Intelligent Design

More on Emergent Poofery

Spread the love

This morning I looked up into the sky and saw several hundred geese flying in a formation that appeared to be a single undulating mass. It reminded me of the schools of silver fish I have seen while diving in the Caribbean that also seem to move as a single mass (those who have seen Finding Nemo know what I am talking about).

These bird and fish behaviors along with hurricanes are often used by materialists to demonstrate the idea of “emergence.” When the “whole” of a given phenomenon appears to have properties that are more complex than its constituents, the whole is said to be an “emergent property” of the constituents. With that in mind, here is a question:

Which of these things is not like the others with respect to “emergence”?

A. A flock of birds
B. A hurricane
C. A school of fish
D. Subjective self-awareness

If you picked “D. Consciousness” give yourself a star. The standard emergentist view of consciousness goes like this: The electro-chemical processes in the brain evolve in complexity, and at some unspecified point in that evolution consciousness arises. Thus mental events “supervene” on physical events, which means that subjective self-awareness is an “emergent property of” the sophisticated electro-chemical system in the brains of higher animals.

Why is this emergentist account obviously different in principal than emergentist accounts of flocks of birds, hurricanes and schools of fish? The answer lies with our old friend vera causa, also known as the principle of sufficient reason. Under this principle, you can’t just say X causes Y unless you are prepared to demonstrate the causal link between X and Y. Astrology is a classic example of the violation of this principle. An astrologer says the stars and planets are aligned in a particular way, and that alignment causes X phenomenon (e.g., you will get a promotion at work). Of course, there is absolutely no causal relationship whatsoever between the alignment of stars and planets and whether your boss is going to promote you, and therefore astrology violates the principle of sufficient reason.

How does the emergent “explanation” of subjective self-awareness violate the principle of sufficient reason? For any given proposition, the principle is expressed this way:

For every proposition P, if P is true, then there is a sufficient explanation for why P is true.

We can see how this principle is in operation with respect to birds, fish and wind:

Birds: Birds instinctively fly in formation; when those formations are sufficiently large the birds move in response to various inputs, including primarily the strength of the wind, and collectively those movements result in the phenomenon. We might not know all of the details, but we can see how in principle the movement of the birds could result in the formation.

Fish: Same as birds.

Hurricane: Hurricanes are examples of weather, and we have a fairly good understanding of the causes of weather, including temperature, barometric pressure, etc. We can see how, in principle, those factors can combine to cause the phenomenon called a hurricane.

Conversely, we can see how the principle is not in operation with respect to subjective self-awareness. As Thomas Nagel has said the “mental” is fundamentally different from the “physical.” The burden is therefore on those advancing an emergentist theory of consciousness to explain how “physical” events can cause “mental” events. So far, no one has brought forth even plausible speculations about how this could happen. This is not surprising because it should be clear that the mental is not in fact reducible to the physical, which means that reductionist accounts of consciousness are not, in principle, plausible.

For every proposition P [consciousness is an “emergent property” of the brain system] , if P is true, then there is a sufficient explanation for why P is true.  Until materialists come up with a sufficient explanation for why the mental can, in principle, be linked causally with the physical, the “emergent property” explanation is more like astrology than astronomy.  While it purports to be an explanation, it in fact gives no reason to believe why X causes Y.  It is a confession of ignorance disguised as an explanation, a fancy of way of saying nothing but “Poof! It happened.”

 

 

 

 

94 Replies to “More on Emergent Poofery

  1. 1
    kairosfocus says:

    Sprats moving like a river . . .

  2. 2
    Andre says:

    Yup

    Emergence, the Darwinian code word for magic happened!

  3. 3
    kairosfocus says:

    BA: Very well said. I suggest again, that computation is not rational contemplation. Until we see vera causa . . . indeed an application of the reasonable search for and expectation of adequate explanation . . . then we have no good reason to revert to poof-magic words like “emergence.” In the real world, such is driven by forces and materials of nature with appropriate components correctly arranged to achieve function, but here there is a major gap as computation is a blindly mechanical process dependent on proper design to indicate correct answers that in the end have to be separately validated. Or else GIGO rules. KF

  4. 4
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: Note here on trying to get North by insistently heading West: http://www.uncommondescent.com.....oing-west/

  5. 5
    kairosfocus says:

    PPS: Pardon a clip from the just linked, parallel to BA in the OP:

    even with computational functional organisation, we have not been able to make rocks dream . . . nor can we.

    Computational processing in various architectures — INCLUDING neural networks, artificial or natural (= brains) — is patently qualitatively, categorically distinct from the self aware, insightful, rational and creative contemplation we experience and observe in one another.

    Where also, the notion that such dreams may emerge beyond a magical threshold is tantamount to trying to draw out something from nothing — from non-being. Until you identify and demonstrate a sufficient causal pattern or an observed fact, we can set this notion to one side as science fiction fantasy.

    There is a fundamental distinction between blind, signal processing based computation and insightful, self aware rational reasoning.

    So, the fact that self-aware mindedness exists is pointing to something that an a priori materialism influenced age has great difficulty acknowledging. Namely, that it is at least possible that the material world we experience as self aware conscious persons may not be the only world we experience.

    In a world dominated by evolutionary materialism dressed up in a lab coat, that may be very hard to recognise or allow in the door.

    But, surely, at minimum we should keep an open mind on the subject, given that we can see that computation and contemplation are fundamentally distinct phenomena.

    By now, it should be plain that blind, mechanical, programmed cause effect chain computation is simply not a process of rational insight. Which carries with it the point that we should be willing to recognise that neural network or digital computer or mechanical integrator based signal processing is not even on the right path to be self-aware, conscious reasoning and meaningful contemplation.

    So, rocks not only have no dreams in the raw states as a matter of observed fact, but we can show why refined and organised rocks that form computational entities, by virtue of the radical difference between cause-effect links and ground-consequent inferences, are not even on the right road to dreaming.

  6. 6
    kairosfocus says:

    PPPS: Thought-sparker: trying to draw out something from nothing — non-being. The pivotal problem faced by a priori evolutionary materialism and its concept of “emergence” as materialist magic.

  7. 7
    DavidD says:

    Materialist Bible

    Darwin 1:1

    “In the beginning Everything spontaneously emerged from Nothing”

  8. 8
    keith s says:

    I agree that there isn’t yet a satisfactory materialist account of consciousness, but allow me to point out what should be obvious, but is often overlooked: There is no satisfactory “immaterialist” account of consciouness either.

    Anyone who claims that we know how consciousness emerges from the physical brain is premature, at best, but so is anyone who makes that claim for dualism or some other form of immaterialism.

    What’s poof for the goose is poof for the gander.

  9. 9
    kairosfocus says:

    KS, I note a telling “how.” Why do you assume and imply as though it were unquestionable, that consciousness emerges from the material? Every sign we have points to the opposite, i.e. to begin with our material cosmos is evidently designed, i.e. on signs linked to fine tuning that sets up H, He, O and C as the first four elements with their astonishing individual and combined properties (e.g. water, organic chemistry) . . . and with N close by [proteins], a product of intelligently directed configuration. So, ask yourself if Plato had it right, that you are putting the last first and the first last, making a foundational error. KF

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    One of the ancient philosophical arguments against the material universe being eternal, prior to our current scientific evidence for the Big Bang,,,

    Evidence For The Big Bang – Michael Strauss – video
    https://vimeo.com/91775973

    Evidence Supporting the Big Bang
    http://www.astronomynotes.com/cosmolgy/s7.htm

    ,,,was the infinite regress argument,,,

    Time Cannot Be Infinite Into The Past – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xg0pdUvQdi4

    The infinite regress is particulary devastating to materialism because it is impossible, due to the infinite regress, for there ever to be a today, a ‘now’, if materialism were true,,,

    The dissolution of today – graph – May 21, 2014
    Scenario A shows the actual situation of the arrow of time, running from left to right, from today to the future. If this arrow is infinite then we would have no last day.
    To scenario A we apply a shift according to a leftward vector of infinite length to get scenario B suggested by Carroll. Of course the arrow of time continues to run from left to right, but the shift produces a “little” problem: the “no last day” becomes “no today!”. Simply in Carroll’s wonderland the present disappears, and with the present ourselves disappear. :(Please give us back the Creator!)
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....-of-today/

    Yet, Consciousness, (and information), does not suffer from the infinite regress argument because it is always ‘now’ for consciousness (and information). Einstein was once asked by a philosopher,,,

    “Can physics demonstrate the existence of ‘the now’ in order to make the notion of ‘now’ into a scientifically valid term?”

    Einstein’s answer was categorical, he said:

    “The experience of ‘the now’ cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement, it can never be a part of physics.”

    The ‘now’ quote was taken from the last few minutes of this following video, and what the philosopher meant by the question can be read in full context in the article following the video:

    Stanley L. Jaki: “The Mind and Its Now”
    https://vimeo.com/10588094

    The Mind and Its Now – Stanley L. Jaki, July 2008
    Excerpts: There can be no active mind without its sensing its existence in the moment called now.,,,
    Three quarters of a century ago Charles Sherrington, the greatest modern student of the brain, spoke memorably on the mind’s baffling independence of the brain. The mind lives in a self-continued now or rather in the now continued in the self. This life involves the entire brain, some parts of which overlap, others do not.
    ,,,There is no physical parallel to the mind’s ability to extend from its position in the momentary present to its past moments, or in its ability to imagine its future. The mind remains identical with itself while it lives through its momentary nows.
    ,,, the now is immensely richer an experience than any marvelous set of numbers, even if science could give an account of the set of numbers, in terms of energy levels. The now is not a number. It is rather a word, the most decisive of all words. It is through experiencing that word that the mind comes alive and registers all existence around and well beyond.
    ,,, All our moments, all our nows, flow into a personal continuum, of which the supreme form is the NOW which is uncreated, because it simply IS.
    http://www.saintcd.com/science.....imitstart=

    Moreover, ‘the now of the mind’, contrary to what Einstein thought possible for experimental physics, and according to advances in quantum mechanics, takes precedence over past events in time.

    A Short History Of Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uLcJUgLm1vwFyjwcbwuYP0bK6k8mXy-of990HudzduI/edit

    i.e. ,Sans LaPlace, quantum mechanics says of time (and by default says to the the infinite regress argument), ‘I have no need of that hypothesis’. In fact, due to advances in quantum mechanics, it would now be much more appropriate to phrase Einstein’s answer to the philosopher in this way:

    “It is impossible for the experience of ‘the now of the mind’ to ever be divorced from physical measurement, it will always be a part of physics.”

    Here are a few quotes, in regards to the primacy of consciousness, from some giants in Quantum Mechanics:

    “No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
    Max Planck (1858–1947), the originator of quantum theory, The Observer, London, January 25, 1931

    “As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”
    Max Planck – The Father Of Quantum Mechanics – Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], speech at Florence, Italy (1944) (from Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck, Nr. 1797)

    “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.”
    (Schroedinger, Erwin. 1984. “General Scientific and Popular Papers,” in Collected Papers, Vol. 4. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden. p. 334.)

