Some of the perceptions appear to be really convincing, they don't really provide evidence for life after death, but maybe they provide evidence that our reality isn't real.
'If paranormal perception in near death experiences were 'proven' what would this mean?
If paranormal perception during near death experiences were proven what would this mean, what model of the universe would this support?
To my way of thinking, any evidence of the paranormal (and there are lots of more secure examples than veridical NDE's)) indicates that reality is not as it appears to be, and in particular, consciousness is not just a computation going on in the brain.'If paranormal perception in near death experiences were 'proven' what would this mean?
If paranormal perception during near death experiences were proven what would this mean, what model of the universe would this support?
To my way of thinking, any evidence of the paranormal (and there are lots of more secure examples than veridical NDE's)) indicates that reality is not as it appears to be, and in particular, consciousness is not just a computation going on in the brain.
That means that all bets are off, and the best way can do is to listen to what people say happens in NDE's!
David
Well the reason I say that, is that from a materialist perspective there must be some level of computer simulation of the brain that should reproduce consciousness. Conversely, no simulation of a TV set's circuitry can reproduce a program that isn't represented in its input.Well there's absolutely no reason to think consciousness is computation, even from a reasonable materialist perspective.
As one materialist philosopher, R.Scott Bakker, put it - "Why would consciousness be more Frogger than Frog?"
I treat materialistic consciousness and computer consciousness as being essentially equivalent. I know Roger Penrose proposed some sort of non-computable physics to explain consciousness, but that didn't seem to go very far.
Yes, I haven't really followed that debate, but it seems to me that even if you come up with some sort of non-computable physics (which blocks the simulation argument) that still doesn't obviously provide any explanation of the Hard Problem.Orch-OR is still alive, they published a paper on microtubules two years ago. Hammeroff has plenty of exposition in the non-duality crowd. That is not to say that his conclusions are supported by all non-dualists, since as you likely know, that is a very heterogeneous group. But, still...
This question arises occasionally and my view hasn't changed. It wouldn't make any difference to ordinary people, most of whom are on board with ideas of extended consciousness. Material science would briefly go into upheaval, before settling on a quasi-physicalist interpretation of what consciousness means that allowed it to pretend nothing had changed. I doubt there'd be any moral breast-beating or religious fervour, and proof would stay in the pending tray for decades, perhaps even centuries, even with reliable evidence.'If paranormal perception in near death experiences were 'proven' what would this mean?
If paranormal perception during near death experiences were proven what would this mean, what model of the universe would this support?
This question arises occasionally and my view hasn't changed. It wouldn't make any difference to ordinary people, most of whom are on board with ideas of extended consciousness. Material science would briefly go into upheaval, before settling on a quasi-physicalist interpretation of what consciousness means that allowed it to pretend nothing had changed. I doubt there'd be any moral breast-beating or religious fervour, and proof would stay in the pending tray for decades, perhaps even centuries, even with reliable evidence.