理性,循证,非唯物主义的心脑互动模型


封面 人类学 日志。

迄今为止,我的一篇文章体现了我最大的努力来解释我对思想与大脑之间关系的非唯物主义观点。这篇文章是该杂志的第一篇,链接如下。我没有提到如果我的书在里面,那就没有行销了。我谨恳请您将其传递给您认为有兴趣的任何人;免费。 我们需要向主导的唯物主义范式泄露理性的,基于证据的替代方案,许多人仍然认为它是唯一可用的模型 合理且与经验证据一致。如果有人将此链接发送给他,我4岁的那个人将不胜感激!所以 请尽可能广泛地传递。这是杂志的链接:

http://paranthropologyjournal.weebly.com/free-pdf.html.

这是免费下载PDF的直接链接:

http://paranthropologyjournal.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/5/3/7753171/paranthropology_vol_3_no_3.pdf.
分享:

19条评论:

  1. 谢谢伯纳德。看起来很有趣

    回复删除
  2. Nice job! Bravo! I really enjoyed the read. One question that arises though is how this universal mind relates to 物 in your scheme. Is yours a fully idealistic proposition?

    回复删除
    回覆
    1. 嗨,杰克,
      Yes, my position is Idealism, though 我不'为了保持重点,将其纳入文章;它没有'有助于在同一篇论文中打开两个不同的前沿。我的帖子"The Brain as a 结 of Consciousness,"在此博客中,说明了我如何调和'filter'理想主义假说。
      干杯,伯纳多。

      删除
    2. 嗨,伯纳多,

      阅读"Knot" post. I see what you are saying: the brain is an image of tightly-wound consciousness. Being an idealist then, do you disavow the existence of 物? I guess so, because otherwise you would have to uphold a mind-matter dualism. My question then is: how do you explain change? Seems to me that something has to be independent from mind to allow for the degradation towards death that awaits all things. I tend to subscribe to 你好 roshi Motoyama's position that there exists a provisional mind-matter dualism and that this mind and 物 are interfused a la panpsychism. Mind is what gives 物 it's cohesive form, but ultimately 物's tendency towards chaos wins out. Like the forces of yin and yang sprung out of the Dao, Motoyama maintains that mind and 物 were born out of what he calls Absolutely Nothing, a primordial ground of being which can be equated with Buddhism'空虚。元山's position is derived from Samkhya Yoga which maintains that the process of spiritual refinement entails liberating mind from 物 until ultimately the dichotomy is seen through as fundamentally Absolutely Nothing.

      I'd非常有兴趣就此主题与您联系。

      祝一切顺利,
      杰克

      删除
    3. 嗨,杰克,
      我不't disavow the existence of 物 in the sense that 我不't deny our _experience_ of 物; of a palpable, concrete world, obeying the so-called 'laws' of physics. But I do question whether that world -- that 物 -- exists independently of mind. I think 物 _is_ our experience of it; there is nothing to 物 outside the conscious experience of that something palpable.
      所以所谓'laws of physics,'在我看来,只是'laws of mind'(我在这里与Sheldrake在一起,因为'laws'可能更像习惯)。一旦您认识到心理动力足够丰富,可以服从各种模式(律法或习惯),就可以构想出一种形式的'二元论在'唯心主义。换句话说,我可以构想出思维模式'倾向于熵和混乱的流,以及思维模式'倾向于有序和复杂的流程。如果你叫前者'matter,'一切都应该整齐地融合在一起。
      干杯,伯纳多。

      删除
  3. 嗨,伯纳德。

    我已阅读您的文章,并想与您讨论一些想法。

    The first idea refers to when you write that if consciousness is fundamental, then it cannot be 造成 by the brain, but I think you'重新混淆两个顺序:本体顺序和因果顺序。意识在本体论上可能是基本的,但仍在因果关系上依赖于大脑。但是无论如何,我都同意您的过滤器模型。

    其次,如果我了解您的立场,那么现实的基础不是物质而是精神,集体无意识。但是,你所说的"集体无意识"基本上和唯物主义者所说的一样"matter",因为在两种情况下面对抵抗我们意志的现实, which ensures that match our experiences, about our experiences with coherence, etc., so that practically no difference between idealism and materialism. Yes, there are differences, but are merely metaphysical, almost without practical consequences.您在文章中描述的预测也使某种心理-物理二元论, that is, realism about the mind and 物, so that these consequences do not count. But I wrote almost because the only practical consequence that comes to mind is that in the future (if idealism is true) develop techniques to voluntarily give orders to the 集体无意识 and to alter reality in a radical way, as in the short stories "Casey Agonistes"理查德·麦肯纳(Richard McKenna)的作品,或《凉宫春日的忧郁》中的小说!但是在那之前,我认为争论哪个是现实的基础是没有用的,而是倾向于保留常识的现实主义。