    “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.” Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays “Symmetries and Reflections –

    “It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality” –
    Eugene Wigner – (Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, Eugene Wigner, in Wheeler and Zurek, p.169) 1961 – received Nobel Prize in 1963 for ‘Quantum Symmetries’

    Of related note, Physicists are on the verge of closing the last ‘loophole’ for ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, quantum entanglement. i.e. The ‘free will’ loophole:

    Is Quantum Entanglement Real? – David Kaiser – Nov. 14, 2014
    Excerpt: How to close this loophole? Well, obviously, we aren’t going to try to prove that humans have free will. But we can try something else. In our proposed experiment, the detector setting that is selected (say, measuring a particle’s spin along this direction rather than that one) would be determined not by us — but by an observed property of some of the oldest light in the universe (say, whether light from distant quasars arrives at Earth at an even- or odd-numbered microsecond). These sources of light are so far away from us and from one another that they would not have been able to receive a single light signal from one another, or from the position of the Earth, before the moment, billions of years ago, when they emitted the light that we detect here on Earth today.
    That is, we would guarantee that any strange “nudging” or conspiracy among the detector settings — if it does exist — would have to have occurred all the way back at the Hot Big Bang itself, nearly 14 billion years ago.
    If, as we expect, the usual predictions from quantum theory are borne out in this experiment, we will have constrained various alternative theories as much as physically possible in our universe. If not, that would point toward a profoundly new physics.
    Either way, the experiment promises to be exciting — a fitting way, we hope, to mark Bell’s paper’s 50th anniversary.
    – David Kaiser is a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he teaches physics and the history of science. His latest book is “How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture, and the Quantum Revival.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11......html?_r=1

    My only question right now is not if they will close the free will loop hole but, “By how many standard deviations will they close it?”,,, These guys don’t mess around, they closed the last loophole by 70 standard deviations, and verified Leggett’s inequality by 120 standard deviations!

    Verse and Music

    Colossians 1:17
    He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

    Fish: He is before all things, Colossians 1:17,18
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhQ2LR1KGDo

  11. 11
    Joe says:

    keith s:

    I agree that there isn’t yet a satisfactory materialist account of consciousness,

    There isn’t yet a satisfactory materialist account of anything- life, the stars, the planets, the universe

  12. 12
    polistra says:

    I wouldn’t be so quick to put birds and fish in the same category as the hurricane. At least for birds, we know that they choose a formation by intelligent methods. Some of the methodology may be innate, but that’s true of all intelligence.

    And given what we’re JUST STARTING to learn about the role of bacteria in forming clouds, I wouldn’t even put the hurricane in the ‘raw physical’ category. Bacteria communicate with each other by all sorts of methods, only a few of which we are JUST STARTING to learn. It’s possible that they form a cyclone for their own purposes, to pick up more bacteria from the water.

  13. 13
    mahuna says:

    Did you perhaps mean “Puffery”, which means “making oneself appear important”?

    Poofery is a term applied to the stereotypical behavior of homosexual males.

  14. 14
    Me_Think says:

    mahuna @ 13
    It’s like ‘Poof’ as in magic.

  15. 15
    Joe says:

    Magic is all unguided evolution has

  16. 16
    Silver Asiatic says:

    keith s #8

    Anyone who claims that we know how consciousness emerges from the physical brain is premature, at best, but so is anyone who makes that claim for dualism or some other form of immaterialism.

    I would hope that you’d be willing to consider and investigate, fairly, both options – premature as either may be.

  17. 17
    Tim says:

    keith s @8,
    I would second Silver Asiatic’s comment. As to the investigation, would it be too much to ask you to go outside of “science” and “how”? As you investigate, you might even reconsider your current foundational notion that “consciousness emerges from the physical brain.” ((Yes, yes, we know that there is a relationship, but try to consider ideas beyond one-way-from-physical-to-psychical-reductionism.)) You have admitted that there is no such explanation, writing such “[claims] . . . are premature at best,” but your additional comment concerning dualism or other form(s) of immaterialism just isn’t true, such claims are typically (usually) made from outside of science. Just keep telling yourself, “ways of knowing, ways of knowing, . . . are plural.”

    KF’s post concerning the fundamental difference between computation and contemplation would be a great place to start.

  18. 18
    Adapa says:

    Silver Asiatic

    I would hope that you’d be willing to consider and investigate, fairly, both options – premature as either may be.

    Sure. Go ahead and propose a testable hypothesis for the idea consciousness is the produce of external supernatural forces. Don’t forget to include your falsification criteria.

  19. 19
    Box says:

    Adapa:

    Sure. Go ahead and propose a testable hypothesis for the idea consciousness is the produce of external supernatural forces. Don’t forget to include your falsification criteria.

    Adapa, you are a cartoon version of the typical materialist.

  20. 20
    tjguy says:

    KeithS @ 8

    There is no satisfactory “immaterialist” account of consciouness either. ….

    What’s poof for the goose is poof for the gander.

    You’re getting it Keith!

    Both sides have to have faith! We are outside the realm of true science here and in the historical realm. And, if the answer to the problem lies in the realm of the supernatural, there may never be a “satisfactory account” as you call it.

    And since when is simply “a satisfactory account” sufficient in science? How do you define “a satisfactory account”? Satisfactory by whose standards?

    From the OP

    Until materialists come up with a sufficient explanation for why the mental can, in principle, be linked causally with the physical, the “emergent property” explanation is more like astrology than astronomy.

    I would agree with this, but add that what qualifies as a sufficient explanation is a subjective thing. There will be differing opinions on this, so simply because some people think it is sufficient, that doesn’t mean it is sufficient or even that it is accurate.

    To be honest, even if you come up with what you feel is a “satisfactory account”, I doubt it will be satisfactory to me – unless it can be demonstrated scientifically. So things can become quite subjective at this point for both sides. What is satisfactory to me may not be satisfactory to you and that’s to be expected. There might not even be a “scientific” answer – if God supernaturally created our consciousness by creating us in His image.

    If humans were created by God as we suspect, as we feel the data supports, the inability to explain consciousness would be an expected result. Creation – the poof account from a conscious, intelligent Being would make more sense in my mind than the evolutionary poof account of consciousness from mindless meaningless chemicals.

  21. 21
    bornagain77 says:

    Since we know the entire material universe came into being approx. 13.8 billion years ago,,,

    Evidence For The Big Bang – Michael Strauss – video
    https://vimeo.com/91775973

    Evidence Supporting the Big Bang
    http://www.astronomynotes.com/cosmolgy/s7.htm

    ,,,then the cumulative case from both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, for consciousness preceding material reality, is far, far, stronger than the cumulative case for some imaginary material reality preceding the material universe is:

    A Short History Of Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness
    Excerpt: 1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality.
    2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
    3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
    4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.

    Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect):
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uLcJUgLm1vwFyjwcbwuYP0bK6k8mXy-of990HudzduI/edit

  22. 22
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Box

    Adapa, you are a cartoon version of the typical materialist.

    Keith is at least open to possibilities. I suggested an unbiased investigation of both options, material and immaterial.

    Adapa responds by saying “ok show me the materialist proof of the immaterial”.

    That is cartoonish.

    By the way, an unbiased investigation is conducted by the seeker. You have to look for yourself. Adapa instead says “ok, let me sit back while you show me what you got – then I’ll ridicule with absurd non-sequiturs”. Obviously, there’s no interest in really trying to explore what reality has to offer. Usually that’s driven by fear of what one might find.

    My conclusion – not worth trying to dialogue with someone like that.

  23. 23
    Adapa says:

    Box

    Adapa, you are a cartoon version of the typical materialist.

    You’re an actual version of the typical ID creationist – willfully ignorant, all empty rhetoric but no positive evidence to show, demanding to have the supernatural introduced to science but completely unable to say how that should occur.

  24. 24
    Adapa says:

    Silver Asiatic

    By the way, an unbiased investigation is conducted by the seeker. You have to look for yourself.

    Then go do it SA. Go investigate all you want, bring back any positive results you may find and we’ll discuss them. What’s stopping you?

    Don’t sit on the sidelines crying to be let in the game and them cowardly disappear when the coach taps you on the shoulder and says “get in there and show us what ya got.”

  25. 25
    gmilling says:

    As Keiths mentioned, we do not have a complete explanation of consciousness by materialist properties. However, we do know of many purely materialist actions that can destroy or suspend consciousness. And they all involve actions on the brain. As such, the burden of proof is on ID to provide evidence and mechanisms for a non material cause of consciousness.

  26. 26
    keith s says:

    gmilling,

    That’s right.

    We don’t yet have a satisfactory explanation of how consciousness arises from the physical brain, but the fact that it is inseparable from the physical brain is well established.

    The immaterial soul is a fiction.

    I did a relevant post at TSZ:

    Split-brain patients and the dire implications for the soul

    And that’s just the split-brain evidence. There’s plenty of other evidence as well.

  27. 27
    Tim says:

    adapa, gmilling, ks etc . . .

    Yelling “dogpile!” is no longer an acceptable form of argument.

    “inseperable” says nothing about “how it emerges”

    gmilling, your burden of proof is wrongly presented, have you forgotten this already?

    As Thomas Nagel has said the “mental” is fundamentally different from the “physical.” The burden is therefore on those advancing an emergentist theory of consciousness to explain how “physical” events can cause “mental” events. So far, no one has brought forth even plausible speculations about how this could happen.

    adapa, we refrain from showing what “we got” because after having done so innumerable times, all we here is “that’s not science.” big deal. Nobody in the ID is required to think within your narrowly defined scientism.

  28. 28
    Silver Asiatic says:

    As such, the burden of proof is on ID to provide evidence and mechanisms for a non material cause of consciousness.

    Show us the direct material evidence of a non-material cause.

    Wait a minute … you’re supposed to try to make sense here.

  29. 29
    Joe says:

    Seeing that materialistic processes can’t even account for the brain we can tell that it cannot account for consciousness.

  30. 30
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Keith

    The immaterial soul is a fiction.

    What is fiction for the goose is fiction for the gander. Right?

  31. 31
    keith s says:

    Silver Asiatic,

    What is fiction for the goose is fiction for the gander. Right?

    No, because the evidence is overwhelmingly against the hypothesis of an immaterial soul, as I point out in my OP.

  32. 32
    bornagain77 says:

    The fact that we have a eternal soul that lives beyond the death of our temporal body is far more well established than any purported proof for Neo-Darwinism is.

