Is Consciousness Really a Separate Non-local and a Non-Physical process ?

#1
We can safely say that materialism is false , mainly because it can intrinsically never account for consciousness, let alone explain it , not to mention consciousness -related 'anomalies " such as psi -phenomena ...which means that all forms of materialism and physicalism , all materialist theories or models of consciousness have to be eliminated from the increasing list of competing theories of consciousness :

Take your pick :

http://www.imprint.co.uk/jcs.html

On the other hand , the recent manifesto for a post-materialist science has been claiming that there has been an overwhelming body of evidence supporting the separate non-physical nature of consciousness : that consciousness is a non-physical process is an undeniable fact that can be denied as such only by materialists or fools though :

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...jsOor30FS2GEVdiMLsTlOGw&bvm=bv.85970519,d.ZGU



http://www.opensciences.org/about/manifesto-for-a-post-materialist-science


In short :

The very existence of psi-phenomena such as telepathy , remote viewing ....or extra-sensory perception is evidence enough for the fact that consciousness cannot but be a separate non-physical and non-local process ,and that would solve the interpretation problem in QM , since consciousness cannot but have a non-mechanical form of causation on matter and on other consciousnesses without , by definition, obeying any laws of physics ..................

Tell me about it , thanks .Cheers.
 
#2
My view is that the evidence for the afterlife overwhelmingly demonstrates that consciousness survives death and therefore consciousness is non-physical.

http://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/summary_of_evidence

But I also agree that ESP cannot be produced by the brain because it is not limited by time and distance and therefore cannot be produced by any physical process including quantum entanglement and that is sufficient to demonstrate that consciousness is non-physical.

http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2014/04/near-death-experiences-and-afterlife.html#facts_esp

What I mean by "non-physical" is that consciousness is not part of the physical universe of space and time that was created at the big bang. The fact that the universe appears to have been designed and created by an intelligence - a transcendent creator - a consciousness - supports the notion that consciousness is non-physical but able to interact with the physical universe.

http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/p/62014-...-afterlife.html#articles_by_subject_cosmology
 
#4
Ah you already created the thread. Nice. :)

So, im going to get right back at the question where i left of in the other thread.

That propably comes down to the question if consciousness is a non-physical process. Thats propably a discussion for a other thread, but ahm... i dont see how we can savely assume that just like that. I know, theres psi and all those things, but i have to admit that im not convinced by things like that. Thats propably due to me never witnessing psi consciously. Point is though, how do we know that materialism is false and consciousness isnt a material process? I dont mean that in a bad way. Im just wondering in the last couple of days why people here claim that to be absolutely true. Psi and the knowledge gap of science to explain consciousness&awareness cant be the only reason, right? If you want to we can discuss this in a appropriate thread. I would be highly interested in that.
So, i believe that there must be another reason to believe that consciousness is a non-physical process. As i stated in the quote, i personally am not convinced by psi phenomena. I never witnessed one and therefore im really having a hard time to believe in them. Its even harder to believe in consciousness being non-physical if its only based on psi. I get that many of you guys witnessed those things and stuff like that - but as long as i didnt witness anything myself i'd still like to know if theres more except that.
Therefore lets ask that question right now.

How do we know that consciousness isnt physical? Some people use the explanation gap of science as a argument here, but i dont believe that this is really a argument for a non-physical consciousness since both a non-physical and a physical consciousness would have a explanation gap. So, what else is there?


What I mean by "non-physical" is that consciousness is not part of the physical universe of space and time that was created at the big bang. The fact that the universe appears to have been designed and created by an intelligence - a transcendent creator - a consciousness - supports the notion that consciousness is non-physical but able to interact with the physical universe.
I really like your stuff Jim. I will read the links that you provided later on, but i still got to ask right now - isnt the intelligent design thing highly controversial? I know that people in this forum mostly dont seem to like the multiverse, but is it really that obvious that a designer is at work here? I know the arguments for something like that, sure, but isnt it really like that that there could have been just a really small chance for everything - and we actually hit the jackpot? If we wouldnt have done that we propably wouldnt talk and write about that right now since we wouldnt exist at all. Couldnt it have been just a coincidence?

Little note on the side: Im not trying to be overly sceptical here or anything, so dont be mad about it. Im not saying that psi and all that stuff doesnt exist- i just want to discuss my concerns when it comes to those various claims and theories about all those things.
 
