brain? Even if the soul doesn't exist, these studies help us better understand how the mind works and I think they're valuable for that alone.

A good friend of mine had a section of his brain removed following a car accident. Who he was, the person I knew, who had been a doctor actually, was now this almost infant-like human in a bed who on good days would play patty-cake with you. Extremely sad, but it left me with the thought of where is my friend? Who he was was now gone. For all intents and purposes he had died except for his body and a now simple functional mind.

 

But I would argue that that spirit of us is not the developed personalities, nor the physical bodies in which we manifest it. Our personalities are expressions of it, not the definition of it.

[Antlerman]

 

 

So.. again, if we are genuinely "open-minded", then I ask "what if?" How would you respond if it meets the criteria of double-blind, peer-reviewed, repeatable experiment?

But aren't religion and science supposed to be in two separate magisteriums; religion answers why questions and science answers how questions; and neither of them will ever clash like NOMA and most liberal Christians say?

I don't think that way any more. I think they are opposite sides of the same coin. I think we need a new currency.

[Open_Minded]

And moreover, what if the entire paradigm we use in science is ill-equipped to examine this?

I think it is, by definition. Science observes the observable. It can't examine "what ifs."

 

I'll get back to this as soon as I can. Too tired right now.

 

Florduh...I look forward to what you have to say on this point... But... I must admit to wondering....

 

How does one observe:

 

1. The moment of the Big Bang
   
2. What was "before" the Big Bang
   
3. A multi-verse
   
4. A non-local consciousness
   
5. A non-local anything

 

Science is rapidly moving into uncharted territory. Just an observation....

[Open_Minded]

But I would argue that that spirit of us is not the developed personalities, nor the physical bodies in which we manifest it. Our personalities are expressions of it, not the definition of it.

 

Antlerman - I agree - our personalities are expressions of it.....

[Guest Davka]

Inherent in these systems, in and amongst of course all the mythological aspects of it, is that existential question - being. What reductionism is, is the philosophical interpretation of the empirical examination of the exteriors of our existence, concluding that that is its essence. That - is a religious leap of faith to a conclusion that its tools of examination is not equipped or designed to examination. It's the replacement of one faith for another, one partial view of the world, for the opposite side of the coin - the purely material side.

 

My own opinion is that reductionism will eventually be confronted with so many examples of irreducible existential being (such as this study) that it will be forced to embrace a more holistic view of the multiverse.

 

What's I'm trying to get at is that the scientific method itself is not the problem - it's a mindset among certain members of the scientific community which is the problem. A continued examination of existential being via the scientific method should eventually arrive at a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon. If that means (as I half suspect it may) accepting that the essence of our existence actually permeates reality in a way which would seem metaphysical to us now (but would not if we completely grasped the mechanism), then that's where research will take us.

 

Now back to my original question: Why is that the claim of the pursuit of knowledge, the love of reason and rationality should be so set against anything that sounds like something out of our past mythic systems?

Once bitten, twice shy.

 

I am a very rational person with a high degree of critical thinking, and I find that to be near the same level of thought as the religious, not in the particulars of detail of arguments for the view, but in 'spirit' of it, the phobic closure to anything outside that system. Two side of the same coin - regardless of 'empirical evidence'. It's an existential question, not a question of 'evidence'. That's like LNC trying to make his religion believable. The entire premise is flawed to the core. "Evidence" is not the sole definer of absolute truth.

 

So.. again, if we are genuinely "open-minded", then I ask "what if?" How would you respond if it meets the criteria of double-blind, peer-reviewed, repeatable experiment? And moreover, what if the entire paradigm we use in science is ill-equipped to examine this?? Are you of the faith that what we have is the authoritative system? Sort of like the religious' claim of having "the Word of God"? Is this making the point at all? Have we really left behind mythic systems??

 

Hmm. Well, if something which appeared to be metaphysical passed double-blind, peer-reviewed testing, then it would almost by definition cease to be metaphysical. I say that because those criteria are the criteria for measurable - and thus physical - phenomena. Just because we don't understand gravity, that doesn't mean that it's metaphysical. We can't measure gravity itself (or even properly define it), but we can measure its effect, and confirm our measurements reliably.

 

The main reason that there is such a high degree of skepticism from the scientific community towards metaphysical claims is simple: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is true whether the claim appears to be metaphysical or merely something exciting like cold fusion or alien transmissions. It is irrelevant whether or not the scientist in question wants these claims to be true - in order to show that they are true, they need to be verified with the highest degree of skepticism and rigorous testing.

