If it exists, it has atoms

[Willum]

So I am just putting this out there as a thought-provoker:

If something exists, it is composed of atoms or is an energy or force: Electromagnetic, Gravitational, Strong Nuclear Force, Weak Nuclear Force and Neutron Degeneracy.

Is there anything that is an exception to this conjecture?

[Bust Nak]

Every bit of information to a digital image is "directly" observable. That's true from the basic level (the digital encoding) all the way up to the top level (the actual image on the screen).

Is it? How do you know there isn't some ghost in the shell that isn't directly observable?

We have clear evidence that digital imagery relies on light and monitors to be seen. There's no evidence that it does not.

We have clear evidence that mental imagery relies on the brain to be seen. There's no evidence that it does not.

Emergent dualism factors in that brain and consciousness are connected. But it also acknowledges that the effect is drastically different from the basic level that that caused it. A simple way to prove my point is to make a list of all of the properties of the lower level parts and a list of all of the higher level properties. One clear example is that neural activity is observable/physical, while subjective experience is not. Another example is mental imagery can have visual properties while neural activity (flow of electrons/chemicals) does not.

That doesn't really answer my question, why would any of that warrant the introduction of something other than brain chemistry to explain subjective experience?

You have no verified/tested explanation...

Granted, but that doesn't warrant the introduction of anything other than material though.

I've presented evidence of some notable scientists abandoning the purely reductionistic approach which takes a level of the physical out of the picture.

I would ask them the same questions.

[William]

[Replying to post 89 by Bust Nak]

We have clear evidence that mental imagery relies on the brain to be seen. There's no evidence that it does not.

What do you think the evidence would look like if it wasn't the case? How do you know there isn't some ghost in the shell that isn't directly observable, but which allows for the mental imagery to be seen and uses the brain as part of the process of making the unseen, seen?

That doesn't really answer my question, why would any of that warrant the introduction of something other than brain chemistry to explain subjective experience?

As has been well argued, it is not a case of 'other than' but 'as well as'. The reasons have all been given.

You have no verified/tested explanation...

Granted, but that doesn't warrant the introduction of anything other than material though.

The point is the 'introduction' might have always existed and never been introduced. The theory of consciousness being emergent of brains may be the 'introduced'.

[Bust Nak]

What do you think the evidence would look like if it wasn't the case?

Don't know, you tell me.

How do you know there isn't some ghost in the shell that isn't directly observable, but which allows for the mental imagery to be seen and uses the brain as part of the process of making the unseen, seen?

Something like a television being able to pick up unseen signals?

As has been well argued, it is not a case of 'other than' but 'as well as'. The reasons have all been given.

Meh, X as well as Y implies Y is something other than X. I don't care for semantics. As for reasons, they boil down to the lack of verified/tested explanation for consciousness. To which I'd say, not very good reasons.

The point is the 'introduction' might have always existed and never been introduced. The theory of consciousness being emergent of brains may be the 'introduced'.

But with emergence, nothing is added to what we do have verified/tested explanation for.

[William]

[Replying to post 91 by Bust Nak]

What do you think the evidence would look like if it wasn't the case?

Don't know, you tell me.

I am not the one claiming that some other type of evidence is necessary in order to go along with the idea that consciousness may well be independent of brain emergent processes.
But if I did believe that, I would think that in making a demand for evidence I would at least have some kind of idea as to what type of evidence that would entail. If not, then I would not make demands. Not saying you are making such demands, but I am sure you might agree it is a common practice among believers in the idea that consciousness is emergent of the brain, to make such demands.

How do you know there isn't some ghost in the shell that isn't directly observable, but which allows for the mental imagery to be seen and uses the brain as part of the process of making the unseen, seen?

Something like a television being able to pick up unseen signals?

Yes. There is little use in a television or signal if there is no consciousness to acknowledge it. I lean toward the idea that consciousness is actually limited within whatever form it occupies. I have experienced OOB and in that things were more acute than I normally experience.
I think this is why dreams are not clearly remembered even after being so immersed in them - upon awakening, our bodies act as barriers to clearly recall the details, as our focus of experience shifts to the daily routine.

Meh, X as well as Y implies Y is something other than X. I don't care for semantics.

You are free to think however you want of course. For me though, '3' is 'other than' '4' and together they make something 'other than' '3' or '4', but the reality is that they are still occupying the same universe and working together in relation to that.

This is all I was pointing to. Consciousness is indeed 'other than' the physical, but there is no reason to think anything untoward is going on.

As for reasons, they boil down to the lack of verified/tested explanation for consciousness. To which I'd say, not very good reasons.

You are free to believe what you will of course. Verified/tested observations should not be confused with explanations which attach themselves as interpretations of the evidence. Specifically that is the very good reasons why one should conflate observation with explanation.

IF you were to die tomorrow and find yourself still existing in another type of reality, your 'explanations' would cease to be relevant, thus they are not relevant now, and science certainly isn't saying they are.

[Bust Nak]

I am not the one claiming that some other type of evidence is necessary in order to go along with the idea that consciousness may well be independent of brain emergent processes.