Last edited:
#5
I really like your stuff Jim. I will read the links that you provided later on, but i still got to ask right now - isnt the intelligent design thing highly controversial? I know that people in this forum mostly dont seem to like the multiverse, but is it really that obvious that a designer is at work here? I know the arguments for something like that, sure, but isnt it really like that that there could have been just a really small chance for everything - and we actually hit the jackpot? If we wouldnt have done that we propably wouldnt talk and write about that right now since we wouldnt exist at all. Couldnt it have been just a coincidence?

Little note on the side: Im not trying to be overly sceptical here or anything, so dont be mad about it. Im not saying that psi and all that stuff doesnt exist- i just want to discuss my concerns when it comes to those various claims and theories about all those things.
I don't think intelligent design is controversial. I think materialism, the multiverse, and Darwinism are controversial. The multiverse is controversial even among mainstream physicists. Darwinism is under attack by mainstream biologists. Mainstream science has been wrong many times before.

Many scientists believed the evidence that the universe was designed. These scientists include Nobel prize winners such as Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg, Guglielmo Marconi, Brian Josephson, William Phillips, Richard Smalley, Arno Penzias, Charles Townes Arthur Compton, Antony Hewish, Christian Anfinsen, Walter Kohn, Arthur Schawlow, and other scientists, Charles Darwin, Sir Fred Hoyle, John von Neumann, Wernher von Braun, and Louis Pasteur.
http://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers

Many lesser scientists are open to design but are afraid to speak out because of persecution.

The best way to make up your own mind is to read what the scientists on both sides say and see how they reply to each other. Two blogs I follow are:
http://www.evolutionnews.org
http://www.uncommondescent.com

Luck is not a good explanation...

http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-fine-tuning-of-universe-to-one-part.html
One part in 10^37 is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to visualize. The following analogy might help: Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 10^37.
10^37 is just one parameter there are many parameters some more finely tuned 10^60, 10^40, 10^59 etc etc.


http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2014/08/multiverse-theories-fail-to-explain-our.html
if a tape measure the length of the universe, 30 billion light years long, or 10^28 inches long was used as a scale, then if the gravitational constant was decreased by one inch, the gravitational constant would decrease a trillion fold and no structures would form in the universe. If the gravitational constant were increased by one inch, the gravitational constant would be one trillion times larger
No one believes it is good luck, that is why the atheists like the multiverse because they recognize there is a real undeniable problem. The multiverse provides a materialist solution because if there are an infinite number universes, some will have the right parameters by chance.
 
Last edited:
#6
that is why the atheists like the multiverse because they recognize there is a real undeniable problem. The multiverse provides a materialist solution because if there are an infinite number universes, some will have the right parameters by chance.
Apparently you intend to keep your false nonsense going. Once again the multiverse has nothing to do with atheism and/or materialism. It was known (or in your terms conceptualized) way before materialism developed.

Beyond that your claim of how materialists benefit from accepting that there's a multiverse is incorrect and nonsensical. You just like many materialist naysayers are on a religious crusade. That can be seen by your fervor, your misconstruing and your repetition of false facts. You may fancy yourself as not a materialist but your thinking and approach is rooted in materialism.
 
#7
Or you could suggest that mind and matter are one. A serious problem in saying consciousness is non physical, is how can something non-physical affect the physical? What is the mechanism behind it?
 
#8
Or you could suggest that mind and matter are one. A serious problem in saying consciousness is non physical, is how can something non-physical affect the physical? What is the mechanism behind it?
It's obvious that consciousness is non-physical. Few claim otherwise. What most materialists claim is that it is a phenomenon generated by physical means.

It not only can, it does. I'll pose the reverse - how could consciousness not affect the physical that is one of its expressions? The question of how is secondary and has no relevance to what occurs. Additionally, even if it were relevant, it again presupposses that the human intellect can understand every process in existence.
 
#9
Or you could suggest that mind and matter are one. A serious problem in saying consciousness is non physical, is how can something non-physical affect the physical? What is the mechanism behind it?
Good question indeed that has been resolved by QM .I will return to that ,later on.
On the other hand , a serious problem arises when one would assert that consciousness is just a material or biological process and can thus be reducible to or equated with brain activity : the materialist identity or production theory are just acts of faith as pioneer neuroscientist Benjamin Libet said, together with a little army of prominent and less prominent neuroscientists and philosophers , Nobel laureate scientists or otherwise , yesterday or today : they are no scientific theories , just acts of faith thus ,since they are untestable or unfalsifiable also .

Even the emergent property theory regarding consciousness and its physical brain at least , in the sense that consciousness is just the alleged product of the so-called evolutionary complexity of the human brain does hold no water whatsoever ,since no one can ever answer the question regarding how that inexplicable magical jump or leap from the quantitative mindless biology to the qualitative subjective experiential qualia can ever be made , no way .

