Mod+ 246. DR. MICHAEL GRAZIANO LIKENS NEAR DEATH EXPERIENCE RESEARCH TO ASTROLOGY

I do think Graziano had at least one point that should be taken more seriously in our discussions of what exactly NDEs prove and how they do it. I think it may be a mistake for us to harp on the fact that NDEs show that people can have substantial conscious experiences without brain function. After all, it IS very difficult to get hard data showing that there is no brain function at the exact time the experiences are happening. It seems to me that skeptics are right to point out that it needs to be shown (1) that there was a point for the NDEr at which they had no brain function and (2) that the experience happened AT EXACTLY THAT TIME, and not, for instance, as the brain was shutting down or coming back online. It seems to me that the best way to prove when the experiences actually happened is to focus on information that the subjects obtained that they couldn't have known had they not been conscious at the very time that they had no brain function. It's my impression (from listening to a lot of Skeptiko episodes!) that these cases do exist in the literature, and I think they are the ones that need to be focused on during a debate with a skeptic. That being said, someone who believes in psychic phenomena might not be convinced by them: what's to rule out the possibility that the person was not conscious during the time their brain was offline but, when they began to revive, their brain had clairvoyant access to past events? Just saying--the subject of proof can get very murky!
 
I thought Dr. Graziano failed to rise above his own opinions and preconceived biases. When asked: what is necessary and sufficient for consciousness, Dr. G. went off on some meaningless tangent. So let's try this again: what is necessary and sufficient for consciousness? Answer: nothing. Consciousness is a fundamental phenomena, it is the ability to observe, to suffer and to experience the information that the brain directs to it. There is no way to construct consciousness. The best that you could ever do is to trap consciousness inside of a machine. Theoretically, and ethics aside, it should be possible to lure in a ghost and to trap it. You could theoretically direct information to it; you could coerce its behavior using pain and pleasure. Evolution and nature have done exactly that to us.
 
The best that you could ever do is to trap consciousness inside of a machine. Theoretically, and ethics aside, it should be possible to lure in a ghost and to trap it.
Or... maybe instead of trapping, it's more a matter of being able to build a "machine" that is good enough for consciousness to iteract with and manifest through it?
 
Or... maybe instead of trapping, it's more a matter of being able to build a "machine" that is good enough for consciousness to iteract with and manifest through it?
My point was that the spirit is something that is trapped, cell by cell, inside of the biological body. Such a containment could be duplicated with technology.
 
My point was that the spirit is something that is trapped, cell by cell, inside of the biological body. Such a containment could be duplicated with technology.
I see what you mean... problem is, I don't know if it's that "simple". Is it cell by cell? Or atom by atom? Or string by string? :D
If everything is permeated with some level of consciousness then our today's computers are indeed already consciouss although in a form which isn't manifest to us.

It may be that we need to engineer "biological computers" to let more complex forms of consciousness develop and manifest... but I guess that's an experiment that has already taken place :D

The other route, which is much more popular these days, is mimicking consciousness via complex learning/cognitive algorithms. IMHO that's simply imitating what the brain does. Still not consciousness.
 
If everything is permeated with some level of consciousness then our today's computers are indeed already consciouss although in a form which isn't manifest to us.
But we need to be careful when making such statements, or else it might be misleading.

In this example, it isn't the fact that it is a computer which gives it the possibility of having consciousness, but rather, the fact that it is a thing, one of the items belonging to the group everything.

As such, it is possible that it shares the same level of consciousness as say a steam engine, or a teapot.
 
But we need to be careful when making such statements, or else it might be misleading.

In this example, it isn't the fact that it is a computer which gives it the possibility of having consciousness, but rather, the fact that it is a thing, one of the items belonging to the group everything.

As such, it is possible that it shares the same level of consciousness as say a steam engine, or a teapot.
Agreed. Indeed today's computer is probably as conscious as one from 50 years ago or a teapot :)
There is nothing special in being a computer actually.