[Guest Davka]

How does one observe:

 

1. The moment of the Big Bang
   
2. What was "before" the Big Bang
   
3. A multi-verse
   
4. A non-local consciousness
   
5. A non-local anything

 

The same way we "observe" the climate during the Pleistocene era, or the eating habits of the Woolly Mammoth, or anything else which occurred during pre-history: we observe the remnants of the original phenomenon, develop hypotheses based on extrapolation, devise ways to test these hypotheses (if X happened then we should observe Y today), and refine the hypotheses based on the outcome of our testing.

 

Continue researching, add new data, wash, rinse, repeat.

 

It's true that the mathematical models of the Big Bang are far more complex than the models of radioactive isotope decay in fossils, but the process is essentially the same. It's also helpful to keep in mind the fact that all you need to do in order to see millions of years into the past is go outside at night. Those lights you see in the sky? Some of that light left another galaxy a few million years ago. That means that what we see now is actually what happened a few million years ago.

 

With space telescopes, we can see 13 billion years into the past. That number will keep growing with the next generation of space telescopes. It's not mere speculation. And moving into the realm of the unknown is what scientific exploration is all about. We go there so that it might become the realm of the known.

[Alice]

I'd like to chip in here with some thoughts about cytology and collections of cells ...

 

Is there a universal mind? If so, then mind reading should be fairly commonplace. If the collective conscious affected reality, there would be peace in the world and hunger wouldn't be rampant in so many areas. Large numbers of people have earnestly and consistently prayed, visualized and hoped for such things for hundreds of years.

 

Couple of years ago I resumed study of cytology after a couple of decades of absence. Getting down to the nitty gritty of my own composition had a profound effect on my view of the universe. When various cells in our body, 'misread' the messages from other cells or behave in ways that 'starve' other groups or 'fail' to send help to needy areas, this doesn't suggest that we are not one 'connected body'. In the same way, I wouldn't see the comments above as ruling out there being a wholeness and connection throughout the universe.

 

 

Rather than confirming that "there is power in love," what this test shows it that there is an element of connectedness which can develop between people over time. All of the test subjects were in romantic relationships - it's not like they just picked people off the street at random and had them think loving thoughts towards complete strangers. In fact, most studies of that kind show no effect at all.

 

So it's not merely that "love" in the abstract has been shown to have a measurable effect on physically separated human beings. Rather, what has been shown is some sort of physiological/emotional "entanglement" between people who love one another.

 

It seems to me that the word "entanglement" is particularly appropriate here, because it is similar to what happens with quantum entanglement. Two quanta, once entangled, will continue to be "in sync" over vast distances. Theoretically, this entanglement continues regardless of the distance between the entangled quanta. If both are spinning clockwise and are 50 million light-years apart, and an outside force reverses the spin of one, the spin of the other will simultaneously reverse. It's not even cause-and-effect, because the change is simultaneous.

 

So what seems to be the case is that human beings can become "entangled" over time. Perhaps this is evidence that at least part of the function of the mind is outside of the brain. Perhaps it is evidence of subtle changes the brain causes in as-yet-unmeasured dimensions or areas of influence. We don't know yet - we have only begun to encounter this phenomenon in a measurable way. It will be interesting to see what lies behind the curtain.

 

Some ideas about what might be behind the curtain ...

 

In the twenty or so year gap between my first and second look at the structure of a cell - a lot happened and I discovered to my chagrin they had gotten a lot more complicated and I wouldn't be able to coast through this part of the course on old knowledge. The simple semi permeable membrane keeping the contents in place had given way to a complex cytoskeleton where light photons dashed up and down filaments 'communicating' with neighbouring cells and even more breathtakingly - non neighboring cells, just how - no one really knows yet.

 

On entanglement - I'd be interested to know if the couples had had children together. When a women is pregnant she retains some of the DNA from the child within her body, and in doing so, some of the father's DNA ...

 

Maybe there is cytoskeleton messaging going on recognisable to shared DNA ...

 

The idea that 'thinking' emerges from the brain alone is very outdated, the brain is more the 'projector room of thoughts', the 'film' is emerging from cells throughout our bodies ....