    Near-Death Experiences: Putting a Darwinist’s Evidentiary Standards to the Test – Dr. Michael Egnor – October 15, 2012
    Excerpt: Indeed, about 20 percent of NDE’s are corroborated, which means that there are independent ways of checking about the veracity of the experience. The patients knew of things that they could not have known except by extraordinary perception — such as describing details of surgery that they watched while their heart was stopped, etc. Additionally, many NDE’s have a vividness and a sense of intense reality that one does not generally encounter in dreams or hallucinations.,,,
    The most “parsimonious” explanation — the simplest scientific explanation — is that the (Near Death) experience was real. Tens of millions of people have had such experiences. That is tens of millions of more times than we have observed the origin of species , (or the origin of life, or the origin of a molecular machine), which is never.,,,
    The materialist reaction, in short, is unscientific and close-minded. NDE’s show fellows like Coyne at their sneering unscientific irrational worst. Somebody finds a crushed fragment of a fossil and it’s earth-shaking evidence. Tens of million of people have life-changing spiritual experiences and it’s all a big yawn.
    Note: Dr. Egnor is professor and vice-chairman of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....65301.html

    “A recent analysis of several hundred cases showed that 48% of near-death experiencers reported seeing their physical bodies from a different visual perspective. Many of them also reported witnessing events going on in the vicinity of their body, such as the attempts of medical personnel to resuscitate them (Kelly et al., 2007).”
    Kelly, E. W., Greyson, B., & Kelly, E. F. (2007). Unusual experiences near death and related phenomena. In E. F. Kelly, E. W. Kelly, A. Crabtree, A. Gauld, M. Grosso, & B. Greyson, Irreducible mind (pp. 367-421). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Even Dr. Parnia, perhaps the most sceptical researcher in Near Death studies, has finally come around and admitted that they are ‘very credible’

    Life after death? Largest-ever study provides evidence that ‘out of body’ and ‘near-death’ experiences may be real – October 7, 2014
    Excerpt: Dr Sam Parnia, an assistant professor at the State University of New York and a former research fellow at the University of Southampton who led the research, said that he previously (held) that patients who described near-death experiences were only relating hallucinatory events.
    One man, however, gave a “very credible” account of what was going on while doctors and nurses tried to bring him back to life – and says that he felt he was observing his resuscitation from the corner of the room.
    Speaking to The Telegraph about the evidence provided by a 57-year-old social worker Southampton, Dr Parnia said: “We know the brain can’t function when the heart has stopped beating.
    “But in this case, conscious awareness appears to have continued for up to three minutes.
    “The man described everything that had happened in the room, but importantly, he heard two bleeps from a machine that makes a noise at three minute intervals. So we could time how long the experienced lasted for.
    “He seemed very credible and everything that he said had happened to him had actually happened.”
    http://www.independent.co.uk/n.....80195.html

    In fact the experiences related by Near Death Experiences are ‘even more real than real’:

    ‘Afterlife’ feels ‘even more real than real,’ researcher says – Wed April 10, 2013
    Excerpt: “If you use this questionnaire … if the memory is real, it’s richer, and if the memory is recent, it’s richer,” he said.
    The coma scientists weren’t expecting what the tests revealed.
    “To our surprise, NDEs were much richer than any imagined event or any real event of these coma survivors,” Laureys reported.
    The memories of these experiences beat all other memories, hands down, for their vivid sense of reality. “The difference was so vast,” he said with a sense of astonishment.
    Even if the patient had the experience a long time ago, its memory was as rich “as though it was yesterday,” Laureys said.
    http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/09/.....periences/

    A Doctor’s Near Death Experience Inspires a New Life – video
    Quote: “It’s not like a dream. It’s like the world we are living in is a dream and it’s kind of like waking up from that.”
    Dr. Magrisso
    http://www.nbcchicago.com/on-a.....31791.html

    Dr. Eben Alexander Says It’s Time for Brain Science to Graduate From Kindergarten – 10/24/2013
    Excerpt: To take the approach of, “Oh it had to be a hallucination of the brain” is just crazy. The simplistic idea that NDEs (Near Death Experiences) are a trick of a dying brain is similar to taking a piece of cardboard out of a pizza delivery box, rolling it down a hill and then claiming that it’s an identical event as rolling a beautiful Ferrari down a hill. They are not the same at all. The problem is the pure materialist scientists can be so closed-minded about it.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....51093.html

    One of the more fascinating branches of Near Death Studies have been the studies of people who were born blind who have had NDE’s, who could see for the first time in their life during their NDE. This simply has no explanation within the materialistic framework, whereas, in the theistic framework, this is expected:

    Blind Woman Can See During Near Death Experience (NDE) – Pim von Lommel – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKyQJDZuMHE

    Kenneth Ring and Sharon Cooper (1997) conducted a study of 31 blind people, many of who reported vision during their Near Death Experiences (NDEs). 21 of these people had had an NDE while the remaining 10 had had an out-of-body experience (OBE), but no NDE. It was found that in the NDE sample, about half had been blind from birth. (of note: This ‘anomaly’ is also found for deaf people who can hear sound during their Near Death Experiences(NDEs).)
    http://www.newdualism.org/nde-.....-147-1.pdf

    This following video interview of a Harvard Neurosurgeon, who had a Near Death Experience (NDE), is very interesting. His NDE was rather unique from typical NDEs in that he had completely lost brain wave function for 7 days while the rest of his body was on life support. As such he had what can be termed a ‘pure consciousness’ NDE that was dramatically different from the ‘typical’ Judeo-Christian NDEs of going through a tunnel to a higher heavenly dimension, seeing departed relatives, and having a life review. His NDE featured his ‘consciousness’ going outside the confines of space/time, matter/energy altogether to experience ‘non-locally’ what he termed ‘the Core’, i.e to experience God. It is also interesting to note that he retained a ‘finite sense of self-identity’, as Theism would hold, and did not blend into the infinite consciousness/omniscience of God, as pantheism would hold.

    A Conversation with Near Death Experiencer Neurosurgeon Eben Alexander III, M.D. with Steve Paulson (Interviewer) – video
    http://www.btci.org/bioethics/...../vid3.html

  33. 33
    bornagain77 says:

    Just because you refuse to accept falsification for you split brain article does not mean that it is not refuted:

    Do split-brain cases disprove the existence of an immaterial soul? (Part Two)
    Dr. VJ Torley – July 20, 2013
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....-part-two/

    Man born without connection between two halves of brain functions normally— at 88
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-513076

    Here is a first person account of the split-brain experiment in which the person in the experiment testifies to being ‘one’ person although his actions were split:

    Excerpt: BTW, with regards to your citation of the split-brain experiments (and people who suffer from that due to injury, etc). I was involved in one of those split-brain experiments myself. (Which is possible by temporarily numbing the corpus callosum.) And believe me, it was the damnedest thing. The thing is, even though different parts of my brain were acting as if they had no knowledge of “each other”, behind it all was still “me”, consciously experiencing the strange disconnection.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-460565

    The Case for the Soul – InspiringPhilosophy – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBsI_ay8K70
    The Mind is able to modify the brain. Moreover, Idealism explains all anomalous evidence of personality changes due to brain injury, whereas physicalism does not explain mind.

  34. 34
    Joe says:

    keith s still thinks his strawman is a refutation of an immaterial soul. Par for the course but still bonkers

  35. 35
    rhampton7 says:

    If Barry Arrington’s hypothesis is correct, then consciousness exists in E. coli because bacterial swarming is a well documented example of emergent behavior.

  36. 36
    bornagain77 says:

    Although the ‘social networks’ of bacteria are very sophisticated and certainly defy any coherent explanation from the simplistic reductive (i.e. bottom up) materialistic narrative of Neo-Darwinism, I certainly would not call them ‘conscious’:

    Learning from Bacteria about Social Networks – video
    Description: Bacteria do not store genetically all the information required to respond efficiently to all possible environmental conditions. Instead, to solve new encountered problems (challenges) posed by the environment, they first assess the problem via collective sensing, then recall stored information of past experience and finally execute distributed information processing of the 109-12 bacteria in the colony,,, I will show illuminating movies of swarming intelligence of live bacteria in which they solve optimization problems for collective decision making that are beyond what we, human beings, can solve with our most powerful computers.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJpi8SnFXHs

  37. 37
    keith s says:

    rhampton7:

    If Barry Arrington’s hypothesis is correct, then consciousness exists in E. coli because bacterial swarming is a well documented example of emergent behavior.

    Barry isn’t claiming that every instance of emergent behavior is evidence of consciousness.

    He’s just pointing out that we don’t yet have a good explanation for how consciousness — subjective awareness — emerges from the physical interactions of neurons in a brain.

    I agree with him on that, but as I pointed out earlier, dualists and other “immaterialists” don’t have a good explanation of consciousness either. It’s “poofery” for them, too.

  38. 38
    keith s says:

    Barry, in the OP:

    Conversely, we can see how the principle is not in operation with respect to subjective self-awareness. As Thomas Nagel has said the “mental” is fundamentally different from the “physical.” The burden is therefore on those advancing an emergentist theory of consciousness to explain how “physical” events can cause “mental” events.

    Barry,

    More goose/gander. As a dualist or immaterialist, you have the opposite problem: explaining how an immaterial soul reaches down and pushes material particles around.

    When your soul decides to raise your pinky finger, how does it cause the neurons in your brain to fire in the right way, so that nerve impulses eventually reach the muscles in your hand?

  39. 39
    Aleta says:

    I’d like to change the nature of the conversation a bit, if anyone is interested. Irrespective of whatever the source of consciousness is, I’d like to hear more about what people are referring to when they talk about consciousness. In particular, my question is do you think other animals are conscious in ways that are similar to humans in some ways, and how would you describe those aspects of consciousness that you think are unique to humans?

    To be more specific, are gorillas conscious? Are dogs? Birds? Lizards? Fish?

    Here are some of my thoughts on these questions. We have what is probably called perceptual awareness – we see a tree, hear a bird call, smell a rose, etc. We have what appears to be an “internal” awareness of the world which is obviously accurate in that we interact successful with the world.

    We have no direct experience of other people’s consciousness in this regard. Theoretically only I could be conscious, but no one believes this – we all assume that other human beings have a similar internal experience of perceiving, consciously, the external world.

    Now what about a gorilla? He obviously appears to react appropriately to the world – he looks at and reaches for a banana quite successfully. Does he also have a similar internal experience to ours – is he conscious in this perceptual sense? Or does he not? Is he more like a robot that somehow processes the stimuli appropriately without a conscious awareness of all that sensory input?

    There is no way we can get into the mind of a gorilla (if we think he has one), so we can’t answer this question by direct investigation.

    Is the gorilla conscious in any way that is similar to our sense of perceptual consciousness?

    And if the gorilla is, in some way, what about the dog and bird and lizard and fish?

    What do you all think?

  40. 40
    Barry Arrington says:

    Keiths

    I agree with him on that, but as I pointed out earlier, dualists and other “immaterialists” don’t have a good explanation of consciousness either. . .

    When your soul decides to raise your pinky finger, how does it cause the neurons in your brain to fire in the right way, so that nerve impulses eventually reach the muscles in your hand?

    First, thank you for agreeing with the main thrust of the OP. Many materialists really struggle with that. Materialist seem to take one of two tacks on this issue.

    1. Some put their faith in emergence. That’s OK I suppose so long as they realize it is a faith commitment and not a conclusion based on empirical investigation. Sadly, many of them do not recognize that.

    2. Others deny that subjective self awareness exists. To them, I point to Bugs Bunny.

    To your point now. Haven’t you read your Descartes? The interface is in the pineal gland. 🙂

    Seriously, I am happy with “I don’t know.” I am, obviously, a dualist. I don’t really know how that works in practice. I am certainly not a Cartesian substance dualist. I find notions of Hylomorphic dualism attractive, but I admit that it is ultimately a mystery and likely to remain so.

  41. 41
    Barry Arrington says:

    Aleta,

    VJ Torley has written extensively on this topic here at UD. You can use our search function to find his articles.

  42. 42
    Phinehas says:

    keiths:

    I agree that there isn’t yet a satisfactory materialist account of consciousness, but allow me to point out what should be obvious, but is often overlooked: There is no satisfactory “immaterialist” account of consciouness either.

    The difference is that the materialist dogma may prevent them from ever approaching an understanding of consciousness, because it rules out some possibilities a priori.

  43. 43
    rhampton7 says:

    keith s, Barry Arrington,

    The materialist explanation is based on brain function, without which there is no consciousness. Futhermore, there is a link between brain size and complexity with degrees of consciousness (as Aleta alluded to with the question about animal consciousness).

