EEG spikes in humans and rats at end of life and what this means for the supposed 'evidence' for idealism

[Hans-Werner Hammen]

I counter-assert that we are not, not in the slightest,
"conscious about our thoughts"
Neither is a thought the- or one cause of consciousness
Nor is the consciousness the- or one cause at a thought.

A thought and (a) consciousness are, instead categorically the same: Imaginary.
Thought = awareness = experience = NO-thing from/about Some-thing.
Consciousnes = individal human mind =
entitrety of thoughts being fabricated in an individual brain, momentarily.
The basic consciousness is the entirety of awarenesses
from/about all that is immediately connected to the brain. The own body.

A wave function is imaginary,
iow it cannot act, change, convert,
iow it cannot collapse.
All that you read on the paper, it is symbols.

Let me explain, by using my favored example
we often read "mass can be converted into energy"
but this assertion is as non-factual,
as is the conversionn of the wave function
into a product called "collapsed wave function"

The aequation = correspndence, correlation, "E = m x c^2"
merely states, that a very real measurement OF mass,
it is a priori correspondent, correlated, aequivalent
to a very real measurement of energy.
Mass, and energy as such, they are, nevertheless, totally imaginary, they do not exist.

[Cleric K]

I counter-assert that we are not, not in the slightest,
"conscious about our thoughts"

Can you explain what you mean? If you pronounce in your mind "I think" and try to be fully conscious of the sound of your inner voice as you utter the words, and feel intensely that it is with your own spiritual activity that the sounds are being produced, what exactly is it that you are conscious of, and what is it that you are not conscious of in the slightest? Can we at all speak about something for which we have not even the slightest consciousness?

Consciousnes = individal human mind =
entitrety of thoughts being fabricated in an individual brain, momentarily.
The basic consciousness is the entirety of awarenesses
from/about all that is immediately connected to the brain. The own body.

Can you further elaborate on what role, in your view, the body and brain play? I'm trying to understand your perspective. You've made it clear that every color and any other perception are NO-things. In this respect the body and the brain are also NO-things because we know about them only through sensory perceptions. So the question is, is there something in the SOME-thing which corresponds in completely ideal way to the body and brain?

[pandaproducts]

I'm not sure how this makes the neuroscientific evidence against physicalism less problematic. (Terminal lucidity, psychedelic experiences, hypoxic experiences, etc.)

But this is already addressed in Greyson's response.

First, the 'spike' in brain activity is much weaker than waking state activity and cannot account for the heightened experiences observed in NDEs.

It also cannot account for veridical perception during NDEs.

Furthermore, the 'spike' can be explained by the fact that drugs are known to cause a burst of activity before death, and surprise surprise, this study is done on drugged patients.

[Hans-Werner Hammen]

"through sensory perceptions"
It is not I who asserts this, quite the contrary:
Perception, detection, experience, awareness, regardles HOW you creatively put it,
each is NO-thing = does not exist = not change = not cause

"I think" = "My brain is fabricating an awareness=a thought=NO-thing"

- All that is detectable (PHYSIS)
- the {organs of detection} aka senses (PHYSIS)
- the brain (PHYSIS),
- the {organs of: Exertion=assertion} (PHYSIS),
- the assertion (LOGOI) uttering=faking a thought (PSYCHE)
each is SOME-thing =
detectable = changeable also called material = composed of atoms/subatomic particles.

NO-thing also called immaterial, cannot change,
bcz it is NO-thing rather than SOME-thing.
A thought is technically immutable=eternal,
in that it does not exist in the first place.

"To exist" symbolizes "can change"
When we see an object,
our eyes communicate with the object,
in that electrons in the object change, and electrons in the eye change.
the changed electrons in the eye are the cause at the fabrication of color by the brain.

The imaginary (NO-thing for an example a color) is not the cause at the assertion OF the imaginary.
The assertion "the imaginary MUST exist - it MUST cause so you can even assert it"
is the assertion of a non sequitur:
Color is as imaginary as is Harry Potter.
Harry Potter is - per se = as such, it-self, on its own, in its own right,. in its very essence
a thought, an imaginary,
asserted by JK Rowling.
The actor you see in the book or in the video,
he is categorically a person-ization= assertion = objectization
{OF = symbolizing = FAKING} the imaginary.