But, in Dr. Graziano's view, I suppose it is one special thing because we can instruct it to mechanically (or electrically) reproduce a few basic brain-like functions.

Even if it's fascinating from a technical points of view, I don't share the same enthusiasm that AI & C will unravel the mystery of consciousness.
 
So let's try this again: what is necessary and sufficient for consciousness? Answer: nothing. Consciousness is a fundamental phenomena, it is the ability to observe, to suffer and to experience the information that the brain directs to it.

My issue with this is that it's dualistic to say that the brain directs information to consciousness. It seems to imply that the brain is distinct from consciousness. And yet you say that consciousness is a (the?) fundamental phenomenon, which if it were, should be the source of what we think of as the brain. I like Bernardo Kastrup's idea that the brain is an image in localised consciousness of a process occurring in universal consciousness, much of which processes can't be perceived from the localised viewpoint.

That said, all the "things" we can perceive or detect--brains, stars, tables and chairs--in this view are such localised images. They refer to real processes--they truly exist--but they look to us like what we commonly classify as material objects. We may also (often mathematically) model certain entities like gravity, elementary particles and so on, which again may have real referents, but are a step further away from those referents than localised images; they are, moreover, subject to constant revision in light of current interpretations of them in our localised consciousness.

According to this view, we don't inhabit the world we seem to live in; instead, that world is a construct inside our localised consciousness that we may project as an "external" ontological realm. It's then that we might say that in some way the brain directs information to consciousness. I don't think it does: rather, the brain's an image in localised consciousness of the very process of information processing. All information comes, ultimately, from the one universal consciousness that is all there is, and as localisations of it, we have a limited perception/interpretation of it.

There is no way to construct consciousness. The best that you could ever do is to trap consciousness inside of a machine. Theoretically, and ethics aside, it should be possible to lure in a ghost and to trap it. You could theoretically direct information to it; you could coerce its behavior using pain and pleasure. Evolution and nature have done exactly that to us.

I agree there's no way to construct consciousness. But how on earth could one lure and trap a ghost? What are ghosts? Personally, I think they are phenomena that have some real referent (if only because they have been reported throughout human history, even by very reputable figures), but I don't believe they possess any kind of interior awareness. But even if they did, how could we apply pain or pleasure to them? And how did evolution/nature do this? You seem to be implying that we are ghosts in some sense, as well as personifying evolution/nature. I think you need to be clearer in what you are saying: currently, I find it cryptic and am not sure whether it has any firm grounding.
 
Agreed. Indeed today's computer is probably as conscious as one from 50 years ago or a teapot :)
There is nothing special in being a computer actually.

But, in Dr. Graziano's view, I suppose it is one special thing because we can instruct it to mechanically (or electrically) reproduce a few basic brain-like functions.

Even if it's fascinating from a technical points of view, I don't share the same enthusiasm that AI & C will unravel the mystery of consciousness.
Indeed. I think one of the big stumbling blocks in investigating the nature of consciousness is that it is being likened to the current trendy item, the computer which is pretty much ubiquitous. But to do so is to try to relate the busy activity of electric circuits which are switching on and off at a rapid rate with consciousness, which can reach its most meaningful states by stilling all activity - the Eastern traditions often focus on the very opposite of frantic, busy activity in order to explore the nature of consciousness, and reach its higher levels.

Because of that complete mismatch, to compare brain activity with the functioning of a computer may tell a great deal about something, but nothing at all about consciousness.
 
But we need to be careful when making such statements, or else it might be misleading.

In this example, it isn't the fact that it is a computer which gives it the possibility of having consciousness, but rather, the fact that it is a thing, one of the items belonging to the group everything.

As such, it is possible that it shares the same level of consciousness as say a steam engine, or a teapot.

If a bird builds a nest we consider the nest a part of nature. But if a man builds something, somehow it has become un-natural. If there is but one Source expressed in the myriad and that source is consciousness, then no thing has more consciousness than another. One thing may have more awareness than another.
 