    However, if X does not cause Y (the brain causes consciousness), then there is no reason reject consciousness in bacteria. And in fact, the ‘intelligent’ behavior exhibited in swarming would support the notion.

  44. 44
    bornagain77 says:

    Aleta, although I don’t pretend to be near Dr. Torley’s caliber on researching this matter, I would like to point out that the one attribute that humans possess, that most distinctly separates us from animals, is not an attribute of brute force, such as deadly teeth, speed, endurance, or strength, as would be expected on a Darwinian, ‘Nature red in tooth and claw’, view of things, but is the rather docile attribute of intelligence.

    Darwin’s mistake: explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds. – 2008
    Excerpt: To wit, there is a significant discontinuity in the degree to which human and nonhuman animals are able to approximate the higher-order, systematic, relational capabilities of a physical symbol system (PSS) (Newell 1980). We show that this symbolic-relational discontinuity pervades nearly every domain of cognition and runs much deeper than even the spectacular scaffolding provided by language or culture alone can explain,,,
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18479531

    Evolution of the Genus Homo – Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences – Ian Tattersall, Jeffery H. Schwartz, May 2009
    Excerpt: “Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for “early Homo,” finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.5–1.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to “early Homo” or Homo habilis/rudolfensis.”,,,,
    “Unusual though Homo sapiens may be morphologically, it is undoubtedly our remarkable cognitive qualities that most strikingly demarcate us from all other extant species. They are certainly what give us our strong subjective sense of being qualitatively different. And they are all ultimately traceable to our symbolic capacity. Human beings alone, it seems, mentally dissect the world into a multitude of discrete symbols, and combine and recombine those symbols in their minds to produce hypotheses of alternative possibilities. When exactly Homo sapiens acquired this unusual ability is the subject of debate.”
    http://www.annualreviews.org/d.....208.100202

    Moreover, this unique attribute of intelligence of humans, to ‘mentally dissect the world into a multitude of discrete symbols, and combine and recombine those symbols in their minds to produce hypotheses of alternative possibilities’, i.e. to process and create information, though obviously not directly related to the ‘red in tooth and claw’ mantra of Darwinists, is directly related to the Christian notion that we were made in God’s image.

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men.

    In fact, the three Rs, reading, writing, and arithmetic, i.e. the ability to process information, is the very first thing to be taught to children when they enter elementary school. And yet, very interestingly, it is information processing, i.e. reading, writing, and arithmetic, that is found to be foundational to life:

    Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer – video clip
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVkdQhNdzHU

    Moreover, even though humans possess the ability to create and process information, and even though information processing is found to be foundationl to life, no one has ever witnessed unguided material processes creating information.

    Is Life Unique? David L. Abel – January 2012
    Concluding Statement: The scientific method itself cannot be reduced to mass and energy. Neither can language, translation, coding and decoding, mathematics, logic theory, programming, symbol systems, the integration of circuits, computation, categorizations, results tabulation, the drawing and discussion of conclusions. The prevailing Kuhnian paradigm rut of philosophic physicalism is obstructing scientific progress, biology in particular. There is more to life than chemistry. All known life is cybernetic. Control is choice-contingent and formal, not physicodynamic.
    http://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/2/1/106/

    Moreover, it is information, not ‘material’, that is found to be foundational to the universe itself,,

    Quantum Teleportation of a Human? – video
    https://vimeo.com/75163272

    Conversations with William Dembski–The Thesis of Being as Communion – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYAsaU9IvnI

    Verse and Music:

    Genesis 1:26
    Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

    Casting Crowns – The Word Is Alive
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9itgOBAxSc

    Of supplemental note, despite what is commonly believed, as far as morphology and physiology are concerned, despite superficial similarity, we actually share very little morphology and physiology uniquely in common with chimps

    The Red Ape – Cornelius Hunter – August 2009
    Excerpt: “There remains, however, a paradoxical problem lurking within the wealth of DNA data: our morphology and physiology have very little, if anything, uniquely in common with chimpanzees to corroborate a unique common ancestor. Most of the characters we do share with chimpanzees also occur in other primates, and in sexual biology and reproduction we could hardly be more different. It would be an understatement to think of this as an evolutionary puzzle.”
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....d-ape.html

  45. 45
    Upright BiPed says:

    Aleta, you should pose your questions to GPuccio. If he has the time, he will probably give you some interesting things to consider.

  46. 46
    Aleta says:

    If gpuccio or VJ want to offer some thoughts, that would be interesting. Since I’m interested in discussion, I’m not, however, interested in tracking down and reading old threads.

    And to BA77, I agree that a major difference between our consciousness and the consciousness of other animals is our ability to represent the world symbolically through language, and to internalize language through thinking.

    But my question is more about the consciousness of other animals? Are they conscious in ways that are similar to some aspects to our consciousness, and if so, in what ways. What do people think about this?

  47. 47
    ppolish says:

    Aleta, I haven’t read this paper – but you might find it interesting. Wiki page: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki.....e_a_Bat%3F

    Keith, have you read Being as Communion like you told me you would? Great stuff for the IDer, terrible stuff for the Materialist yikes.

    “We are embodied beings, and the expression of who we are, including our free will, is limited by our bodies. In any case, to argue that material embodiment precludes free will requires much more than pointing out that brain damage is capable of affecting human action.” Page 13.

  48. 48
    Aleta says:

    Thanks, ppolish. I read it, but didn’t find it very illuminating. But, again, I’m interested in discussing with people here, and if no one wants to offer any thoughts, that’s fine – people only get involved in topics if they are interested and feel they have something to say, and perhaps my questions are not of interest to anyone.

  49. 49
    Mung says:

    Aleta: “I’m not, however, interested in tracking down and reading old threads.”

    poor keiths. old threads are all he has. But at least he isn’t the emperor who had no clothes.

  50. 50
    Mung says:

    keiths:

    We don’t yet have a satisfactory explanation of how consciousness arises from the physical brain, but the fact that it is inseparable from the physical brain is well established.

    Do you just never tire of making claims you can’t back up?

    Not only do we not know how “consciousness arises from the physical brain” we do not know that “consciousness arises from the physical brain.”

    Nor do we know that only beings with brains are conscious.

    Nor do we know how to test the claim that consciousness “is inseparable from the physical brain.”

    That said, I think Barry makes an unwarranted leap from D. Subjective self-awareness to Consciousness.

  51. 51
    keith s says:

    ppolish,

    Keith, have you read Being as Communion like you told me you would?

    I just started it yesterday. I thought it was interesting that in the preface, Dembski says he has plans to do a second edition of No Free Lunch with Robert Marks. Hopefully Marks will lend some rigor to the endeavor after fiascoes like this.

  52. 52
    keith s says:

    Barry:

    Seriously, I am happy with “I don’t know.” I am, obviously, a dualist. I don’t really know how that works in practice. I am certainly not a Cartesian substance dualist. I find notions of Hylomorphic dualism attractive, but I admit that it is ultimately a mystery and likely to remain so.

    Barry,

    I’m surprised that Christians such as you and vjtorley are attracted to hylomorphic dualism.

    For most Christians, the separability of the soul from the body is an important concept. Jesus said to the thief on the cross, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise”, which makes no sense unless the soul is separable.

    Yet under hylomorphic dualism, the soul is just the form of the body, and so presumably not separable.

    I remember asking vjtorley about this once, and he gave an answer that sounded bizarre to my ears. (I can’t find the conversation, so this is from memory.) He proposed that when the body died, the soul ceased functioning — except that God intervened and created an immaterial body that the soul could attach to and thus continue functioning.

    Not a very satisfying answer.

    Do you believe that the soul continues to function after the body has died? If so, how do you reconcile that with your rejection of substance dualism?

  53. 53
    Joe says:

    rhampton7:

    The materialist explanation is based on brain function,

    Yet the materialist cannot account for the brain.

  54. 54
    Joe says:

    explaining how an immaterial soul reaches down and pushes material particles around.

    LoL! keith s still doesn’t grasp the concept of the soul! That isn’t the soul’s function keith s. Obviously you didn’t learn anything when you were allegedly a christian.

  55. 55
    bornagain77 says:

    That the soul is separable from the temporal body is a question that is no longer confined to philosophical discussion but is a question that empirical science can now also address.
    First, in addressing this question of the existence of the soul may be able to live past the death of our temporal bodies, it is important to first note that matter can never go the speed of light.
    Regardless of how much energy we pour into a particle of matter, we can never ‘push’ the particle of matter to the higher dimension of the speed of light:

    Question: If a particle with rest-mass were to, in theory, travel at the speed of light, would its mass actually be infinite, or just very, very, very, large, just like it would supposedly take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate the particle to the speed of light in the first place? How can you calculate this?
    Answer 4: A particle with non-zero rest-mass cannot be accelerated to the speed of light. Put in other terms, the energy of a moving particle with rest-mass m equals E=(r-1)mc2, where the factor r=1/sqrt(1-(v/c)2), with v the speed of the particle and c the speed of light. You can use this formula in an Excel sheet to try different values of rest-mass m and speed v. This equation tells you that you need an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a particle to (exactly) the speed of light, however, you can always take it to, say 99.99999% the speed of light with a finite (but huge) amount of energy.
    http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=1571

    “By special relativity, the energy needed to accelerate a particle (with mass) grow super-quadratically when the speed is close to c, and is infinite when it is c.
    Since you can’t supply infinite energy to the particle, it is not possible to get (a particle with mass) to 100% c.”

    The reason why there is such a sharp division between the temporal realm of mass and the eternal realm of energy is that energy is of a higher dimensional value than matter is.

    To illustrate this ‘higher dimensional’ point for energy/light, please note what happens at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape around the direction of travel as a ‘hypothetical’ observer moves towards the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light,,

    “Seeing Relativity” – Approaching The Speed Of Light – Optical Effects – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5733303/
    (Of note: This preceding video was made by two Australian University Physics Professors with a supercomputer.)

    It is also important to note higher dimensions would be invisible to our physical 3 Dimensional sight. The reason why ‘higher dimensions’ are invisible to our 3D vision is best illustrated by ‘Flatland’:

    Dr. Quantum in Flatland – 3D in a 2D world – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWyTxCsIXE4

    It is also important to point out that time is ‘eternal’, not temporal, at the speed of light:

    “I’ve just developed a new theory of eternity.”
    Albert Einstein – The Einstein Factor – Reader’s Digest – 2005

    “The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass.”
    Richard Swenson – More Than Meets The Eye, Chpt. 12

    To grasp the whole ‘time coming to a complete stop at the speed of light’ concept a little more easily, imagine moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light. Would not the hands on the clock stay stationary as you moved away from the face of the clock at the speed of light? Moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light happens to be the same ‘thought experiment’ that gave Einstein his breakthrough insight into e=mc2.

