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

[Jim Cross]

What does explain experience? ]

Idealism!

Okay. I say "Materialism!".

Seriously. Idealism doesn't explain it. It just says it is.

[Soul_of_Shu]

the challenge of explaining how any brain activity accounts for any experience whatsoever.

Similar to Ben's point so same question. What does explain experience? Unless you can explain it, you would be hypocritical in faulting science for not being able to explain it.

One other point - science really doesn't need to explain to do what it does. We don't need to measure the immeasurable to understand that brain activity associates with consciousness.

The whole point of idealism is that conscious experience is the irreducible, uncaused ontological primitive, so there's no point in trying to explain a cause that isn't there. That is the case for any cosmology, because, as BK points out, one can't just keep going with reductionism indefinitely. At some point there has to be the one uncaused state in terms of which all else, in theory, can be explained. What exactly that irreducible state is under materialism still remains a great debate among physicists, some of whom have not ruled out that the irreducible state is consciousness. However, surely there are implications for the study of how it correlates with brain activity if taking the primacy of consciousness into account.

[Jim Cross]

The whole point of idealism is that conscious experience is the irreducible, uncaused ontological primitive, so there's no point in trying to explain a cause that isn't there.

In that case, materialism shouldn't get criticized because it can't explain it either. But what exactly does "explaining it" mean? What is it that needs to be explained?

At some point there has to be the one uncaused state in terms of which all else, in theory, can be explained.

Why does this have to be? I've never understand exactly how anything else is derived from "one uncaused state". Why not multiple states? 10, 20, 1000 -maybe an infinite number of states? One for each little excitation of consciousness?

, surely there are implications for the study of how it correlates with brain activity if taking the primacy of consciousness into account.

I don't know how that study would be different from what that didn't take the primacy of consciousness into account.

[Soul_of_Shu]

In that case, materialism shouldn't get criticized because it can't explain it either. But what exactly does "explaining it" mean? What is it that needs to be explained?

The criticism of materialism is that it can't explain how consciousness is derived from its non-conscious ontological primitive, not that it must come up with a cause for its uncaused OP, whatever that OP may be.

At some point there has to be the one uncaused state in terms of which all else, in theory, can be explained.

Why does this have to be? I've never understand exactly how anything else is derived from "one uncaused state". Why not multiple states? 10, 20, 1000 -maybe an infinite number of states? One for each little excitation of consciousness?

Well, even if allowing for multiple co-existent uncaused states, that remains an irreducible realm.

I don't know how that study would be different from what that didn't take the primacy of consciousness into account.

Unless neuroscience starts to take the primacy of consciousness and thinking into account, how could we know the implications that would have in the interpretation of the data?

[Eugene I]

The whole point of idealism is that conscious experience is the irreducible, uncaused ontological primitive, so there's no point in trying to explain a cause that isn't there.

In that case, materialism shouldn't get criticized because it can't explain it either. But what exactly does "explaining it" mean? What is it that needs to be explained?

At some point there has to be the one uncaused state in terms of which all else, in theory, can be explained.

Why does this have to be? I've never understand exactly how anything else is derived from "one uncaused state". Why not multiple states? 10, 20, 1000 -maybe an infinite number of states? One for each little excitation of consciousness?

We discussed it already. In any metaphysical and/or scientific model there are two kinds of phenomena:
1. Irreducible (fundamental), such as "matter" in materialism, or "consciousness" in idealism, or "superstrings" in a particular formulation of physical model or reality. These phenomena do not need to be explained (i.e. causally reduced to any other phenomena).
2. Reducible phenomena which existence and behavior can be derived from (or reduced to) the fundamental ones. The reducibility of these phenomena needs to be proven by showing how they can be reduced to or derived from the irreducible phenomena (this is what "explaining" means).

In a consistent metaphysical or scientific paradigm there are not supposed to be any other types of phenomena that are not fundamental and at the same time are not reducible to any other phenomena (i.e. do not belong to either #1 or #2 category). If such phenomena still exist, they are considered to be the evidences of explanatory gaps in the particular scientific or metaphysical paradigm.

This answers your question "In that case, materialism shouldn't get criticized because it can't explain it either. But what exactly does "explaining it" mean? What is it that needs to be explained?". In idealism consciousness belongs to the category #1 and therefore does not need to be explained. There is no explanatory gap in idealism related to the experimental fact of the existence of conscious experience. In materialism it is claimed that consciousness is not fundamental, which means that it necessarily belongs to the category #2 and therefore needs to be explained (derived from the fundamental which is "matter" in materialism). So far nobody could provide such explanation and there are strong arguments that such explanation can not be provided in principle within the framework of materialism (see Chalmers). But until such explanation is provided, materialism will suffer from the existence of a serious explanatory gap problem (aka "hard problem of consciousness").

