It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Watch interviews with the 2024 Tony nominees
Before the Tony Awards are presented June 16, watch "Sunday Morning" and "CBS Mornings" behind-the-scenes features and interviews with this year's nominated performers and...
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.94  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: type of energy    consciousness   Energy   soul  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 45%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: corporeal consciousness    emergent propriety of brains   evidence   Consciousness  
  Relevant (Beta): 86%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 60%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 79%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.18  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: lack of evidence    evidence   consciousness   brain  
  Relevant (Beta): 77%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 60%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.32  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: plenty    evidence   understatement   search  
  Relevant (Beta): 89%  
  Learn More About Debra
Well- we may not have data or testable evidence- we do have very interesting consistent experiences unexplainable by science. Take Astral Projection for example. There are theories explaining it, yes, but this doesn't explain the consistency of it. People describe it the same way; Right down to a silver thread connecting their floating self to their body. While we may not be completely certain when applying the scientific method, there are some things that can't be explained by science, but may still exist. The possibility of a soul is one.
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: testable evidence    scientific method   data   Astral Projection  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Science can explain how they happen, can provoke some of them (meditation techniques, drug induced, physically altering the brain), but they are all subjective experiences in essence, and science is not in that business... Science will never be able to explain "what it is like to taste chocolate", it will show which areas of the brain are stimulated when you do, but cannot say nothing about the experiencing itself.
Now, the consistency of those subjective experiences just tells us that we do have such experiences, nothing else... Is the consistency of reported alien abduction experiences enough to assert that actual aliens do abduct people? The consistency of those astral projections, NDE/OBE, alien abductions, etc, is easily explainable with one word : suggestion...
All it takes is one person describing his/her experience to people and it's enough to spread into other minds... There's a reason those "experience" are always described the same, it's because you read it or heard it somewhere, in folklore, fairy tales, religion, etc, it suggestively implanted itself in your memory and if or when, you have one of those experience, your brain will recall that information and be influenced by it, you'll use those same references to describe your own experience...
There are meditation techniques that will, with practice, make you experience an "out of body" event, but you do not actually "leave your body", you just 'feel" like it, just like stimulating a specific spot in your brain can make you experience the smell of burnt toasts or the taste of chocolate... With enough time, we might produce nano-delivery systems of specific drugs or other stimuli to narrowly targeted areas of the brain to actually manufacture those experiences on demand...
The soul falls into that folkloric realm too... There's never been evidence of any, and frankly, there is no need for one either.
Sure, it's fun to fictionalize, it's in our nature to see patterns, we're biologically compelled to seek them, so much so that we often create some where there are none. We must stay aware of that, lest we delude ourselves...
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.12  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 44%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: only way    reason   consciousness   experience  
  Relevant (Beta): 26%  
  Learn More About Debra
We do not assume that consciousness requires a brain, we only observe that it does...
If consciousness were a completely separate substance from the brain, how could it be possible that every single time the brain is injured, the mind is also injured? Indeed, it is very frequently the case that one can even predict and explain the kind of mental or psychological deterioration or change that human beings will undergo when specific parts of their brains are damaged.
So the question for the dualist to try to confront is how can all of this be explained if the mind is a separate and immaterial substance from, or if its properties are ontologically independent of, the brain.
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.08  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: ...     human beings   separate substance   single time  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 84%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: human concept    brain   signal point   consciousness  
  Relevant (Beta): 64%  
  Learn More About Debra
First, "The Mind is a human concept...", well sure, every single concept you can think of will be a human one so I fail to see the relevancy of that point... And no one "believes" that consciousness requires a brain, we observe that it does, there's no belief here only observations... We never, not a single time, in all of human history so far, observed (directly or indirectly) any evidence of incorporeal consciousness of any kind...
See, it's like the Invisible Purple Unicorn of Happiness, there has never been any evidence of such a magnificent creature, and it would be like me asking you "why don't you believe it exists? Since absence of proof is not proof of absence, you thus can't deny its existence... And if you can't deny its existence then why don't you believe it?".