    Albert Einstein – Special Relativity – Insight Into Eternity – ‘thought experiment’ video
    https://vimeo.com/93101738

    It is also very interesting to note that this strange higher dimensional, eternal, framework for time, found in special relativity (and also in general relativity), finds corroboration in Near Death Experience testimonies:

    ‘In the ‘spirit world,,, instantly, there was no sense of time. See, everything on earth is related to time. You got up this morning, you are going to go to bed tonight. Something is new, it will get old. Something is born, it’s going to die. Everything on the physical plane is relative to time, but everything in the spiritual plane is relative to eternity. Instantly I was in total consciousness and awareness of eternity, and you and I as we live in this earth cannot even comprehend it, because everything that we have here is filled within the veil of the temporal life. In the spirit life that is more real than anything else and it is awesome. Eternity as a concept is awesome. There is no such thing as time. I knew that whatever happened was going to go on and on.’
    In The Presence Of Almighty God – The NDE of Mickey Robinson – video
    https://vimeo.com/92172680

    The tunnel to a higher dimension, as shown in the ‘seeing relativity’ video, is also noted in Near death experiences:

    “I started to move toward the light. The way I moved, the physics, was completely different than it is here on Earth. It was something I had never felt before and never felt since. It was a whole different sensation of motion. I obviously wasn’t walking or skipping or crawling. I was not floating. I was flowing. I was flowing toward the light. I was accelerating and I knew I was accelerating, but then again, I didn’t really feel the acceleration. I just knew I was accelerating toward the light. Again, the physics was different – the physics of motion of time, space, travel. It was completely different in that tunnel, than it is here on Earth. I came out into the light and when I came out into the light, I realized that I was in heaven.”
    Barbara Springer – Near Death Experience – The Tunnel – video
    https://vimeo.com/79072924

    “Regardless, it is impossible for me to adequately describe what I saw and felt. When I try to recount my experiences now, the description feels very pale. I feel as though I’m trying to describe a three-dimensional experience while living in a two-dimensional world. The appropriate words, descriptions and concepts don’t even exist in our current language. I have subsequently read the accounts of other people’s near-death experiences and their portrayals of heaven and I able to see the same limitations in their descriptions and vocabulary that I see in my own.”
    Mary C. Neal, MD – To Heaven And Back pg. 71

    Where this gains traction in discussions about the soul is that it is now found that humans are ‘beings of light’:

    Are humans really beings of light?
    Excerpt: “We now know, today, that man is essentially a being of light.”,,, “There are about 100,000 chemical reactions happening in every cell each second. The chemical reaction can only happen if the molecule which is reacting is excited by a photon… Once the photon has excited a reaction it returns to the field and is available for more reactions… We are swimming in an ocean of light.”
    http://viewzone2.com/dna.html

    You can see an actual picture of humans emitting ‘biophotonic’ light here:

    Strange! Humans Glow in Visible Light – Charles Q. Choi – July 22, 2009
    Schematic illustration of experimental setup that found the human body, especially the face, emits visible light in small quantities that vary during the day. B is one of the test subjects. The other images show the weak emissions of visible light during totally dark conditions. The chart corresponds to the images and shows how the emissions varied during the day. The last image (I) is an infrared image of the subject showing heat emissions.
    http://i.livescience.com/image.....1296086873

    Moreover, this light coming from the human body is found to a emitted by a quantum process, it is not emitted by a classical process:

    Photocount distribution of photons emitted from three sites of a human body – 2006
    Excerpt: Signals from three representative sites of low, intermediate and high intensities are selected for further analysis. Fluctuations in these signals are measured by the probabilities of detecting different numbers of photons in a bin. The probabilities have non-classical features and are well described by the signal in a quantum squeezed state of photons. Measurements with bins of three sizes yield same values of three parameters of the squeezed state.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16520060

  56. 56
    bornagain77 says:

    And as with the tunnel to a higher dimension, and the ‘eternity of time’, we also have many testimonies from near death experiences of being in a body of light during the Near Death Experience:

    Coast to Coast – Vicki’s Near Death Experience (Blind From Birth) part 1 of 3
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e65KhcCS5-Y
    Quote from preceding video: ‘I was in a body and the only way that I can describe it was a body of energy, or of light. And this body had a form. It had a head. It had arms and it had legs. And it was like it was made out of light. And ‘it’ was everything that was me. All of my memories, my consciousness, everything.’ –

    Of related interest: If scientists want to find the source for the ‘supernatural’ light which made the “3D – photographic negative” image on the Shroud I suggest they look to the thousands of documented Near-Death Experiences (NDE’s) in Judeo-Christian cultures. It is in their testimonies that you will find mention of an indescribably bright ‘Light’ or ‘Being of Light’ who is always described as being of a much brighter intensity of light than the people had ever seen before.

    Ask the Experts: What Is a Near-Death Experience (NDE)? – article with video
    Excerpt: “Very often as they’re moving through the tunnel, there’s a very bright mystical light … not like a light we’re used to in our earthly lives. People call this mystical light, brilliant like a million times a million suns…”
    – Jeffery Long M.D. – has studied NDE’s extensively
    http://abcnews.go.com/Nightlin….._gydvW8jbI

    “Suddenly, I was enveloped in this brilliant golden light. The light was more brilliant that the light emanating from the sun, many times more powerful and radiant than the sun itself. Yet, I was not blinded by it nor burned by it. Instead, the light was a source of energy that embraced my being.”
    Ned Dougherty’s – Fast Lane To Heaven – Quoted from “To Heaven and Back” pg. 71 – Mary C. Neal MD

    Moreover, there is now evidence from quantum mechanics to support a ‘soul’, but what I’ve listed thus far is enough for now.
    Verses and Music:

    1 John 1:5-7
    “This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.”

    Acts 26:13-15
    at midday, O king, along the road I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining around me and those who journeyed with me. And when we all had fallen to the ground, I heard a voice speaking to me and saying in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ So I said, ‘Who are You, Lord?’ And He said, ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.

    Toby Mac (In The Light)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_MpGRQRrP0

  57. 57
    bornagain77 says:

    corrected link:

    Ask the Experts: What Is a Near-Death Experience (NDE)? – article with video
    Excerpt: “Very often as they’re moving through the tunnel, there’s a very bright mystical light … not like a light we’re used to in our earthly lives. People call this mystical light, brilliant like a million times a million suns…”
    – Jeffery Long M.D. – has studied NDE’s extensively
    http://abcnews.go.com/Nightlin....._gydvW8jbI

  58. 58
    bornagain77 says:

    Aleta at 46. of related interest, At the 17:38 minute mark of the following video, several experiments that show that some animals have a transcendent component to their being that is able to sense what the owner’s intentions are are gone over (reptile pets demonstrated no transcendent connection to their owners).

    The Mind Is Not The Brain – Scientific Evidence – Rupert Sheldrake – (Referenced Notes) – video
    http://vimeo.com/33479544

    What is interesting in the preceding video is that, at the 25:00 minute mark of the video, Sheldrake speaks of a well known skeptic that he invited to replicate his experiment for dogs. The results of the skeptic revealed the same pattern of ‘extended mind’ that Sheldrake had consistently witnessed for dogs, but the well known skeptic refused to accept the possibility that mind had anything to do with the results and tried to postulate another cause. Sad! ,,,

    Jaytee: A dog who knew when his owner was coming home – video
    https://vimeo.com/81150973
    Book:
    Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home:
    http://www.amazon.com/Dogs-Tha.....0307885968

  59. 59
    Axel says:

    “There are about 100,000 chemical reactions happening in every cell each second. The chemical reaction can only happen if the molecule which is reacting is excited by a photon… Once the photon has excited a reaction it returns to the field and is available for more reactions… We are swimming in an ocean of light.”’

    All random chance, BA. All random chance.

  60. 60
    Axel says:

    @Aleta #46

    Pending gpuccio’s post, Aleta, I’ll presume to give you my own £002, for what its worth.

    When our body dies, our soul and spirit are scarcely aware of it, indeed, according to the near-death experiences of many people, not until several seconds later, as they look down on their currently dead body.

    The soul comprises – I won’t say consists, because I don’t know if it has any other, lesser faculties – the memory, will and understanding; our spirit, on the other hand, is just that, our spirit that had somehow inhabited our body, and according to NDEs continues to roughly approximate its outline – although when appearing as ghosts to the living, appearing a facsimile of their fully-fleshed out and clothed, living selves.

    This can be easily extrapolated from Christian scripture. Very succinctly in the Virgin Mary’s Magnificat: ‘My soul glorifies the Lord, my spirit rejoices in God my saviour; the one, active, the other, passive.

    Animals, also appear to have a soul and a spirit, although their soul is more limited than ours, in that they don’t have free will; at least not as we know it. Household pets seem, after all, more than glorified computers and have distinct personalities.

    I read a post online on which a woman said that her recently-deceased cat used to appear to her when she was in the kitchen cooking. But with its characteristically quirky sense of humour, it used to stand just half-way through the wall between the kitchen and the adjoining room, looking at her.

    I’ve heard it said of other animals, too, and it is surely the case. Personality seems to require some sort of soul, which is why people who think computers will take over the world are too sharp.

    I strongly suspect that the soul of an animal would not be an effective substitute for that of a human observer in the Double Slit experiment.

  61. 61
    Axel says:

    In the second line of the penultimate paragraph, ‘too sharp’ should read, ‘not too sharp.’ Pot meet kettle.

  62. 62
    Mung says:

    keiths:

    I’m surprised that Christians such as you and vjtorley are attracted to hylomorphic dualism.

    But why?

    My aim in this essay is not to defend Cartesian dualism. Rather, it is to set out the groundwork for the sort of dualism that gets little attention and that, if any form of dualism is defensible, is by far the best candidate. It is called “hylemorphic dualism,” and is the dualism of Aristotle and the Aristotelians, most notably St. Thomas Aquinas and his followers.

    Hylemorphic Dualism by David Oderberg

    c.f.: Vallicella on hylemorphic dualism

    keiths:

    For most Christians, the separability of the soul from the body is an important concept…Yet under hylomorphic dualism, the soul is just the form of the body, and so presumably not separable.

    And yet Christians have been and continue to be “hylomorpic dualists.”

  63. 63
    Mung says:

    Notice how keiths is all over the map. HE can’t back up his claims about consciousness and so shifts to debating the soul.

    There’s nothing in the OP about a soul, and Barry says nothing in either of his posts in this thread about a soul (other than in a quote of keiths), but keiths wants to talk body/soul dualism. Just weird.

  64. 64
    gmilling says:

    I can destroy consciousness with chemical (materialist) means, physical (materialist) means, electromagnetic (materialist) means. What undisputed examples are there of being baked to destroy consciousness by non materialist means?

    I didn’t think so. Fail.

  65. 65
    bornagain77 says:

    It is not proper to say you can “destroy consciousness with materialist means”, since consciousness is a non-material entity. Can you destroy the number seven simply because you erase it off a chalk board? Certainly not! You can only say that you have prevented the chalkboard from expressing the number seven at that time. The same with consciousness. Dr. Pim Von Lommel puts the situation with consciousness like this:

    A Reply to Shermer Medical Evidence for NDEs (Near Death Experiences) – Pim van Lommel
    Excerpt: For decades, extensive research has been done to localize memories (information) inside the brain, so far without success.,,,,So we need a functioning brain to receive our consciousness into our waking consciousness. And as soon as the function of brain has been lost, like in clinical death or in brain death, with iso-electricity on the EEG, memories and consciousness do still exist, but the reception ability is lost. People can experience their consciousness outside their body, with the possibility of perception out and above their body, with identity, and with heightened awareness, attention, well-structured thought processes, memories and emotions. And they also can experience their consciousness in a dimension where past, present and future exist at the same moment, without time and space, and can be experienced as soon as attention has been directed to it (life review and preview), and even sometimes they come in contact with the “fields of consciousness” of deceased relatives. And later they can experience their conscious return into their body.
    http://www.nderf.org/vonlommel.....sponse.htm

    The Mystery of Perception During Near Death Experiences – Pim van Lommel – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avyUsPgIuQ0

    Dr Pim Van Lommel’s scientific studies on near-death experiences and consciousness
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8scc2YbXUk

  66. 66
    ppolish says:

    Doctor turns a patient’s consciousness off and then back on. 10 times out of 10. “Hey, she had a blank look on her face”.
    http://www.scientificamerican......D_20141121

  67. 67
    bornagain77 says:

    color me very unimpressed with their “Generates Consciousness’ claim:

    “One investigation focused on the role of the claustrum in integrating visual and auditory stimuli.”,,,
    Note that she did not become unconscious in the usual sense, because she could still continue to carry out simple behaviors for a few seconds if these were initiated before the stimulation started—behaviors such as making repetitive tongue or hand movements or repeating a word. Koubeissi was careful to monitor electrical activity throughout her brain to confirm that episodes of loss of consciousness did not accompany a seizure.