[Hans-Werner Hammen]

I'm not sure how this makes the neuroscientific evidence against physicalism less problematic. (Terminal lucidity, psychedelic experiences, hypoxic experiences, etc.)

But this is already addressed in Greyson's response.

First, the 'spike' in brain activity is much weaker than waking state activity and cannot account for the heightened experiences observed in NDEs.

It also cannot account for veridical perception during NDEs.

Furthermore, the 'spike' can be explained by the fact that drugs are known to cause a burst of activity before death, and surprise surprise, this study is done on drugged patients.

We might also mention that NDE and OBE can be induced in persons who are fully awake.

[AshvinP]

NO-thing also called immaterial, cannot change,
bcz it is NO-thing rather than SOME-thing.
A thought is technically immutable=eternal,
in that it does not exist in the first place.
...
{OF = symbolizing = FAKING} the imaginary.

This is an amazing leap of unwarranted logic from "immaterial" to "non-existent" and "faking"... Cleric can respond more, but I just wanted to point this out.

[Hans-Werner Hammen]

- Is-ness = existence,
- ought-, should-, must-ness = importance, relevance, necessity
- Logic (identity, distinction)
each is imaginary = PSYCHE = NO-thing = does not exist.

An assertion (LOGOI) {OF=objectizing=FAKING} NO-thing,
it will be deemed to be
TRUE, warrant-full by somebody
FALSE, warrant-less by somebody else.

Why is this?
Simple as that:
Everybody has their own brain.

Did you know that you cannot prove that an assertion of not-thing IS true?
the aequation = assertion OF identity (NO-thing)
"1=1"
you can neither prove nor disprove that it IS true
you can neither prove nor disprove that it IS false.

[Cleric K]

"I think" = "My brain is fabricating an awareness=a thought=NO-thing"

- All that is detectable (PHYSIS)
- the {organs of detection} aka senses (PHYSIS)
- the brain (PHYSIS),
- the {organs of: Exertion=assertion} (PHYSIS),
- the assertion (LOGOI) uttering=faking a thought (PSYCHE)
each is SOME-thing =
detectable = changeable also called material = composed of atoms/subatomic particles.

Hans, I'm still not sure I understand your position exactly. First I thought you were arguing for "no-outer-world, only-inner-reality" view. Now as I reread your posts it seems you hold on to a physicalist paradigm. Is that correct?

If that is the case you, when you say "All that is detectable" how do you know that the PHYSIS exists, if all that you have access to is fabricated awareness? At what point this fabricated awareness reaches the conclusion for the existence of something outside it which has the nature of PHYSIS? You don't directly know PHYSIS atoms, you know PSYCHE colors and shapes. As far as our conscious life is concerned, the atoms are thinking interpretation of colors and shapes. Do you agree?

To put that in a perspective - if the PSYCHE is all you know, how can you be certain that it is FAKED by some external PHYSIS brain? What if the PSYCHE is the product of a simulation/matrix? What if the content of the PSYCHE is a movie played by some God? What is it within the contents of the PSYCHE which gives you the certainty that there is a real PHYSIS brain out there, which fabricates your awareness? If your PSYCHE was simulated/played back by God, do you think you would be able to distinguish that? If yes, what in your PSYCHE would be different, such that you would be able to say "Aha! So there's no real PHYSIS brain, it's all a simulation/matrix"?

[Hans-Werner Hammen]

"To exist" merely symbolizes "causes its awareness=is-ness=existence=no-thing) by
- an observation process (see, hear, touch, smell, taste)
- a detection process in a technical device.

If you doubt that an apple exists, then you are merely trying to re-define.

For this reasion i challenge you:
Explain to me, concisely, briefly, nonambiguously
what does "to exist" mean
TO YOU?

[Hans-Werner Hammen]

>>>if the PSYCHE is all you know<<<

Nope, deer friend.

All that you and I DO know =
can fabricate awareness = experience = knownness = knowledge = imaginary = PSYCHE = no-thing)
from/about,
it is
- PHYSIS = things, the universe as such
- LOGOI = assertions {OF=FAKING} PSYCHE