My issue with this is that it's dualistic to say that the brain directs information to consciousness. It seems to imply that the brain is distinct from consciousness. And yet you say that consciousness is a (the?) fundamental phenomenon, which if it were, should be the source of what we think of as the brain. I like Bernardo Kastrup's idea that the brain is an image in localised consciousness of a process occurring in universal consciousness, much of which processes can't be perceived from the localised viewpoint.
Dualism is perfectly justified as a property of nature. Athough in nature it's particle-wave duality. The way I look at it is that from the outside looking in, quantum systems appear to have eigenstates that are chosen at random; but from the inside looking out, random eigenstates are equivalent to a free will by whatever spirit exists therein.
I agree there's no way to construct consciousness. But how on earth could one lure and trap a ghost? What are ghosts? Personally, I think they are phenomena that have some real referent (if only because they have been reported throughout human history, even by very reputable figures), but I don't believe they possess any kind of interior awareness. But even if they did, how could we apply pain or pleasure to them? And how did evolution/nature do this? You seem to be implying that we are ghosts in some sense, as well as personifying evolution/nature. I think you need to be clearer in what you are saying: currently, I find it cryptic and am not sure whether it has any firm grounding.
it is my opinion that there is only one observer, and that observer is God. God is infinite consciousness. Souls are individualized subsets of God's awareness, with freewill. It is perfectly reasonable that an Infinite Consciousness will want to experience many things. Would it create universes, and then extend senses into that universe to experience it? Why not? Game designers do it all the time. When God senses universes that He (or She) creates, those senses are a living consciousness that is shaped by spirit substance. This spirit substance is molded and shaped by many lifetimes of reincarnation into fleshy bodies that are themselves driven by evolutionary forces. While evolution may be driven by necessity, I fear I may not be able to prove to your satisfaction that a spirit or soul is necessary, other than to say that the soul is along for the ride whether it wants to be or not. Mysticism, in all it's magical flavors, is a preferred way to understand the deeper implications of having a soul; but when one attempts to justify the existence of a soul in terms of the demands of a physical universe, it is like a mountain climber descending a precarious rock cliff. One false move, and the climber will fall into insanity, across billions of years of terror, evil, and the cruelties that were necessary to survive. It is better to be satisfied with simple and easy explanations of a Creator who loves us, angels who try to help us, and the mysterious things that go bump in the night, than to ask to see the details of how it all happened. Nature itself practiced a form of necromancy by luring animalistic souls into fleshy bodies, and trapping them inside, with not so much as an explanation. Souls are good for nothing else than to be responsive to pain and pleasure; evolution did the rest.

It is better to make the most practical use of religions, mysticism and faith than to attempt a full explanation of consciousness. Scientists are too optimistic in their belief that EVERYTHING can be measured and proven. I assure you it is not so. Nature can be as mysterious in its refusal to account for it's actions without any paradoxes or instabilities. You would all be well advised to turn to religion, mysticism, magic, New Age crystals or any other topic that has a chance to work it's magic rather than to go down this road. Take it as faith that you have a soul and go on to something more delightful. If you continue down this road, you will become lost in probabilities and whirlwinds of mathematics that do not care if they tear your mind apart.
 
It is better to make the most practical use of religions, mysticism and faith than to attempt a full explanation of consciousness. Scientists are too optimistic in their belief that EVERYTHING can be measured and proven. I assure you it is not so. Nature can be as mysterious in its refusal to account for it's actions without any paradoxes or instabilities. You would all be well advised to turn to religion, mysticism, magic, New Age crystals or any other topic that has a chance to work it's magic rather than to go down this road. Take it as faith that you have a soul and go on to something more delightful. If you continue down this road, you will become lost in probabilities and whirlwinds of mathematics that do not care if they tear your mind apart.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that people here hold opinions that they don't, even that they are people that they aren't. Having created that straw man, you proceed to lob stones at it. Well, enjoy yourself tilting at imaginary windmills if that's what rings your bell, but I can't see the point in trying to have discussions with people who are conducting what are largely interior monologues. Don't worry, I won't interrupt you from now on because I won't be able to see you. I'll think of you as a ghost.
 