  68. 68
    bornagain77 says:

    Self-awareness in humans is more complex, diffuse than previously thought – August 22, 2012
    Excerpt: Self-awareness is defined as being aware of oneself, including one’s traits, feelings, and behaviors. Neuroscientists have believed that three brain regions are critical for self-awareness: the insular cortex, the anterior cingulate cortex, and the medial prefrontal cortex. However, a research team led by the University of Iowa has challenged this theory by showing that self-awareness is more a product of a diffuse patchwork of pathways in the brain – including other regions – rather than confined to specific areas. The conclusions came from a rare opportunity to study a person with extensive brain damage to the three regions believed critical for self-awareness. The person, a 57-year-old, college-educated man known as “Patient R,” passed all standard tests of self-awareness. He also displayed repeated self-recognition, both when looking in the mirror and when identifying himself in unaltered photographs taken during all periods of his life. “What this research clearly shows is that self-awareness corresponds to a brain process that cannot be localized to a single region of the brain,”,,,
    http://medicalxpress.com/news/.....ously.html

    A.I. Has Grown Up and Left Home – Dec. 19, 2013
    Excerpt: some patients with their Broca’s area destroyed can still understand language, due to the immense neuroplasticity of the brain. And language, in turn, is just a part of what we call “thinking.” If we can’t even pin down where the brain processes language, we are a far way from locating that mysterious entity, “consciousness.” That may be because it doesn’t exist in a spot you can point at.
    http://nautil.us/issue/8/home/.....-left-home

    also reminds me of this article by Dr. Egnor:

    Fallacies of Contemporary Neuroscience: “A Vast Collection of Answers, with No Memory of the Questions” – Michael Egnor – February 20, 2014
    Excerpt: [Scruton:] Neuroenvy… consist[s] of a vast collection of answers, with no memory of the questions. And the answers are encased in neurononsense of the following kind:
    ‘The brains of social animals are wired to feel pleasure in the exercise of social dispositions such as grooming and co-operation, and to feel pain when shunned, scolded, or excluded. Neurochemicals such as vasopressin and oxytocin mediate pair-bonding, parent-offspring bonding, and probably also bonding to kith and kin…’ (Patricia Churchland).
    As though we didn’t know already that people feel pleasure in grooming and co-operating, and as though it adds anything to say that their brains are ‘wired’ to this effect, or that ‘neurochemicals’ might possibly be involved in producing it. This is pseudoscience of the first order, and owes what scant plausibility it possesses to the fact that it simply repeats the matter that it fails to explain. It perfectly illustrates the prevailing academic disorder, which is the loss of questions.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....82351.html

  69. 69
    Me_Think says:

    If a Man can Mistake His Wife For A Hat and Voices Can Be Seen because of rewiring of brain, it simply means consciousness is a manifestation of physical brain. Just read wondering books on neurology by Dr. Oliver Sacks.

  70. 70
    Me_Think says:

    Just read wondering wonderful books on…
    ..and please don’t start abusing Oliver Sacks just because he is has written real life experiences.

  71. 71
    Me_Think says:

    he is has written .. My brain got rewired temporarily (No, I hear you – not permanently 🙂

  72. 72
    ppolish says:

    But c’mon, concluding one can turn consciousness off and back on by an electrode to a single spot based on a “blank look on her face”? This is Science? What is driving this kind of Science fcol.

    Maybe they touched the Hypnotize Spot. Or the Deep Sleep Spot (very close the the Hypnotize Spot btw). Or the That Idea Is so Dumb my Jaw Dropped and My Face Looked Blank Spot.

    And MeThink, it’s going to a lot more than ample evidence of altered states of consciousness to prove materialism.

  73. 73
    bornagain77 says:

    confusing sensory inputs to consciousness does not negate the primacy of consciousness in reality:

    “We regard promissory materialism as superstition without a rational foundation. The more we discover about the brain, the more clearly do we distinguish between the brain events and the mental phenomena, and the more wonderful do both the brain events and the mental phenomena become. Promissory materialism is simply a religious belief held by dogmatic materialists… who often confuse their religion with their science.”
    – John C. Eccles, The Wonder of Being Human: Our Brain and Our Mind, 1984 – Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1963
    http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/2568511

    Materialism of the Gaps – Michael Egnor (Neurosurgeon) – January 29, 2009
    Excerpt: The evidence that some aspects of the mind are immaterial is overwhelming. It’s notable that many of the leading neuroscientists — Sherrington, Penfield, Eccles, Libet — were dualists. Dualism of some sort is the most reasonable scientific framework to apply to the mind-brain problem, because, unlike dogmatic materialism, it just follows the evidence.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....15901.html

    Do Conscious Thoughts Cause Behavior? -Roy F. Baumeister, E. J. Masicampo, and Kathleen D. Vohs – 2010
    Excerpt: The evidence for conscious causation of behavior is profound, extensive, adaptive, multifaceted, and empirically strong.
    http://carlsonschool.umn.edu/assets/165663.pdf

    “Thought precedes action as lightning precedes thunder.”
    Heinrich Heine – in the year 1834

    Nonlocal Consciousness: An Explanatory Model for the Near-Death Experience – Pim van Lommel, M.D. – video
    http://www.btci.org/bioethics/...../vid1.html

    A Short History Of Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uLcJUgLm1vwFyjwcbwuYP0bK6k8mXy-of990HudzduI/edit

    Also see the measurement problem:

    The Measurement Problem in quantum mechanics – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB7d5V71vUE

    How observation (consciousness) is inextricably bound to measurement in quantum mechanics:
    Quote: “We wish to measure a temperature.,,,
    But in any case, no matter how far we calculate — to the mercury vessel, to the scale of the thermometer, to the retina, or into the brain, at some time we must say: and this is perceived by the observer. That is, we must always divide the world into two parts, the one being the observed system, the other the observer.”
    John von Neumann – 1903-1957 – The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, pp.418-21 – 1955
    http://www.informationphilosop.....s/neumann/

    On The Comparison Of Quantum and Relativity Theories – Sachs – 1986
    Excerpt: quantum theory entails and irreducible subjective element in its conceptual basis. In contrast, the theory of relativity when fully exploited, is based on a totally objective view.
    http://books.google.com/books?.....38;f=false

    As Wigner stated:

    “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.” Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays “Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays”; Eugene Wigner laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963.

  74. 74
    bornagain77 says:

    Me_Think, if your conscious experience of ‘me’ is simply ‘a manifestation of physical brain’, exactly who is this ‘me’ suppose to be in your handle ‘Me’_Think?

    Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.)
    http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.c.....oyne/?_r=0

  75. 75
    keith s says:

    Here is a UD thread in which ID supporters respond to my split-brain OP.

    Special bonus: seeing what happens when BA77 is challenged to make an argument in his own words.

  76. 76
    keith s says:

    ppolish,

    But c’mon, concluding one can turn consciousness off and back on by an electrode to a single spot based on a “blank look on her face”? This is Science?

    It wasn’t just based on the “blank look”:

    Led by Mohamad Z. Koubeissi, an associate professor in the department of neurology at George Washington University, the clinical team made a remarkable observation: electrically stimulating a single site with a fairly large current abruptly impaired consciousness in 10 out of 10 trials—the patient stared blankly ahead, became unresponsive to commands and stopped reading. As soon as the stimulation stopped, consciousness returned, without the patient recalling any events during the period when she was out. Note that she did not become unconscious in the usual sense, because she could still continue to carry out simple behaviors for a few seconds if these were initiated before the stimulation started—behaviors such as making repetitive tongue or hand movements or repeating a word. Koubeissi was careful to monitor electrical activity throughout her brain to confirm that episodes of loss of consciousness did not accompany a seizure.

    Amusingly, BA77 left the bolded parts out of his quote mine of the passage.

  77. 77
    Me_Think says:

    bornagain77 @ 74,
    Unitary consciousness depends on the signals received by brain as a result of agitation of sensory nerves of various sensory receptor. Whether the information gets stored as an integrated information which, in turn, is decomposable or not is debatable. Even those papers which think the signals are not decomposable state:

    While we intuitively assume that consciousness must be a fundamental property as defined from a God’s eye perspective,the attribution of this property always takes place in a social context. When people attribute consciousness to a system they are acknowledging a subjective inability to break it down into a set of independent components, forcing them to treat its actions as the behavior of a unified, integrated whole. The irreversibility here is observer-centric, as opposed to absolute.
    – Phil Maguire
    – Philippe Moser

    The reason there is little progress in consciousness study is obvious – no healthy person will allow neurologists to experiment with his brain, and this isn’t going to change, so research progress will be slow.

  78. 78
    bornagain77 says:

    Me_Think, information/memory, though it may be represented in material form, is not reducible to material form, and thus can never be truly ‘stored’ in material form. To think information, and or consciousness is emergent from material is ‘not even wrong’.

    keith s, your split brain article, like your ONH claim, has already been amply refuted.

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-530512

    That you refuse to accept that empirical refutation to you claim matters not one iota to me. Moreover, you have refused to address any of the the points that directly counter your materialistic position: such as,,

    The Case for the Soul – InspiringPhilosophy – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBsI_ay8K70
    The Mind is able to modify the brain. Moreover, Idealism explains all anomalous evidence of personality changes due to brain injury, whereas physicalism does not explain mind.

    Thus, keith s until you are willing to honestly address issues, both those that refute your position and those that seemed to support your position, why do expect anyone to take you seriously. ,,, You are the worse kind of investigator. One who refuses to let his claims be subject to countervailing evidence that refutes his position.

  79. 79
    bornagain77 says:

    Evidence that the Mind is not the Brain:

    The brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth. That is not all the brains on Earth, nor all human brains, but merely a single brain of a single human. With over 100 billion nerve cells, or neurons, and a quadrillion synapses, or connections, it is, as one researcher described, “truly awesome.” Researchers have found that the brain’s complexity is beyond anything they’d imagined, or as one evolutionist admitted, almost to the point of being “beyond belief.”