Right you are. I was the one said empirical evidence is necessary in order to go along with the idea that consciousness may well be independent of brain emergent processes. Do you have any?

But if I did believe that, I would think that in making a demand for evidence I would at least have some kind of idea as to what type of evidence that would entail.

Not very specifically, empirical evidence, testable in a lab. The usual.

Yes. There is little use in a television or signal if there is no consciousness to acknowledge it. I lean toward the idea that consciousness is actually limited within whatever form it occupies...

For me though, '3' is 'other than' '4' and together they make something 'other than' '3' or '4', but the reality is that they are still occupying the same universe and working together in relation to that.

This is all I was pointing to. Consciousness is indeed 'other than' the physical, but there is no reason to think anything untoward is going on.

If there isn't anything untoward is going on, limited within the brain it occupies, then why not just use the nothing-untowards-term of "physical" or "material?"

You are free to believe what you will of course. Verified/tested observations should not be confused with explanations which attach themselves as interpretations of the evidence. Specifically that is the very good reasons why one should conflate observation with explanation.

IF you were to die tomorrow and find yourself still existing in another type of reality, your 'explanations' would cease to be relevant, thus they are not relevant now, and science certainly isn't saying they are.

Right, but why would you go beyond the 'explanations' until you have good reason to? Finding myself in another type of reality would be a good reason and I will simply change my mind if I was to find myself in another reality, but not one moment before that.

[William]

[Replying to post 93 by Bust Nak]

Right you are. I was the one said empirical evidence is necessary in order to go along with the idea that consciousness may well be independent of brain emergent processes. Do you have any?

Are we going to play that old circular argument game?

My posts in this thread have already covered this. I have the same evidence and that evidence is not conclusive one way or the other. If you can show me conclusive evidence for what you are claiming, I am all ears. I hold others to the same logic I mentioned in my last post. If I demand evidence I must name the type of evidence I am demanding, or my demands are empty foolishness.

Is there some other type of evidence you feel is necessary in order to show that consciousness may not be emergent of the brain?

If you can think of none, then the question obviously remains open and the evidence we do have remains inconclusive and open to interpretation.

If there isn't anything untoward is going on, limited within the brain it occupies, then why not just use the nothing-untowards-term of "physical" or "material?"

Because there are non-physical aspects to the material world, as is explained in detail in posts members have contributed to this thread already.

Right, but why would you go beyond the 'explanations' until you have good reason to? Finding myself in another type of reality would be a good reason and I will simply change my mind if I was to find myself in another reality, but not one moment before that.

The part in bold is a question to the royal 'you' and specifically one which is only asked by those who have no experience in another type of reality.

I have, and indicate strongly in my posts in this (and other related threads) that these experience add to the evidence I have subjectively gather - I call this evidence my 'Data of Experience'.

Interestingly enough, I think that before I had such experiences, I was of the opinion that GOD, other realities, were all logically possible and it may be that generally this understanding can help the individual access these as experiences.

Having said that, I have read information where people almost accidentally access these alternate experiences in that they did not first think these were possible, and did not even think much about such possibilities at all, if ever. One such individual who springs to mind is the Physicist Thomas Campbell who discovered the alternate reality by literally stumbling upon it, and since that day he has been involved in conducting research into OOBE and sharing his findings.

Ordinarily one has to do the study - the hard work as experiences don't just fall into ones lap. Personal effort is required, especially where the individual can indeed make those efforts.

The italic part of your quote above identifies something to which - apparently - you could accept as evidence...

[Bust Nak]

Are we going to play that old circular argument game?

That's up to you. Acknowledge you have no empirical evidence and I'll stop asking.

My posts in this thread have already covered this. I have the same evidence and that evidence is not conclusive one way or the other.

I want to hear an explicit "I have no evidence that there is something extra to consciousness other than the material" though.

If you can show me conclusive evidence for what you are claiming, I am all ears. I hold others to the same logic I mentioned in my last post. If I demand evidence I must name the type of evidence I am demanding, or my demands are empty foolishness.

The type is easy: empirical. What form that would take is up to you.

If you can think of none, then the question obviously remains open and the evidence we do have remains inconclusive and open to interpretation.

The point was, that's conclusive enough to conclude that the brain is all there is to it.

Because there are non-physical aspects to the material world, as is explained in detail in posts members have contributed to this thread already.

Then say material instead of physical then.

The part in bold is a question to the royal 'you' and specifically one which is only asked by those who have no experience in another type of reality.

I have, and indicate strongly in my posts in this (and other related threads) that these experience add to the evidence I have subjectively gather - I call this evidence my 'Data of Experience'.

You are referring to OOB experience? Lets say we can induce such experience on demand with a zap to the right place in the brain (or more typically with selected drugs,) would that be enough to convince you that it's material? Or perhaps you already accept that it's material given that you said there was nothing untoward with it?

Interestingly enough, I think that before I had such experiences, I was of the opinion that GOD, other realities, were all logically possible and it may be that generally this understanding can help the individual access these as experiences.