    第三,您提到了过滤器模型的一些预测,但是没有提及psi能力,例如心灵感应和预知,这也是过滤器模型的预测。您提到了NDE中的psi能力,但在健康状况下psi能力也是模型过滤器的预测。什么 '更重要的是,psi能力是过滤器模型的主要结果,因为它们对于区分过滤器模型和生产模型是必不可少的:如果生产模型为真,那么所有的垂直感知都是由物质感官引起的,但是如果过滤器模型是的确,存在不通过物质感觉的垂直感觉,因为它们是大脑尚未过滤的信息,而这正是psi的经验。

    And fourth, according to your idealism, brain localize the 非人格的 集体无意识 to a given space-time, leading to a personal consciousness with its own history. Now, what about death?意识不再是个人的吗? 集体无意识 or remain personal? If you opted for the former, I think an 非人格的 life after death is not life really, because in the human sense life can only be I act, I perceive, and the I is personal. Although the most important thing is that all the evidence about the afterlife points to a personal life after organic death. Not only do the NDE (which your writing seems to be the only type of evidence for the afterlife you have in mind), but also the deathbed visions, apparitions of the living and dead, mediumship and children seem to remember past lives.

    回复删除
    回覆
    1. 你好

      Thanks for the extensive and 思想ful comments!

      >意识可以是本体论的基础,并且仍然可以
      >因果依赖于大脑。

      如果意识是本体论的本原,那么它就不是大脑产生的。那'从某种意义上说我不是'caused'通过大脑。大脑可以做的是'give shape'已有的意识,以及'cause'那种有意识的内容。但是请注意,这已经非常接近过滤器假设,即大脑'modulates' conscious contents.

      > what you call "集体无意识"基本上是一样的
      >正如唯物主义者所说的"matter",因为在两种情况下
      >面对抵抗我们意志的现实

      It'在您所指的意义上是相同的,即抵抗自我意志的精神内容。但它's different in other fundamental points: Matter, under realism, exists outside of mind, while the 集体无意识 is part of mind. This way, the 'laws of nature'在我的假设中,实际上是'laws'心中。这种差异可能会产生实际的影响,您可能会暗示自己:'laws' are in mind, and in fact are habits of mind, then they could in principle by hacked through as-of-yet unknown mental practices. So the 集体无意识 is not really equivalent to our interpretation of 物 under the physicalism.

      >您在文章中描述的预测也使
      >某种心理-物理二元论

      Potentially yes; in this specific article 我不't go into Idealism. This article had to focus on one only issue to stay sharp: Showing that the brain does not generate the mind. I wrote it so as not to contradict Idealism, but 我不'不要在其中推行唯心主义。我也没有 '不想使论点依赖于唯心主义。就其本身而言,本文可以适用于理想主义或二元论。

      > you mention several predictions of the 过滤 model , but do
      >更不用说psi能力,例如心灵感应和
      > precognition

      Correct. And I agree with you that psi is an important prediction of the 过滤 hypothesis. 我没有't put it in because psi in itself is very polemic, so 我没有'不想混淆问题。我选择仅使用主流神经科学数据来捍卫自己的观点,以使其尽可能保持清晰。

      >意识不再是个人的吗?
      > 集体无意识 or remain personal?

      根据个人经验和许多其他报告(例如,NDE,冥想等),我个人的观点是,非常重要的一种个人身份可以幸免于身体死亡。它'不是自我,因为自我似乎非常扎根于大脑过程(例如默认模式网络),但是更类似于荣格'称为Anima / Animus或Self。但是这篇文章是关于我可以证实的,不一定是我个人的看法。我觉得我做不到't在本文中充分证实了个人身份的生存,而没有使我自己受到有根据的批评。然后我没有'希望用潜在的弱点来削弱其余论点的清晰度。所以我写了我可以证实的东西,不一定是我个人观点的全部。再一次,我认为一种身份形式比自我更深(足以使自我看起来完全无关)是可以生存的。

      > I is personal.

      如果最终只有一个'I',那么是的,它是从自己的角度来看是个人的,但是是集体和'impersonal'从像你或我这样的有区别的自我的角度来看。

      干杯,伯纳多。

      删除
    2. 谢谢回答!

      On the question of if consciousness is ontologically primitive, then it is not generated by the brain,查默斯不同意,因为他认为意识在本体论上是原始的,但却是生成的 by the brain according to psychophysical 法律. Anyway does not 物 because I agree with you that all the current evidence, neurophysiological and parapsychological, discard the production model and supports the 过滤 model.