I think some Eastern meditators reach the gamma EEG band. Gamma is a very high frequency. In any case, I don't believe in a thought-free state of awareness. The fact we have subconscious minds operating below the level of conscious thought suggests to me that it would be impossible to somehow stop all thinking. On the other hand, if you mean thought without subvocal thinking going on, yeah sure.
 
However the EEG measures brain activity. We don't know how that relates to what consciousness is doing. Or even to what consciouness is.
 
Last edited:
IMHO even interaction dualists like me must acknowledge that everyday consciousness can be deconstructed into more basic mental properties. I do not agree that such a deconstruction can totally eliminate the intentionality of mental properties but I do think personal identity is a pretty high level package of acquired beliefs and memories. I think it wise to distinguish between the fluid personal identity and the constant barely personal first person observer constituted only by awareness and choice.

I agree that the Doctor's position is absurd but I also believe we claim to much when we say that everyday consciousness is irreducible. It can be reduced but only to more fundamental mental features.
 
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that people here hold opinions that they don't, even that they are people that they aren't. Having created that straw man, you proceed to lob stones at it. Well, enjoy yourself tilting at imaginary windmills if that's what rings your bell, but I can't see the point in trying to have discussions with people who are conducting what are largely interior monologues. Don't worry, I won't interrupt you from now on because I won't be able to see you. I'll think of you as a ghost.
All I'm saying is that detecting a spirit or soul in a scientific way might be literally too difficult. Even if it turns out that I'm right that a spirit can be compared to a quantum field, and that God peers through this spirit as the observer, how are we going to prove it? Answer, I don't think we can. It is true that my idea has no paradoxes. The down side is that it still requires some faith. Even when we try to apply neuroscience to the question, what do we get for our efforts? More doubt, that's what. It doesn't matter how many ghosts cross our path. Skepticism, no matter how irrational, unfounded or sinister, will always cast it's shadow of doubt. Does it make sense to continue to try to prove that consciousness is something beyond the physical universe when all we have to use are tools of the physical universe? Am I wrong? Maybe I am.
 
IMHO even interaction dualists like me must acknowledge that everyday consciousness can be deconstructed into more basic mental properties. I do not agree that such a deconstruction can totally eliminate the intentionality of mental properties but I do think personal identity is a pretty high level package of acquired beliefs and memories. I think it wise to distinguish between the fluid personal identity and the constant barely personal first person observer constituted only by awareness and choice.

I agree that the Doctor's position is absurd but I also believe we claim to much when we say that everyday consciousness is irreducible. It can be reduced but only to more fundamental mental features.
Can you built an IC chip that is motivated by pain and pleasure, the way we are? If not, then why not?
 
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that people here hold opinions that they don't, even that they are people that they aren't. Having created that straw man, you proceed to lob stones at it. Well, enjoy yourself tilting at imaginary windmills if that's what rings your bell, but I can't see the point in trying to have discussions with people who are conducting what are largely interior monologues. Don't worry, I won't interrupt you from now on because I won't be able to see you. I'll think of you as a ghost.

Actually I think Ghost's point isn't that different from Alan Watt's -> the materialist evangelist, New Atheist movement doesn't really offer answers regarding meaning and as Benjamin Cain notes the truth is materialist science has a history of unseating our treasured notions.

So you have people peddling the multiverse* to avoid questions regarding fine tuning & observer-participancy - which offer the possibility of a reality with meaning - but not offering any livable truths in exchange.

Thus for people actually going about their lives it is arguably better to wander into various spiritual paths so long as one isn't completely divorcing themselves from things like modern medicine.

*Lanza suggest the multiverse allows for a "quantum soul" but I confess to not understanding that part of his argument. The man does have some interesting ideas though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Can you built an IC chip that is motivated by pain and pleasure, the way we are? If not, then why not?
I don't know. If qualia can be realized across multiple systems of hardware then perhaps. We have no reason to suppose that they can.
 
Back
Top