    Human brain has more switches than all computers on Earth – November 2010
    Excerpt: They found that the brain’s complexity is beyond anything they’d imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief, says Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology and senior author of the paper describing the study: …One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor–with both memory-storage and information-processing elements–than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth.
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-2708.....2-247.html

    Moreover, Darwinists can’t even explain a single protein of that ‘beyond belief’ complexity,,

    Stephen Meyer Critiques Richard Dawkins’s “Mount Improbable” Illustration – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rgainpMXa8

    Nor is there scant hope of Darwinists ever fully analyzing, in detail, the possible interactions of a single neural synapse:

    “Complexity Brake” Defies Evolution – August 8, 2012
    Excerpt: Consider a neuronal synapse — the presynaptic terminal has an estimated 1000 distinct proteins. Fully analyzing their possible interactions would take about 2000 years. Or consider the task of fully characterizing the visual cortex of the mouse — about 2 million neurons. Under the extreme assumption that the neurons in these systems can all interact with each other, analyzing the various combinations will take about 10 million years…, even though it is assumed that the underlying technology speeds up by an order of magnitude each year.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....62961.html

    Much less do darwinists/atheists have any clue how how the brain achieved optimization as to the placement of its individual components:

    Component placement optimization in the brain – 1994
    As he comments [106], “To current limits of accuracy … the actual placement appears to be the best of all possible layouts; this constitutes strong evidence of perfect optimization.,, among about 40,000,000 alternative layout orderings, the actual ganglion placement in fact requires the least total connection length.
    http://www.jneurosci.org/conte.....8.abstract

    Although descriptions of what is happening in the brain can be quite elaborate, in regards to consciousness, the ‘hard problem’ of consciousness is never honestly addressed in these descriptions of brain activity. David Chalmers is semi-famous for getting the ‘hard problem’ of consciousness across to lay people in a very easy to understand manner:

    David Chalmers on Consciousness (Philosophical Zombies and the Hard Problem) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Yo6VbRoo

    This following neuroscientist agrees that the ‘how’ of consciousness is never properly addressed by materialists:

    Consciousness: What are some concise ways to convince people that consciousness is not an emergent property?
    Excerpt: First off, “emergent property” is one of those hand-wavey terms people like to throw around without much substance behind it. A basic definition is something like complex properties that results from the interaction of simple behaviors.
    That doesn’t actually answer the how of consciousness particularly well by itself.,,,
    How do you explain the subjective experience of “redness”, let’s say. Saying simply that it’s the correlate of the neurophysiological response to certain rods and cones sensitive to certain light waves does not answer the question of why there is a gestalt qualitative experience of red.
    – Marc Ettlinger, Research Neuroscientist, Department of Veterans Affairs
    http://www.quora.com/Conscious.....38;share=1

    Here are a few more comments, from atheists no less, that agree with Chalmers on the insolubility of ‘hard problem’ of consciousness,,

    Darwinian Psychologist David Barash Admits the Seeming Insolubility of Science’s “Hardest Problem”
    Excerpt: ‘But the hard problem of consciousness is so hard that I can’t even imagine what kind of empirical findings would satisfactorily solve it. In fact, I don’t even know what kind of discovery would get us to first base, not to mention a home run.’
    David Barash – Materialist/Atheist Darwinian Psychologist
    – per UD News

    “We have so much confidence in our materialist assumptions (which are assumptions, not facts) that something like free will is denied in principle. Maybe it doesn’t exist, but I don’t really know that. Either way, it doesn’t matter because if free will and consciousness are just an illusion, they are the most seamless illusions ever created. Film maker James Cameron wishes he had special effects that good.”
    Matthew D. Lieberman – neuroscientist – materialist – UCLA professor

    Mind and Cosmos – Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False – Thomas Nagel
    Excerpt: If materialism cannot accommodate consciousness and other mind-related aspects of reality, then we must abandon a purely materialist understanding of nature in general, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology. Since minds are features of biological systems that have developed through evolution, the standard materialist version of evolutionary biology is fundamentally incomplete. And the cosmological history that led to the origin of life and the coming into existence of the conditions for evolution cannot be a merely materialist history.
    http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/pro.....9919758.do

    Here a Harvard neurosurgeon, who is now a former atheist who had a life changing Near Death Experience, comments on the ‘hard’ problem:

    The Science of Heaven by Dr. Eben Alexander – Nov. 18, 2012
    Can consciousness exist when the body fails? One neurosurgeon says he has seen it firsthand—and takes on critics who vehemently disagree.
    Excerpt: Many scientists who study consciousness would agree with me that, in fact, the hard problem of consciousness is probably the one question facing modern science that is arguably forever beyond our knowing, at least in terms of a physicalist model of how the brain might create consciousness. In fact, they would agree that the problem is so profound that we don’t even know how to phrase a scientific question addressing it. But if we must decide which produces which, modern physics is pushing us in precisely the opposite direction, suggesting that it is consciousness that is primary and matter secondary.
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/n.....eaven.html

    Although atheists have the impossible task of trying to ‘explain away’ the hard problem of consciousness, the Theist has a much easier task at hand. The Theist merely has to show that the mind is not the same thing as the brain. Here are a few simple ways to prove that the mind is not the same thing as the brain.

    One simple way of demonstrating that the mind is not the same thing as the brain comes from utilizing the ‘Law Of Identity’ to separate properties of mind from properties of the brain:

    Immaterial Mind – video (Law Of Identity)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=720zEnzgTyM

  80. 80
    bornagain77 says:

    Mind-Body Dualism – Is the Mind Purely a Function of the Brain? by Michael Egnor
    Conclusion: Strict materialism predicts that mental function will always correlate with brain function, because mental function is the same thing as brain function. Dualism predicts that mental function and brain function won’t always correlate, because mental function isn’t the same thing as brain function. The Cambridge findings are more consistent with the dualist prediction than with the strict materialist prediction.
    http://www.godandscience.org/e.....alism.html

    Six reasons why you should believe in non-physical minds – podcast and summary (Law of Identity: 6 properties of mind that are not identical to properties of the brain, thus the mind is not the brain)
    http://winteryknight.wordpress.....cal-minds/

    The Mind and Materialist Superstition – Six “conditions of mind” that are irreconcilable with materialism: Michael Egnor, professor of neurosurgery at SUNY, Stony Brook
    Excerpt: Intentionality,,, Qualia,,, Persistence of Self-Identity,,, Restricted Access,,, Incorrigibility,,, Free Will,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....super.html

    Alvin Plantinga has a humorous way of getting this ‘Law of Identity’ point across:

    Alvin Plantinga and the Modal Argument (for the existence of the mind/soul) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOTn_wRwDE0

    “It (my body) looked like pretty much what it was. As in void of life.”
    Pam Reynolds – Extremely Monitored Near Death Experience – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNbdUEqDB-k

    Another simple way of proving the mind is not the brain is by utilizing Godel’s incompleteness theorem.

    Alan Turing, who invented computers, infamously thought that his brain was merely a ‘Turing Machine’. This following poem teases the ‘merely a machine’ notion of Turing

    Alan’s brain tells his mind, “Don’t you blow it.”
    Listen up! (Even though it’s inchoate.)
    “My claim’s neat and clean.
    I’m a Turing Machine!”
    … ‘Tis somewhat curious how he could know it.

    Yet, in spite of Turing’s irrational belief that he was merely a machine, and although I don’t believe Turing ever actually admitted it, Alan Turing actually succeeded in extending Godel’s incompleteness theorem to material computers, and in doing so, thus undermining his own materialistic belief that he was merely a machine in the process. This point is illustrated in the following video and quote:

    Alan Turing & Kurt Godel – Incompleteness Theorem and Human Intuition – video (with Gregory Chaitin)
    https://vimeo.com/92387854
    Quote from video: Turing recast incompleteness in terms of computers and showed that since they are logic machines, there would always be some problems they would never solve. A machine fed one of these problems would never stop (halting problem). And worse, Turing proved there was no way of telling beforehand which these problems were.”

    The Limits Of Reason – Gregory Chaitin – 2006
    Excerpt: “an infinite number of true mathematical theorems exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms.”,,,
    http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin/sciamer3.pdf

    “Either mathematics is too big for the human mind or the human mind is more than a machine”
    ~ Kurt Godel

    The mathematical world – James Franklin – 7 April 2014
    Excerpt: “the intellect (is) immaterial and immortal. If today’s naturalists do not wish to agree with that, there is a challenge for them. ‘Don’t tell me, show me’: build an artificial intelligence system that imitates genuine mathematical insight. There seem to be no promising plans on the drawing board.”,,,
    James Franklin is professor of mathematics at the University of New South Wales in Sydney.
    http://aeon.co/magazine/world-.....-be-about/

    Gödel’s philosophical challenge (to Turing) – Wilfried Sieg – lecture video
    (“The human mind infinitely surpasses any finite machine.”)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=je9ksvZ9Av4

  81. 81
    bornagain77 says:

    It is also interesting to note that even though, as was shown in the Godel-Turing video, Alan Turing believed humans were merely machines, much like the computers he had envisioned, Turing failed to realize that his entire idea for computers came to him suddenly, ‘in a vision’ as he put it, thus confirming, in fairly dramatic fashion, Godel’s contention that humans had access to the ‘divine spark of intuition’. A divine spark which enables humans to transcend the limits he, and Godel, had found in the incompleteness theorem for computers, mathematics, (and even for all of material reality in general (Jaki)).

    Of related note, the following paper gives the ‘secret’ away for defeating the infamous ‘Turing test’:

    Algorithmic Information Theory, Free Will and the Turing Test – Douglas G. Robertson – 1999
    Excerpt: Chaitin’s Algorithmic Information Theory shows that information is conserved under formal mathematical operations and, equivalently, under computer operations. This conservation law puts a new perspective on many familiar problems related to artificial intelligence. For example, the famous “Turing test” for artificial intelligence could be defeated by simply asking for a new axiom in mathematics. Human mathematicians are able to create axioms, but a computer program cannot do this without violating information conservation. Creating new axioms and free will are shown to be different aspects of the same phenomenon: the creation of new information.
    “… no operation performed by a computer can create new information.”
    http://cires.colorado.edu/~dou...../info8.pdf

    I consider the preceding proofs (Law of Identity and Incompleteness) to be a pretty simple and solid ‘logical’ proofs for demonstrating that the mind is not the brain. On the emotional side, here is a touching proof that the mind is not the same thing as the brain

    This following video, although the girl in the video was written off as hopelessly retarded by everyone who saw her, reveals that there was/is indeed a gentle intelligence, a “me”, a “soul’, within the girl that was/is trapped within her body. And that that “me” was/is unable to express herself properly to others because of her neurological disorder. Here is a short teaser for her book telling the struggle of her ‘miracle’ breakthrough to be enable her to communicate with the outside world:

    Carly’s Café – Experience Autism Through Carly’s Eyes – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmDGvquzn2k

    Here is another ‘touching’ proof that the mind is not the brain.