There's no evidence whatsoever supporting the possibility of incorporeal consciousness, why would I believe in anything without the tiniest bit of evidence? Provide me with evidence of this and I'll gladly reconsider but until then, there is no valid reason to. It's still a possibility, but so incredibly remote (I'm understating here) that, to me at least, doesn't warrant any serious inquiry, do so as a hobby sure, I have fun ideas linking consciousness with quantum theories, but I don't delude myself about the reality of them, they're just sci-fi musings...
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 79%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.82  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: growing Theory    quantum mechanics   physical reality   time travel  
  Relevant (Beta): 24%  
  Learn More About Debra
That theory is not "growing", it is very marginal and it all stems from a misunderstanding of the "Observer effect" and the collapse of a wavefunction...
Whether we take the double-slit experiment or Schrodinger's conjecture, these are all incorrect interpretations of the observer effect. In each one, there is an underlying assumption of a conscious observer altering or fulfilling the results in the real universe with their perception or knowledge. In the double slit experiment, the observer has an effect by knowing which slit an electron or photon passes through. In Bishop Berkley’s tree falling in the forest, the sound is only present if there is a human ear to hear it. In Schrodinger’s Cat, the state of the cat is undetermined until the box is opened and a person looks inside.
To think about how the observer is vaguely or incorrectly specified, we should ask ourselves, “When precisely does the observation actually occur?” Is it when the photons from the slit-detector first reach the light-sensitive molecules in our retina? Or when sound stimulates the ear drum? When that causes an electrical signal in the optic nerve or the cochlea? When that signal reaches the occipital cortex or temporal lobe? When it is transmitted to the frontal cortex? Or only when the (likely nonexistant) soul is informed?
Is consciousness required for the observation? Experiments with severing the corpus callosum demonstrate that one half of the brain can identify an image without the conscious awareness of the other half. So, the answer seems to be that consciousness is not required for observation. Or, at best, that “consciousness” is so poorly understood that saying it is *required* for the universe (or any part of it) to exist, is simply another form of “god of the gaps” mysticism.
Bishop Berkley was confused about cause and effect and so is Robert Lanza. More than anything, these “observer effects” are all arguments to support the (perhaps unspoken) claim that “consciousness” is special, whether human consciousness or the conscious intent of a Creator.
In essence, the argument says, “Look! Here’s something we don’t understand (physical existence). Let’s take something else we don’t understand (consciousness or a Creator) and say that the first thing depends on the second thing.”
So, how can we understand what is really meant by the act of observation. In “Hidden In Plain Sight” physicist Andrew Thomas says:
In the double-slit experiment, the electron is “observed” by the detector at the slit. The state of Schrodinger’s Cat is “observed” by the air it breathes (or not) inside the box, which is “observed” by interacting with the molecules of the box, which is “observed” by interacting with photons in the rest of the universe. The simple act of a particle *interacting* in any way with other particles in the universe, means it is “observed” by the universe. It’s quantum state (or wave function) collapses at that point; indeterminacy becomes resolved.
Consciousness plays no role in that observation.
If you want to see quantum indeterminacy on the macroscale, you need to completely isolate the thing you are observing from the rest of the universe. That’s hard to do. Even the deepest vacuum of space has light (photons) passing through it. Plus, virtual particles arise constantly even in a quantum vacuum devoid of any other particles of matter (including photons). Isolating something from the universe would require it not to even be capable of interacting with any of the real or virtual particles of this universe. But then it would be completely separate form this universe, including any of its observers. The question of the “observer effect” would become irrelevant in this universe.
The physicist Richard Feynman said, “Nature does not know what you are looking at, and she behaves the way she is going to behave whether you bother to take down the data or not.”
So, those who claim observers *create* reality in this universe can only be true if either 1) the universe is a simulation; or 2) they live in a solipsistic universe...
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 44%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: quantum mechanics of today    link   turtles   way  
  Relevant (Beta): 40%  
  Learn More About Debra
Of course I did read it, and although I'm not actually holding a theoretical physics degree nor working in that field, I do try to keep up, it's not an obsession mind you but I'm more aware than the lambda citizen... And anyway, it is irrelevant to my last post... Care to address the points? Can you?