Regarding "the dreaded interaction problem " of dualism or how the non-physical consciousness can mutually interact with the physical brain, for example, well , QM has been answering that by eliminating the causal closure of the physical when challenging classical determinism that made no room for the causal efficacy of consciousness on matter while replacing the classical deterministic universe with the probabilistic one .

The challenge of classical realism by QM as well as the classical locality prove thus also the fact that there is in fact no separation between the observer and the observed , no separation between the subjective and the objective , and that the non-physical and non-local mind can have causal effects on matter without , by definition, obeying any laws of physics and that instantaneously and without any transfer of energy , so the conservation of energy law is not violated .

Consciousness might be a non-physical and non-local all -permeating field thus ...
 
Last edited:
#10
Good question indeed that has been resolved by QM .I will return to that ,later on.
On the other hand , a serious problem arises when one would assert that consciousness is just a material or biological process and can thus be reducible to or equated with brain activity : the materialist identity or production theory are just acts of faith as pioneer neuroscientist Benjamin Libet said, together with a little army of prominent and less prominent neuroscientists and philosophers , Nobel laureate scientists or otherwise , yesterday or today : they are no scientific theories , just acts of faith thus ,since they are untestable or unfalsifiable also .

Even the emergent property theory regarding consciousness and its physical brain at least , in the sense that consciousness is just the alleged product of the so-called evolutionary complexity of the human brain does hold no water whatsoever ,since no one can ever answer the question regarding how that inexplicable magical jump or leap from the quantitative mindless biology to the qualitative subjective experiential qualia can ever be made , no way .

Regarding "the dreaded interaction problem " of dualism or how the non-physical consciousness can mutually interact with the physical brain, for example, well , QM has been answering that by eliminating the causal closure of the physical when challenging classical determinism that made no room for the causal efficacy of consciousness on matter while replacing the classical deterministic universe with the probabilistic one .

The challenge of classical realism by QM as well as the classical locality prove thus also the fact that there is in fact no separation between the observer and the observed , no separation between the subjective and the objective , and that the non-physical and non-local mind can have causal effects on matter without , by definition, obeying any laws of physics and that instantaneously and without any transfer of energy , so the conservation of energy law is not violated .

Consciousness might be a non-physical and non-local all -permeating field thus ...
QM is still a physical theory. It just rather obliterates the idea that matter is hard and billiard ball like at the fundamental level, and indeed probably the macro level, we're just a poor measuring device as humans.
 
#11
It's obvious that consciousness is non-physical. Few claim otherwise. What most materialists claim is that it is a phenomenon generated by physical means.

It not only can, it does. I'll pose the reverse - how could consciousness not affect the physical that is one of its expressions? The question of how is secondary and has no relevance to what occurs. Additionally, even if it were relevant, it again presupposses that the human intellect can understand every process in existence.
This is something we can agree on. I think it supremely arrogant that humans with their puny brains can fully understand the nature of reality
 
#12
Apparently you intend to keep your false nonsense going. Once again the multiverse has nothing to do with atheism and/or materialism. It was known (or in your terms conceptualized) way before materialism developed.

Beyond that your claim of how materialists benefit from accepting that there's a multiverse is incorrect and nonsensical. You just like many materialist naysayers are on a religious crusade. That can be seen by your fervor, your misconstruing and your repetition of false facts. You may fancy yourself as not a materialist but your thinking and approach is rooted in materialism.
Would you, please , stop quoting others under my nick ? Thanks . I did not say the above .

I did say though that many worlds interpretation of QM is based on the false materialist belief assumption that consciousness is just a material process and hence it has to join the superposition "ritual dance party " with the rest of the measurement chain ,...............

Your ignorance on the subject is no argument against what i was saying thus .

Better still , materialism does require reductionism and can lead only to atheism ,so we can safely say that many worlds interpretation of QM is just a materialist atheist pathetic silly attempt to avoid the heat under their feet that has been ignited by ...QM .
 
#13
QM is still a physical theory. It just rather obliterates the idea that matter is hard and billiard ball like at the fundamental level, and indeed probably the macro level, we're just a poor measuring device as humans.
QM is much more than just the above : see its still unresolved central mystery : the double slit experiment ( The consciousness-based interpretation of QM is still the most simple and most valid one of them all so far ) .No wonder that Feynman said that " I can safely say that nobody understands QM ...." and " that the double slit experiment is the only mystery in QM ..." : that represents the still unresolved interpretation measurement or observation problem in QM .

Or as a prominent physicist once said : QM can never be understood without reference to the mind .

Many physicists though do even deny the very existence of the interpretation problem in QM : they prefer to keep that skeleton in their closet and "shut up and calculate " instead , but they can't make the problem go away .