Regarding the root post question: the evidence of gamma wave activity at the near-death does not prove or disprove anything. From the materialist standpoint, it can be argued that such neural activity is what causes the near-death experiences. But from idealist standpoint, it can be equally argued that such neural activity is a physical-level reaction of the dying but still active brain (or more precisely, the "image of the brain") on the already ongoing near-death enhanced conscious experience that consequently proceeds after the clinical death of the brain. The correlation between the neural activity and conscious experience is a known fact and it supports both physicalist model (conscious experience as a result of neural activity) and idealist model (neural activity as a result of the activity of consciousness) . In other words, both materialism and idealism have explanatory models for the correlations between the neural activity and conscious experiences, so no discoveries of new correlation facts can change this balance and prove or disprove one paradigm over the other.

[Jim Cross]

Eugene and Soul,

Idealism is doing a sleight of hand by declaring its primitive to be consciousness, which means by definition it can't be explained. It doesn't tell anything about what consciousness really is or how consciousness manifests the world as it is, because idealism has ruled that off limits by declaring it original and uncaused. So it is beyond study.

This is what is so bizarre about calling for science to accept the primacy of consciousness, because the acceptance of the primacy of consciousness would immediately put out of bounds of science what is, according to idealism, reality itself. So it fundamentally can't research its own subject.

Generally the call for idealism in science is just a stalking horse for taking seriously the claims of parapsychology. But nobody is stopping people from studying "paranormal" phenomena. People can study it no matter what ontological preference they have. The problem is convincing others that what the being studied really exists as it is claimed.

Between the two

1 - Brain activity causes consciousness
2- Consciousness causes brain activity

The commonality is brain activity.

With 1, we can study how different types of brain activity correlate with conscious states, how modifying brain activity can produce new states, even possibly how consciousness could affect brain activity.

With 2, consciousness become a fence we can't see behind and we have no way to study how or why consciousness could be create certain types of brain activity at certain times.

[Cleric K]

Between the two

1 - Brain activity causes consciousness
2- Consciousness causes brain activity

The commonality is brain activity.

) Look again at the sentences. 'Consciousness' is exactly as common between the two, as brain activity. The propositions are perfectly symmetric, you have arbitrarily selected one of the elements to be more certain. But this is not that important.

Both 'brain activity' and 'consciousness' are concepts that thinking assigns to complexes of perceptions. The first is what thinking conceives when beholding complicated perceptions from the sensory spectrum (amplified by instruments). The second is what thinking conceives when it tries to encompass the totality of perceptions - including the perceptions of thinking itself.

Do you recognize thinking as the true starting point for any philosophical or scientific endeavor? Can you, personally, be more certain than anything else than thinking?

[Soul_of_Shu]

Now slapping myself for getting sucked in by Jim once more ... That's it! Harder slap!! NO MORE!!!

[Jim Cross]

Let me strike that.

The commonality is brain activity.

It was part of a larger sentence that got massaged until it became meaningless.

Materialism treats consciousness as one more aspect of the world. It can cause things. It can be caused. It can be studied. Materialism in modern scientific practice, has hundreds of models of the world that it can use to make prediction. It doesn't explain everything with "matter". It has gravity, particles, waves, neurons, DNA.

If you assert the ontological primitive of consciousness, it can't be caused so it can't be studied by science. It becomes much like an elan vital because it tries to explain everything so it explains nothing.

Consciousness is tied to knowing since whatever we know exists in some form in consciousness. That epistemic truth doesn't lead directly to the ontological conclusion that everything is consciousness.

[Jim Cross]

Eugene and Don,

To return briefly to the subject of this post. It isn't about whether the brain causes consciousness or consciousness the brain. It is about BK's belief that there is little or no correlative brain activity associated with NDEs.

My guess is this is how BK got to this position.

BK noted some early experiment with psychedelics that there seem to be reduced brain activity associated with "expanded consciousness". He also noted that other transformative experiences also seem to be associated with the reduced activity. This is especially so with claims of NDEs with no brain activity. So he took the bait of these early experiments with some rather crude MRI measurements and leaped to an argument that aligned with his DID theory - that is, reduced brain activity breaks down the dissociative boundary and leads to expanded awareness. Unfortunately, later theories came along that showed higher brain activity (but a different type that was measured in the earlier studies) with psychedelics and then the studies in the original post about brain activity in dying brains.

So now BK is stuck with an untenable position but is too egoistic to say he was wrong. So he doesn't comment on the topic.