Post-materialist science manifesto (Introduction)

by David Turell , Monday, February 23, 2015, 16:16 (3560 days ago) @ George Jelliss

George: I've put together a full response to the Manifesto:-I've responded to bits and pieces, politely to agree and disagree:
> 
> 1. The word "materialism" is often used pejoratively. It is taken to imply crude consumerism, and lack of artistic feeling.-Granted, but I view the word of implying only a lack of consideration of mental or spiritual.-> 
> George: 2,3. If mind is just another word for brain activity (which few would surely deny) who has ever said that our thoughts cannot have any effect upon our brains? I would say it is the reorganisation of neuron connections that constitutes thought.-Yes we modify our brain with thought, but no, reorganization constitutes memory. You've not explained consciousness.
> 
> George: 7. The claim that quantum mechanics introduces the mind or consciousness of the observer into the equations is very ambiguously stated. This is only one of numerous interpretations of QM.-Agreed
> 
> George: 8. The psychological studies they mention that show effects of mental activity on physiology, surely only go to support the contention that mind is brain and nervous system activity.-Still this is no explanation for consciousness
> 
> George: 9. The claims made for "psi" phenomena are just false. Nothing so definite as they claim has ever been shown. I notice that Rupert Sheldrake is one of the signatories of the manifesto, and this is his field of research.-Have you read his studies? I have. Does he use fake statistics? I think he is honest, if not main-stream.
> 
> George:10,11. Likewise the claims for out of body perception during Near Death Experiences, are overblown.-Read Eben Alexander's book. From academic atheist neurosurgeon to fierce believer because of his experience. His and hundreds of other veridical experiences suggests strongly something is there. 
> 
> George: 12,13. The above claims are not considered false or "anomalous" for ideological reasons, but because the results do not meet the standards of scientific proof.-Accepted
> 
> 14. This is another false claim. Mind as brain activity is a perfectly coherent concept.-Again, agreed, but your statement does not offer a full explanation, which no one has.
> 
> George: 15,16. This is the statement of their manifesto, and reveals their real agenda. They want to introduce a concept of "mind" as a separate existence apart from matter and energy. To avoid confusion it would be better to call this "spirit" or "life-force". .. This is redolent of Deepak Chopra's "universal consciousness", or some form of God as Great Spirit. They retain material science, but overlay it with spirituality, but fail to put forward any coherent theory of how they interact. Perhaps by Sheldrake's morphogenesis? But they don't endorse this.-I have the same problem with how mind matter and energy interact, but I suspect they do.-> 
> George: 18. Their final claim that their ideas are revolutionary is hubristic. There is nothing whatsoever new in it. It is a reversion to dualism.-I seem to be still a dualist.