On the other hand , the classical deterministic mechanical Newtonian world view that made no room whatsoever for any causal efficacy of the mind on matter has been superseded by QM and hence it is approximately correct and fundamentally false : William James even intuited the latter fact regarding classical physics ,since classical physics couldn't/ cannot account for consciousness , let alone explain it .

Ironically enough , materialism was built upon the fundamentally false classical physics and hence materialism is false .

We might be needing even better physics than QM to account for consciousness , as Wigner used to say , and then he added : physicists can't even explain physics , let alone consciousness .

In short :

The fact that materialism is false means that the universe , including ourselves thus , is not exclusively material or physical ( and hence the universe cannot be explained by just material processes , physical causes ...or by just physics and chemistry .) but also mental .The latter that's irreducible to the former ,and hence any theory that pretends to be a unified theory cannot be exclusively physical : it has to go beyond physics .

QM has been opening a door to a wide universe beyond itself by encountering consciousness thus .
 
#14
It's obvious that consciousness is non-physical. Few claim otherwise. What most materialists claim is that it is a phenomenon generated by physical means.

It not only can, it does. I'll pose the reverse - how could consciousness not affect the physical that is one of its expressions? The question of how is secondary and has no relevance to what occurs. Additionally, even if it were relevant, it again presupposes that the human intellect can understand every process in existence.
Can you try to be more specific here , please , by elaborating on the above ?

So, consciousness is allegedly generated by physical means , right ? How ? via some materialist inexplicable magic ?

What do you mean by saying that the physical is one of the expressions of consciousness ? ????

What kindda gibberish is that ?
 
#15
@ Jim_Smith :

Thanks for those links in your above displayed interesting latest post , appreciate indeed .
Nature magazine's article about those insane and highly speculative and untestable theories in science such as multiverse , string theory ...are just pathetic materialistic attempts to rescue materialism and its determinism by keeping science imprisoned within the classical materialist false conception of nature that has been superseded by QM .


And since science has been equated with materialism for relatively so long now and counting , then we can safely say that most , if not all, of what materialist science has been telling us all about the origin of the universe , the nature of life , the origin of life , the evolution of life and most of the rest have to be radically questioned, to say the least .
Darwinism , for example, is more of a materialist ideology than a scientific theory ..............


The fine -tuning of the universe is yet another major argument against all that materialist atheist reductionist non-sense in science ................


@ Saiko :

Science has been materialist and hence science has been reductionist and atheist , since materialism does require reductionism and can only lead to ...atheism .

Nevertheless, materialism has been having absolutely nothing to do with any of the scientific discoveries ,achievements and advances : all the relatively enormous success of science so far has been achieved only thanks to the scientific method through the works of materialist and non-materialist scientists alike .

Materialism has just been holding science back by imprisoning it within the false materialist theory of the nature of reality ,while science is all about free inquiry , all about methodology and epistemology that should not be restricted by materialism or by any other ism for that matter .
 
Last edited:
#16
@ Jim_ Smith :

What do you think about the following scientist and mystic ? : a non-conventional one that is :

David R.Hawkins :

http://www.amazon.fr/David-R.-Hawkins/e/B001H6MLOO

Got some above displayed books of his and i have just read a big part of 1 of them and some parts from others , but i am still very skeptical concerning the work of this guy .I still do not know what to make of his work yet .

He was right in saying ,by the way , that the human mind is intrinsically incapable of telling falsehood from the truth ,since the mind/ ego is an illusion, and we all seek the confirmation of our a -priori held beliefs and are inclined to reject any evidence that might contradict our entrenched beliefs ... .

Thanks .Cheers.
 
#17
... the human mind is intrinsically incapable of telling falsehood from the truth ,since the mind/ ego is an illusion, and we all seek the confirmation of our a -priori held beliefs and are inclined to reject any evidence that might contradict our entrenched beliefs ... .
.
The statement undermines itself. I haven't read any of his books.
 
Last edited:
#18
How can non-physical consciousness interact with the physical? The physical is a thought in the mind of God, or in Mind as some might prefer. In the non-physical, mental realm, the only "things" that can exist are thoughts. If consciousness is fundamental, as QM shows, then nothing can exist that is not a thought. This is why natural laws are intelligible and follow simple mathematical rules - they are designed and enforced by intelligence not chance. This is why ESP (consciousness) is not limited by time and distance, time and distance are illusions that only pertain to the physical within the physical realm subject to natural law.
 