 

(side note - so good to see so many of my favorite people in one thread I don't stop by so often these days, but very glad I did yesterday, what a great topic and here's to the power of love )

[Dhampir]

I actually think it IS possible to assert conclusively that the brain is the storehouse of the mind. I think that if one believes that the brain is some sort of "receiver", they haven't thought the whole thing through. I used to not have a good answer to this, but now I have a couple. First the argumentative: What if there is some sort of external source of our true nature? Why would you assume that even a perfectly functioning brain displays even a trace of this "true self"? It's been shown that parts of the brain control things like empathy, judgment, and even fairness-- an electrical signal sent by electrodes to that part of the brain that deals with fairness actually disables it, making the person unable to choose NOT to cheat someone out of even a small amount of profit. That said, one's external "true self" can be altered by healthy brain chemistry. Your true self could be a tyrant, bent on universal domination, but the physical form they currently inhabit or interact with, prevents them from acting according to their nature.

 

That argument aside, people seem not to know that energy cannot be stored outside of a physical medium. At least, I've never heard of such a thing happening. If it's not in a physical medium, it's in transit, and it's reconfiguring itself constantly. It's also changing states as well (electrical, radio, light, radiation, etc.). So the idea that the consciousness can exist independently of a brain (and a physical body) would seem to be defeated by that fact. Of course, my science could be wonky on this issue, but it makes sense to me. If I am inaccurate on that, please tell me.

That was maybe a wrong analogy to use, but I couldn't think of another one. I believe it would be more like probabilities in a sea of consciousness. Our brains are constantly receiving input and we decide which input to relate to. If there is something wrong with the brain, the information isn't so easily received from the field. I don't think anyone could say that the brain functions in a vacuum.

 

I'm not doing too well, so I'll bring in David Bohm for, hopefully, a better explanation.

 

Bohm believes that life and consciousness are enfolded deep in the generative order and are therefore present in varying degrees of unfoldment in all matter, including supposedly "inanimate" matter such as electrons or plasmas. He suggests that there is a "protointelligence" in matter, so that new evolutionary developments do not emerge in a random fashion but creatively as relatively integrated wholes from implicate levels of reality. The mystical connotations of Bohm's ideas are underlined by his remark that the implicate domain "could equally well be called Idealism, Spirit, Consciousness. The separation of the two -- matter and spirit -- is an abstraction. The ground is always one." (Quoted in Michael Talbot, The Holographic Universe, HarperCollins, New York, 1991, p. 271.)

David Bohm and the Implicate Order by David Pratt

 

So, one doesn't function without the other.

 

As to my first analogy, yes, I was putting things rather simply. With regard to the quote by David Bohm, the idea he speaks of is something I could find myself getting behind, having heard similar things in other places. I don't however, think that idea is what OM was trying to further, rather a concept of persistent individual consciousness, whereby a person's mind is something that necessarily exists independent of any physical processes, despite all evidence to the contrary. If that is the case, then I stand by my earlier statements.

[Antlerman]

(side note - so good to see so many of my favorite people in one thread I don't stop by so often these days, but very glad I did yesterday, what a great topic and here's to the power of love )

That's interesting. Our collective Self must have been sending out the 'come swing by' vibe to you.

 

On a somewhat related note from that study report that provokes some thought (that we as humans respond to others intentions):

 

Are these effects limited to human intentionality, or are they widespread in nature?

 

Claims that humans can achieve distant effects through mental intention is often met with skepticism and derision. These objections might be tempered if it can be shown that this ability is present in nonhuman species as well. Although we do not know what animals think and whether or not they are really intending, there nonetheless is

evidence suggesting that "animal consciousness," however it may be defined, is capable of manifesting at a distance in ways not unlike those seen in humans.

 

(a) Researchers tested the possible influence of 80 groups of 15 chicks on a randomly moving robot carrying a lighted candle in an otherwise darkened room. Baby chicks prefer to be in the presence of light; could this preference somehow influence the movement of the candle-carrying robot? In 71% of the cases, the robot spent

excessive time in the vicinity of the chicks. In the absence of the chicks, the robot followed random trajectories. The overall results were statistically significant (p<0.01) (Peoc'h, 1988,1995).

 

(B ) Researchers collected fifty-four accounts of animals who returned to their owners, sometimes over colossal distances. These instances were unexplainable by sensory cues or by homing instincts; the animals often traveled to places they had never been. These instances suggest some form of extended awareness (Dossey, 1989, p. 112;

Rhine and Feather, 1962).

 

You see, you knew the table was set and dinner was prepared for you.