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: theoretical physics degree    obsession mind   field   Care  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
That’s not true and is totally inaccurate , what “experiences” can science not explain
Astral projection is absolute nonsense and regarded as such by rational beings
I’ve spent a lifetime debunking such nonsense on a committee of magicians who are expert at debunking such nonsense , indeed the Randi foundation in the U S does the same job and offers 1 million dollars to anyone who can demonstrate “psychic powers “ they have come and not one has passed the test yet
People describe it actually in different ways depending on which societies they live in and which belief system they follow just like near death experiences a Muslims from Saudi Arabia being totally different to a Christians from the U S , why is that do you think?
  Considerate: 67%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.6  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: such nonsense    testable evidence   Astral Projection   different ways  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 30%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.2  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: less time    fast paragraphs   site   better reply  
  Relevant (Beta): 30%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 79%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.16  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: such things    containment field   universe   consciousness  
  Relevant (Beta): 59%  
  Learn More About Debra
But of course it makes it less likely, it's still a very remote "possibility", but it is less likely to be so, a lot less... How likely is it that there exists a Purple Invisible Unicorn if there is no evidence whatsoever for it? If there is no evidence, it is less likely to exist...
And I don't claim that consciousness requires a "containment field", I'm saying it needs a brain and the universe is not a brain...
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 72%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 79%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.2  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: blood cell    new possibilities   empty space   universe  
  Relevant (Beta): 63%  
  Learn More About Debra
Firstly, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Secondly, while there is lack of evidence and or evidence leading to high probabilities then there is no reason to as of the current time to believe in remote possibilities, at least until new evidence may (not probably) come to light.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
With ifs we could put the Sun in a bottle... Makes for good sci-fi but poor science... Sorry you don't like that...
  Considerate: 63%  
  Substantial: 60%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 2.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: good sci-fi    cell   poor science   body  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
How is it “dogmatic “ to accept what one thinks is persuasive evidence for views based on scientific thinking and rationality?
People like Deepak Chopra spout interminable pseudoscientific nonsense regarding “new possibilities “ should views like his be accepted as one keeping an “open” mind?
Really? I certainly do, what does one need instead of evidence in your opinion?
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.96  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: dogmatic view    new possibilities   Deepak Chopra spout   persuasive evidence  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: rewards of the hard work of others    people   face   individuals  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 45%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.48  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: countless theories    various topics   ratio of acceptible theories   lot of people  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 21%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 75%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: ëŒ€ì™•ê´‘ê°œí†          
  Relevant (Beta): 33%  
  Learn More About Debra
Well many that do that are displaying gross ignorance, I don’t mock those who have academic qualifications and have displayed sound thinking throughout their careers in academia. A line has to be drawn somewhere though otherwise idiots like Deepak Chopra and others who make claims based on pseudoscientific nonsense take hold , indeed many believe such people are intellectual powerhouses whose every “ theory “ must be true because they say so
  Considerate: 44%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.58  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: pseudoscientific nonsense take hold    Deepak Chopra   otherwise idiots   gross ignorance  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 65%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: significant evidence    theory   form   serious consideration  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
There's actually some great evidence from the field of Psychology that the Brain and the Mind are two separate entities and, more importantly, that your consciousness is not necessarily located in your brain. This is popularly known as "Dualism".
The primary research and conclusion that the Brain and Mind are not one comes specifically from hypnosis and the results of certain experiments therin. When under hypnosis a patient can be instructed to prepare themselves to be touched by a piece of metal so hot that it's glowing red. In reality they're only being touched by a pencil that's room temperature at best. When touched, subjects repeatedly show physical signs of having been burned at the site they were touched. Their skin turns red immediately, blisters and reacts as if burned. There's no charring obviously as there's no heat source but the skin's reaction is the same regardless.
This contradicts the monism approach, if the mind and brain are the same thing then the body should not react to unconscious suggestions in this way. This study supports the idea of dualism, the view that the mind and body function separately.
The debate between Dualism and Monism is still persistent in today's world but in my own view I can rationally understand how the brain may very well process information from the rest of the body and present it to the mind but the Mind ultimately controls everything in the body. If thoughts, ideas and reasoning can exist metaphysically within the body...then likewise the mind can exist metaphysically in the body.
"There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".
"Oh, you don't like my sarcasm? Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.56  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 45%  
  Learn More About Debra