Last edited:
#19
How can non-physical consciousness interact with the physical? The physical is a thought in the mind of God, or in Mind as some might prefer. In the non-physical, mental realm, the only "things" that can exist are thoughts. If consciousness is fundamental, as QM shows, then nothing can exist that is not a thought. This is why natural laws are intelligible and follow simple mathematical rules - they are designed and enforced by intelligence not chance. This is why ESP (consciousness) is not limited by time and distance, time and distance are illusions that only pertain to the physical within the physical realm subject to natural law.
How does any physical object interact with any other physical object? What we know in physics is that what appears to be solid and "material", the closer you look becomes instead an object with relatively vast areas of nothingness and atoms congregating together through some kind of electromagnetic "energy" fields. But what is that? What is that "energy" that interacts with other physical objects? We also know that even this classical model is incorrect, since in reality, particles do not actually exist (in the way we think they exist as solid objects) unless a measurement takes place by an observer. What we have is these "quantum fields" that are mathematically described but what are they? And how in God's green earth do quantum fields collapse into particles and come into existence when observed?

I dislike using terminology like "God" because it just has too much baggage. Too many people can attach to many of their own belief systems to the term "God". And it probably is not a good idea to introduce the word "God" in pursuit of science. I think I would prefer, new terms like self-directed, self-organizing, non-local, etc. Yes, these new terms have attributes that the materialists right now are screaming bloody murder over, but at least they remain less connotative than terms like "God" or even "Mind". Using these less controversial terms may help bridge the knowledge gap of those still clinging ferociously to classical physics.

ESP does appear to be non-local and not limited by time. But I don't believe the science stops there. There are many different areas to explore: definitions, classifications, categorizations - what are the attributes of consciousness, is it one thing only? Is it layered? What are the attributes of the psyche that we can ascertain as humans via science? Frederic Myers, Carl Jung, Hyslop, Dunne, Carrington, Barrett, Rhine, Stevenson, Sheldrake, Targ (to name a few) and many of the NDE scientists have worked hard to bring some scientific observation and data to bear on the nature of consciousness. Psi research has provided insight. Just as NDE research has brought some new empirical data onto the scientific landscape.

My Best,
Bertha
 
Last edited:
#20
How can non-physical consciousness interact with the physical? The physical is a thought in the mind of God, or in Mind as some might prefer. In the non-physical, mental realm, the only "things" that can exist are thoughts. If consciousness is fundamental, as QM shows, then nothing can exist that is not a thought. This is why natural laws are intelligible and follow simple mathematical rules - they are designed and enforced by intelligence not chance. This is why ESP (consciousness) is not limited by time and distance, time and distance are illusions that only pertain to the physical within the physical realm subject to natural law.
Another response to this question, to answer the question

"Can matter generate mind, or mind generate matter?"

We have to examine the essential properties of mind, to see if they are different in any fundamental way from the properties of matter. Let me list the properties and causes of minds that I see to be essential, and see whether they are compatible with those of matter. For reference, I will then use the properties of matter as described by the causes as found by physical science so far.

Minds are (1) conscious, (2) intentional (able to refer to things outside it self), (3) governed by purposes, (4) influenced by reasons, and (5) motivated by love and desire for what is taken as good.

Matter by itself is (1) unconscious, (2) unable to refer by symbols, (3) governed only by blind mechanism, (4) influenced by physical causes only, and (5) not motivated by any idea of goodness.

However, minds can act as matter if they are limited or incapacitated. (1) We are normally conscious, but we can become unconscious, or die. (2) We can ignore symbols. (3) We can become purposeless and random. (4) We can become blind to reasons. (5) We can become insensitive to goodness. From all these facts, I conclude that minds can generate things that behave like physical matter.

But the reverse is not true. (1) Unconscious matter will never become conscious, no matter how it is arranged or rearranged. (2) Material objects never themselves represent by symbols. Objects (sounds, written words, computers, signals, radio waves) only represent things outside themselves when adopted for that purpose by minds. Never otherwise. (3) If all physical causes ignore ends and purposes, no collect of causes can do so either. (4) If all matter is governed by mechanical causes, then material objects can never be influenced by reasons or truth. They can never ‘see’ that an inference is true. (5) The laws of physics make no reference to any notion of ‘good’ or ‘value’, or suchlike. From all these facts, I conclude that matter can not generate things that behave as we know minds do behave.

The above conclusions are independent of whether physical matter is taken as pieces or as wholes, of whether we talk about particles or fields, and of whether we use classical or quantum mechanical laws of nature.

So we conclude:
Minds can produce matter.
Matter can NOT produce minds.


That is, I disagree with the claim that "If consciousness is fundamental, as QM shows, then nothing can exist that is not a thought."
 
Top