    Miracle Of Mind-Brain Recovery Following Hemispherectomies – Dr. Ben Carson – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zBrY77mBNg

    Dr. Gary Mathern – What Can You Do With Half A Brain? – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrKijBx_hAw

    In other words, if the mind of a person were merely the brain, as materialists hold, then if half of a brain were removed then a ‘person’ should only be ‘half the person’, or at least somewhat less of a ‘person’, as they were before, but that is not the case. The ‘whole person’ stays intact even though the brain suffers severe impairment during a hemispherectomy:

    Removing Half of Brain Improves Young Epileptics’ Lives:
    Excerpt: “We are awed by the apparent retention of memory and by the retention of the child’s personality and sense of humor,” Dr. Eileen P. G. Vining; In further comment from the neuro-surgeons in the John Hopkins study: “Despite removal of one hemisphere, the intellect of all but one of the children seems either unchanged or improved. Intellect was only affected in the one child who had remained in a coma, vigil-like state, attributable to peri-operative complications.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08.....lives.html

    Strange but True: When Half a Brain Is Better than a Whole One – May 2007
    Excerpt: Most Hopkins hemispherectomy patients are five to 10 years old. Neurosurgeons have performed the operation on children as young as three months old. Astonishingly, memory and personality develop normally. ,,,
    Another study found that children that underwent hemispherectomies often improved academically once their seizures stopped. “One was champion bowler of her class, one was chess champion of his state, and others are in college doing very nicely,” Freeman says.
    Of course, the operation has its downside: “You can walk, run—some dance or skip—but you lose use of the hand opposite of the hemisphere that was removed. You have little function in that arm and vision on that side is lost,” Freeman says. Remarkably, few other impacts are seen. ,,,
    http://www.scientificamerican......than-whole

    The preceding evidence from hemispherectomies is a rather dramatic, and convincing, confirmation for the ‘argument from divisibility’ for the soul:

    Case for the Existence of the Soul – (Argument from Divisibility at 38:20 minute mark) – JP Moreland – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....age#t=2299

  82. 82
    bornagain77 says:

    Of related note, physicists are about to close last ‘loop hole’ for quantum entanglement,,, they are about to close the setting independence, i.e. ‘free will’, loop hole for quantum entanglement:

    Is Quantum Entanglement Real? – David Kaiser – Nov. 14, 2014
    Excerpt: Even with these great successes, work remains to be done. Every experimental test of entanglement has been subject to one or more loopholes, which hold out the possibility, however slim, that some alternative theory, distinct from quantum theory and more in line with Einstein’s intuitions, may still be salvageable. For example, one potential loophole — addressed by Dr. Aspect’s experiment — was that the measurement device itself was somehow transmitting information about one particle to the other particle, which would explain the coordination between them.
    The most stubborn remaining loophole is known as “setting independence.” Dr. Zeilinger and I, working with several colleagues — including the physicists Alan H. Guth, Andrew S. Friedman and Jason Gallicchio — aim to close this loophole, a project that several of us described in an article in Physical Review Letters.
    HERE’S the problem. In any test of entanglement, the researcher must select the settings on each of the detectors of the experimental apparatus (choosing to measure, for example, a particle’s spin along one direction or another). The setting-independence loophole suggests that, though the researcher appears to be free to select any setting for the detectors, it is possible that he is not completely free: Some unnoticed causal mechanism in the past may have fixed the detectors’ settings in advance, or nudged the likelihood that one setting would be chosen over another.
    Bizarre as it may sound, even a minuscule amount of such coordination of the detectors’ settings would enable certain alternative theories to mimic the famous predictions from quantum theory. In such a case, entanglement would be merely a chimera.
    How to close this loophole? Well, obviously, we aren’t going to try to prove that humans have free will. But we can try something else. In our proposed experiment, the detector setting that is selected (say, measuring a particle’s spin along this direction rather than that one) would be determined not by us — but by an observed property of some of the oldest light in the universe (say, whether light from distant quasars arrives at Earth at an even- or odd-numbered microsecond). These sources of light are so far away from us and from one another that they would not have been able to receive a single light signal from one another, or from the position of the Earth, before the moment, billions of years ago, when they emitted the light that we detect here on Earth today.
    That is, we would guarantee that any strange “nudging” or conspiracy among the detector settings — if it does exist — would have to have occurred all the way back at the Hot Big Bang itself, nearly 14 billion years ago.
    If, as we expect, the usual predictions from quantum theory are borne out in this experiment, we will have constrained various alternative theories as much as physically possible in our universe. If not, that would point toward a profoundly new physics.
    Either way, the experiment promises to be exciting — a fitting way, we hope, to mark Bell’s paper’s 50th anniversary.
    – David Kaiser is a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he teaches physics and the history of science. His latest book is “How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture, and the Quantum Revival.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11......html?_r=1

    My only question right now is not if they will close the free will loop hole but, “By how many standard deviations will they close it?”,,, These guys don’t mess around, they closed the last loophole by 70 standard deviations, and verified Leggett’s inequality by 120 standard deviations!

  83. 83
    ppolish says:

    Keith & Methink, “finding the on/off switch of consciousness” sounds fantastic but it is hype sorry. Materialist driven hype.

    Consciousness emerges poof when electrical stimulation is stopped? Consciousness ends when electrical stimulation is added to equation?

    With a computer, you unplug to turn off and plug in to turn on. A human brain works opposite? Add electricity to turn off? Remove electricity to turn on?

    Dudes, they knocked the poor patient unconscious. Induced dreamless sleep. Sent her into deep meditation. Electrically induced coma. On/Off switch is jype driven “Science”.

  84. 84
    ppolish says:

    If you jolt a power surge into a computer and blow a fuse it turns off. But calling that an “off switch” is a bit of a stretch. Something Tim the Toolman might claim. Calling it an “On/Off” switch is lame. Tim Taylor can even see that.

    On/Off switch is Pseudoscience. There must be funding and dogma involved.

  85. 85
    Barry Arrington says:

    keiths @ 52: You focus on two words in my comment and ignore the “rest of it.” Then you ask a question the answer to which is obvious from the “rest of it.” That is passing strange.

  86. 86
    Mapou says:

    Consciousness requires a duality by logical necessity. It takes two complementary opposite entities for consciousness to exist: a knower and a known. Since they are opposites, the knower cannot be known and the known cannot know. This is true by definition.

    Therefore, given that all physical matter can be known, it follows that the brain, being physical, cannot be its own knower. The latter is something else. It can never be known directly. It can only be inferred.

  87. 87
    keith s says:

    Barry,

    If the concept of the soul doesn’t make sense to you, or it’s ‘a mystery”, as you put it — then why do you accept its existence? Particularly when the evidence against it is so strong?

  88. 88
    bornagain77 says:

    keith s, your split brain article, despite how enamored you are with it, or how deaf you are to criticisms against it, hardly constitutes strong evidence against the existence of the soul.

    The Case for the Soul – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBsI_ay8K70

    Now keith s, exactly why are you so blind to this clear evidence against your position?

  89. 89
    keith s says:

    BA77,

    keith s, your split brain article, despite how enamored you are with it, or how deaf you are to criticisms against it, hardly constitutes strong evidence against the existence of the soul.

    Yet when you were challenged to explain why, in your own words, you punted.

    That’s not very persuasive, bornagain.

  90. 90
    bornagain77 says:

    keith s, science is driven by empirical evidence not by ‘my own words’, that is exactly why I cite evidence and not long personal opinions.
    If you understood that fact about science perhaps you would see why ‘your own words’ are so unpersuasive for me, and others on UD, in regards to the actual evidence at hand.

    The Scientific Method – Richard Feynman – video
    Quote: ‘If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY

  91. 91
    keith s says:

    BA77,

    If you don’t understand the issues well enough to make your argument in your own words, then you don’t understand them well enough to dismiss my argument as ‘unpersuasive’.

    You’re merely a spammer who cuts and pastes in support of your ideological precommitments.

  92. 92
    bornagain77 says:

    keith s, Calling empirical evidence that refutes your position ‘spam’ does not refute that empirical evidence. Presupposing that I do not understand the issues because I cite evidence instead of lengthy personal opinions is an unjustified assumption on your part since I certainly understand the issues enough to cite the evidence that refutes your position.

    If you were honest in your assessment of the evidence, and not dogmatic, you would admit to the empirical refutation of your preferred atheistic position and move on. But you refuse at all cost of your own reason to do this, since you, for whatever severely misguided reason, prefer atheistic nihilism to be true.

    That is sad for when you die, whether you admit it or not, you WILL have to give an account for yourself before God.

  93. 93
    keith s says:

    BA77,

    It’s not merely that you “cite evidence instead of lengthy personal opinions.” It’s that you can’t make the argument in your own words, even when asked. You can’t refute my argument, so you cite evidence you don’t understand in support of an argument you cannot make.

    Yours is a faith position, not a scientific one.

  94. 94
    bornagain77 says:

    keith s, you are making accusations of a personal nature to try to deflect from the fact that your position is without empirical warrant. Moreover, when I write lengthy personal opinions about the evidence you call them spam too. such as this ‘personal opinion’ of mine that you called spam instead of ever citing any empirical evidence against,,,

    1. Naturalism/Materialism predicted time-space energy-matter always existed. Whereas Theism predicted time-space energy-matter were created. Big Bang cosmology now strongly indicates that time-space energy-matter had a sudden creation event approximately 14 billion years ago.

    2. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the universe is a self sustaining system that is not dependent on anything else for its continued existence. Theism predicted that God upholds this universe in its continued existence. Breakthroughs in quantum mechanics reveal that this universe is dependent on a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause for its continued existence.

    3. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that consciousness is a ‘emergent property’ of material reality and thus should have no particularly special position within material reality. Theism predicts consciousness precedes material reality and therefore, on that presupposition, consciousness should have a ‘special’ position within material reality. Quantum Mechanics reveals that consciousness has a special, even a central, position within material reality. –

    4. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe. Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time. – Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 – 2 Timothy 1:9) –

    5. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and that life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind. Scientists find the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. Moreover it is found, when scrutinizing the details of physics and chemistry, that not only is the universe fine-tuned for carbon based life, but is specifically fine-tuned for life like human life (R. Collins, M. Denton).-

    6. Naturalism/Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe. Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex organic life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe (Gonzalez). –

    7. Naturalism/Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11). Geo-chemical evidence from the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth indicates that complex photo-synthetic life has existed on earth as long as water has been on the face of earth. –

    8. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the first life to be relatively simple. Theism predicted that God is the source for all life on earth. The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) –

    9. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse animal life to appear abruptly in the seas in God’s fifth day of creation. The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short “geologic resolution time” in the Cambrian seas. –

    10. Naturalism/Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record. Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. –

    11. Naturalism/Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man (our genus ‘modern homo’ as distinct from the highly controversial ‘early homo’) is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. (Tattersall; Luskin)–

    12. Naturalism/Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made – ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a “biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.”. –

    13. Naturalism/Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth – The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) –

    14. Naturalism/Materialism predicted morality is subjective and illusory. Theism predicted morality is objective and real. Morality is found to be deeply embedded in the genetic responses of humans. As well, morality is found to be deeply embedded in the structure of the universe. Embedded to the point of eliciting physiological responses in humans before humans become aware of the morally troubling situation and even prior to the event even happening.

    15. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that we are merely our material bodies with no transcendent component to our being, and that we die when our material bodies die. Theism predicted that we have minds/souls that are transcendent of our bodies that live past the death of our material bodies. Transcendent, and ‘conserved’, (cannot be created or destroyed), ‘non-local’, (beyond space-time matter-energy), quantum entanglement/information, which is not reducible to matter-energy space-time, is now found in our material bodies on a massive scale.

    Let’s face it keith s, you consider anything, whether evidence or personal opinion, that refutes your position to be ‘spam’ regardless of what it actually is because you are dogmatically committed to your atheism no matter what the evidence says to the contrary.,,, You are the worse kind of ‘scientist/investigator’ there could possibly be because you refuse to fairly consider evidence against your position but instead personally attack anyone who questions your unsubstantiated position!

Leave a Reply