Having said that, I have read information where people almost accidentally access these alternate experiences in that they did not first think these were possible, and did not even think much about such possibilities at all, if ever. One such individual who springs to mind is the Physicist Thomas Campbell who discovered the alternate reality by literally stumbling upon it, and since that day he has been involved in conducting research into OOBE and sharing his findings.

Ordinarily one has to do the study - the hard work as experiences don't just fall into ones lap. Personal effort is required, especially where the individual can indeed make those efforts.

The italic part of your quote above identifies something to which - apparently - you could accept as evidence...

I and not prepare to die first to find out.

[William]

[Replying to post 95 by Bust Nak]

You are referring to OOB experience?

That is part of my overall DoE, yes

Lets say we can induce such experience on demand with a zap to the right place in the brain (or more typically with selected drugs,) would that be enough to convince you that it's material?

On demand? Are you sure about that? Are you saying that if I demand you do what you say you can do, that can do so immediately and you will do it?

That would be the first thing to establish. Is the claim true?

Otherwise I can accept it as hearsay, no more, no less.

Do that, and then I will be able to answer your question as to whether that would that be enough to convince me that it's material.

Replicate what I have experienced. Exactly.

But before we even contemplate that, let's just say that you poke my brain in an attempt to replicate my experiences and in doing so I experience something that isn't even remotely like my experiences, and in telling you this, all you have is hearsay.
Indeed- even If I claimed that it was exactly like my experience, all you would still have is hearsay.

Not that hearsay isn't still useful, but it isn't empirical as far as evidence goes.

Or perhaps you already accept that it's material given that you said there was nothing untoward with it?

I was really saying that there was nothing untoward with the co-existing of non-material and material. So no, I was not saying that non material was material. Surely the reader understands this has already been clearly defined by various posters in this thread, so continued argument re this can only be regarded as circular.

Interestingly enough, I think that before I had such experiences, I was of the opinion that GOD, other realities, were all logically possible and it may be that generally this understanding can help the individual access these as experiences.

Having said that, I have read information where people almost accidentally access these alternate experiences in that they did not first think these were possible, and did not even think much about such possibilities at all, if ever. One such individual who springs to mind is the Physicist Thomas Campbell who discovered the alternate reality by literally stumbling upon it, and since that day he has been involved in conducting research into OOBE and sharing his findings.

Ordinarily one has to do the study - the hard work as experiences don't just fall into ones lap. Personal effort is required, especially where the individual can indeed make those efforts.

I and not prepare to die first to find out.

Then do the serious study. There is plenty of information available and if you can place belief/disbelief aside I see no reason why you cannot gain experience which can help you be prepared before you finally experience the death of your body.

[Bust Nak]

On demand? Are you sure about that? Are you saying that if I demand you do what you say you can do, that can do so immediately and you will do it?

No, I am asking IF I can do that would you then accept it is material.

Do that, and then I will be able to answer your question as to whether that would that be enough to convince me that it's material.

Replicate what I have experienced. Exactly.

Okay, at least that's something to work towards, that is sounding very much like a yes to my question.

But before we even contemplate that, let's just say that you poke my brain in an attempt to replicate my experiences and in doing so I experience something that isn't even remotely like my experiences, and in telling you this, all you have is hearsay.
Indeed- even If I claimed that it was exactly like my experience, all you would still have is hearsay.

Not that hearsay isn't still useful, but it isn't empirical as far as evidence goes.

Woah there. Polling people is an established method for collecting EMPIRICAL data, you can't dismiss that just because it's self assessed reporting.

I was really saying that there was nothing untoward with the co-existing of non-material and material. So no, I was not saying that non material was material. Surely the reader understands this has already been clearly defined by various posters in this thread, so continued argument re this can only be regarded as circular.

But I still don't get why you want to separate non-material and material, when what you are describing here, sound very much like how radio waves can be considered non-material, and yet materialist wouldn't find the least bit uncomfortable with.

Then do the serious study. There is plenty of information available and if you can place belief/disbelief aside I see no reason why you cannot gain experience which can help you be prepared before you finally experience the death of your body.

Why do I need to prepare for it though? I am planning on just letting it happen.

[William]

[Replying to post 97 by Bust Nak]

Woah there. Polling people is an established method for collecting EMPIRICAL data, you can't dismiss that just because it's self assessed reporting.

Preaching to the choir there Bust Nak. That is why I advise those who are looking for evidence to read what people share about their experiences and delve deeper into the history of human OOBEs and associated subjects.

But I still don't get why you want to separate non-material and material, when what you are describing here, sound very much like how radio waves can be considered non-material, and yet materialist wouldn't find the least bit uncomfortable with.

I am not wanting to separate the two. Just acknowledge the differences. The one animates the other.

Why do I need to prepare for it though? I am planning on just letting it happen.

If you studied up on the subject then you will effectively be preparing for it, and getting insight which could prove valuable.

When going on a trip, do you just 'let it happen' or 'make preparations'?

But sure, if you are just going to let it happen, that is your choice. As long as you don't have a problem with the whole idea being possible. But if you are 'planning' that when your body dies, that will be the end of you and your experiences, and want to argue for that position, then you will meet with reasonable argument against that belief - at least from me, at present.