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

[Hans-Werner Hammen]

>>>to have access to<<<
it symbolizes that we can see, hear, touch, smell, taste it.
And/or that a technical device will produce a response from/about it.

We have access to the apple
but we do not have acces to the color of an apple.

[AshvinP]

"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?

I don't have a problem with the bold, except it arbitrary limits "observation" to five senses of materialist presuppositions. Our thinking is also an observational tool i.e. sense-organ which perceives thoughts-ideas. You are presupposing this fact (of thinking as sense-organ) in your entire argument, otherwise how could you assert your idea that thoughts are non-existent imaginary entities? For that idea to be coherently asserted, it must exist and correspond to something in observational experience.

[Hans-Werner Hammen]

"thinking" is "continual re-arrangements in a brain"
Iow all that you DO use here, it is your brain.

[Cleric K]

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

OK, moose friend
To exist, to me, means to experience thinking. I may not know (yet) what existence is, may not know if it is dream, simulation, movie, but the fact that I can think about it shows that there's something going on - at least the thinking is going on.

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

I can't be as certain as you. For example, when dreaming, everything seems pretty PHYSIS. So the only certain thing in both cases is that we have perceptions which look like some outer world, and we can think about them. It would be foolish to believe that your dreams are made of PHYSIS atoms, wouldn't it? What in your experience gives you the certainty that behind the perceptions of waking life there's some completely independent PHYSIS world - the universe as such? That's why I asked you about the simulation and God's movie. Now we included the dream. If you can't distinguish a dream (while dreaming) from waking life, how can you be certain that waking life isn't simply a higher order dream from which you may also wake up? I'm not saying that the structure we behold with the sense is not real. I'm only asking how can you be certain that this structure exists as such and furthermore is faking your awareness.

[Hans-Werner Hammen]

>>>For that idea to be coherently asserted, it must exist and correspond to something in observational experience.<<<

Nope.
Harry Potter is, as mentioned earlier, a counterexample.
Harry Potter per se = as such... does NOT exist.
Redness and any other color does not exist, either.
Each is NO-thing but assigned, ascribed, attributed TO some-thing.

Interestingly, holes do not exist, either
Holes per se = as such...
they are examples of space iow NO-thing.

[AshvinP]

>>>For that idea to be coherently asserted, it must exist and correspond to something in observational experience.<<<

Nope.
Harry Potter is, as mentioned earlier, a counterexample.
Harry Potter does NOT exist.
Redness and any other color does not exist, either.
Each is NO-thing but assigned, ascribed attributed TO some-thing.

For you to assert relation of existence and non-existence to specific experiences also presupposes the reality of your thinking-sense. I know it probably seems "unfair" to you, but everything you are writing about philosophy-metaphysics-science in your comments, or could ever write about them in future comments, disproves your position. Anyway, that's all I have to say on this topic.

[Hans-Werner Hammen]

I just presuppose all that we can detect.
This is how scientists like I work.

[Dave casarino]

So a 'technical device's own technicality accounts for every dynamic it detects experientially? If something is technical enough does it cross a threshold of technicality and then becomes a subject to qualities of experience? That means that my computer should be conscious due to the amount of technical devices in maximal operation, it's either that or every singal component of whatever the hell 'technicality' is has a quality of experience tied to it feature by individual feature so that it can be subjected to what the technical device detects. That means the device would have to combine separate qualitative subjects of experience together to become one continuously experienced whole detection, how do the subjects become non fragmentary? Do qualities of detection have little slots that go together like legos? If subjects or individually witnessed qualities per feature can combine like a liquid per se then we may as well presuppose a whole subject there already to witness 'detection'. If everything is an imagining of PHYSIS then PHYSIS is experiential in nature and we have become panpsychists, if PHYSIS detects the non physical and represents that to itself in an experiental way then PHYSIS is experiential in itself. If nothing phenomenal is actually happening and PHYSIS is not experiential then we have a huge gap in our explanation, this is called the hard problem of consciousness, you need a SUBJECT to be SUBJECTED TO an illusion for an illusion to work, illusionism cannot escape panpsychism, unless there is no illusion at all but then we wouldn't be typing here.

Okaaaaay back to taking a physicalist bat, greyson's response is deliberately ignoring the fact that it is GAMMA WAVES THE HIGHEST FREQUENCY OF BRAIN WAVE'S THAT IS DETECTED IN THESE TESTS, not some fizzly little delta wave's, but the neural correlate of MAXIMUM STIMULATION..... forceful ignorance to this is untenable. Now you may be thinking that hypoxia and psychedelic research as framed by BK is sufficient against physicalism but I am looking into papers that may indicate increase in neural correlate's instead of decreases in regard to many psychedelics and hypoxia. If gamma waves are going off that means a lot of brain activity is under way. Take it or leave it. This post was made to point out that one of the main scientific arguments against physicalism is actually not as strong as it is presented, it seems there is truly a strong vouch for neural correlates of NDE's as gamma waves being the highest brain waves are more than up for the job if we are living in physicalism.

However I am aware that quantities do no carry qualities unless either A) they are sensuous like panpsychism or B) something well beyond our understanding is happening and neither matter nor consciousness is what we think it is.

[Hans-Werner Hammen]

Hello deer friend:
An example of a technical device is a mass spectrometer.
It produces effects called signals.
These signals (PHYSIS) are caused by particles (PHYSIS)
These signals are NOT caused by the masses of the particles.
The measurements of masses are internally calculated from/about the signals.
What we see on the display and/or on the mass chromatogramm,
it is the real calculation, measurement also called value or quantity {OF=faking} masses.
Any measurable property also called "parameter in the language of physics"
it is, per se = as such... imaginary,
is an awareness (PSYCHE) from/about
a calculation, measurement, quantity, value = LOGOI = objectization {OF=FAKING} the property.

In the "Periodic Table of the properties of the elements"
the categorization is
The Periodic Table = LOGOI
{OF = objectizing = FAKING = not caused by}
the properties = imaginaries = PSYCHE
{OF = FROM/ABOUT = caused by}
the elements = PHYSIS

I understand that the average brain will revolt when confronted with the assertion
"Space and time, mass and energy, forces and accelerations (gravity is an acceleration!)
are inside.-brain-effects (PSYCHE) elicited, made up, fabricated
from/about measurements, calculations, values, quantities {OF=FAKING} the property.
Fact is, NOBODY has ever seen, heared, touched, smelled, tasted any measurable property.
Fact is, no technical device will detect mass and calculate a mass from mass and so forth.

[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.

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

NDEs definitely can't. Isolated elements that are similar to NDEs can, but never the full near-death experience. OBEs, yes.