Simon, I haven't seen anything about near death experiences (and I have heard multiple lectures on them) that disproves "materialism", by which i means physics. Neither do the type of phenomena that Dean Radin and Rupert Sheldrake claim to have strong statistical evidence for. Ben commented on this list recently that Sheldrake's morphic resonance may be a quantum mechanical pilot wave like phenomenon. Radin talks of quantum entanglement as a possible explanation for the paranormal phenomena he claims evidence for. I consider all these things, if they are true, to be "materialist" in the sense that they are might be explained by physics once we understand it better. We should remember that physics claims reality is much more than just mater, it also includes energy and computation -- and of course, as my theory of consciousness claims, all computation requires awareness of the information in response to which such computations take place. The science of physics is also aware of the fact that it does not fully understand all of the physical realities in the universe/multiverse.
So unless you define "materialism" narrowly there is nothing that shows, or even strongly suggests, that materialism is wrong. On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 1:47 AM, simon <[email protected]> wrote: > I personnaly think that NDE documented in millions of cases worldwide > along with the simulation hypothesis or the holographic principle should be > enough to keep an open mind that maybe materialism haven't exactly won the > argument yet. > > Or to put it another way, if someone chose a less conventionnal belief > than materialism, it wouldn't be too irrationnal given different credible > theories and unexplained phenomenum. > > > Simon > > > ------------------------------ > Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 21:19:45 -0400 > Subject: Re: [agi] Magical mystical BULLSHIT. > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > "You ARE consciousness" > > So when I fall asleep and lose consciousness i cease to exist? > > ... > > When we look into the brain we don't find a bunch of pudding or something > that couldn't possibly explain consciousness. We find a network of > computational units, that are capable of transforming information. There > are experiments which can stimulate parts of the brain and turn > consciousness on and off (i.e. the claustrum). This is strong evidence for > a materialist reduction of consciousness. And it happens to fit with all > of our understandings from much of physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, > neuroscience, etc. > > Philosophically you are right that you can't really be certain of anything > outside of your own conscious experience, since it could be that you are > actually plugged into the matrix or it is VM's all the way down, or > something like this, but if you have to make choices about how you're going > to go about doing things that produce results then it would seem wise to > stick with the overwhelming evidence from all of the experiments from all > of the sciences which reaffirm the materialist world view. Besides, a > super intelligence that is created in the matrix is still a super > intelligence, and we can use it to find the true nature of existence once > we have it. > > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 8:45 PM, justcamel <[email protected]> wrote: > > Erm? I wrote "Nothing *implemented within consciousness* can measure > consciousness." > > You ARE consciousness ... you are not IMPLEMENTED within consciousness ... > so you can experience and interact with consciousness on a more fundamental > level than the implementational level. > > You are fundamentally different form an oscilloscope or your physical body > ... both of which can _NOT_ experience or interact with consciousness > outside of the implementational level as they are objects implemented > within consciousness. > > I have posted about methods plenty of times ... "meditation" is a broad > term. Everybody will find his/her very unique method. People on this > mailing list generally feature an IQ of 2-3 STDs above median ... that's > more than enough in order to experiment and to find methods that work best. > > On 22.10.2015 02:21, Aleks TK wrote: > > Nothing implemented within consciousness can measure consciousness. > > I think this statement is incorrect, or at the very least highly > ambiguous. If there is no way to measure consciousness how can we talk > about the concept to begin with? Or did you mean something else? > > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/26973278-698fd9ee> | > Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/27714077-224a20ec> | > Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/8630185-a57a74e1> | Modify > <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> > Your Subscription <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