      当您写出理想主义的实际结果时,是从根本上改变现实的理论可能性,但是我想说的是,在我们找到证据证明这种可能性是可能的之前,支持理想主义是太鲁ck了。尽管我们可能已经有了某种证据。您知道法国探险家亚历山德拉·大卫·尼尔的故事吗?她是第一个到达西藏首都的西方女性,根据他的著作,她成功地创造了藏传佛教徒所说的"tulpa", an idea that by the mere force of imagination ends up being real and perceived anyone. At first the 塔尔帕 创造d by David-Neel only what she saw, but eventually came to be seen by anyone who approached her. Something extraordinary, but Tibetan Buddhism goes one step beyond saying that the whole universe is a 塔尔帕, and affirm your idealism. However, this is precipitated, because that 塔尔帕s are possible does not mean that all the material world is a 塔尔帕, although the possibility of 塔尔帕s may be evidence in favor of idealism.

      最后,我对冥想,使用精神药物进行的实验等不是很熟悉,所以就我的情况而言,根据NDE上的证据,死者的视力,活着的和死去的人,中间人和似乎记得前世的孩子的肖像我已经得出结论,器质性死亡后还有个人生活。我认为它'当我们有其他证据(是的,有争议的,但在此问题上有更强烈的证据)时,坚持无损检测和使用精神药物的经验是一个错误。

      删除
    3. 你好

      >查默斯不同意,因为他认为
      >意识在本体论上是原始的,但却是生成的
      > by the brain

      这听起来对我来说是直接的矛盾。

      >当您写出理想主义的实际结果时,
      >在现实中改变现实的理论可能性
      > radical way

      我没有't really say 'radical.'是否激进'对我来说似乎很重要。如果'laws of physics'实际上,这是(无意识)思想的习惯,在我看来,习惯可能会随着时间的流逝而缓慢地漂移。但是,对我而言,这种可能性根本不是使理想主义有趣的原因。我不是在寻找像这样的实际应用"The Secret,"但只是试图为手头的数据找到最佳解释。

      >直到我们找到证据证明这是可能的,才支持
      > idealism is too 鲁莽。

      I'在这里我完全不同意。我什么也没看见'reckless'唯心主义唯物主义是'reckless.'这与情感甚至实际应用无关,而与哪种形而上学更适合手头的数据无关。我认为,即使没有实际应用,唯心主义也有很好的理性和经验原因,使理想主义更适合数据。

      如果需要谈论'recklessness,'那么我实际上会建议,唯物主义是更有害的,因为它使目的的终结,意识的死亡永久存在,这对心理,社会,经济和环境造成了可怕的后果。我们通过采用形而上学'我认为唯一可能符合事实或逻辑的情况可能不符合条件'reckless.'

      对我而言,理想主义的选择与'change the 法律 of physics'或任何类似性质的东西。不管它可能是什么,都与接近真相有关。对我来说,这也与消除意识终结的有害唯物主义神话有关,因为在我看来,不是形而上学最适合数据。

      删除
    4. 嗨,谢谢您的回答。

      您认为理想主义是所有数据的最佳解释,但我不这么认为,因为二元论也可以解释所有数据,而不会拒绝我不拒绝的常识性现实主义。

      In my opinion, the idealism is only acceptable if confirmed some of its practical consequences, that is, if we could voluntarily give orders to the 集体无意识 to radically alter reality. As for now these effects have not occurred, is precipitated accept idealism, so I wrote that it would be 鲁莽 to accept idealism. That is, find the truth for practical applications, not greater explanatory power.

      删除
    5. "Giving orders to the 集体无意识 on a voluntary basis to radically alter reality"绝不是理想主义的实际结果。理想主义不是"law of attraction"或任何相关的New Age东西。对于理想主义而言,这是一个非常幼稚的概念。我请您参考该博客的其他文章,我的书和我的视频,以期对理想主义进行认真的哲学阐述。它甚至可以"host" a kind of Dualism in the way that an operating system can 主办 another but, in my view, Idealism remains fundamental. Cheers, B.

      删除
  4. 贝尔纳多,我第二次听了您对Skeptiko的采访,还完成了您的人类学论文。我都非常喜欢。我非常欣赏您的推理和语言清晰明了。我尤其喜欢您将科学证据与哲学论证相结合。我一直觉得科学家放下哲学只会导致他们做不好的哲学。

    在本文中,我感谢您提出了唯物主义立场的荒谬的承诺性质。我还认为您列出的大脑功能受到抑制但意识增强的病例非常有效。一世'从来没有见过如此完整的清单。

    我有几个问题。首先,用捕获阳光的植物类比来解释意识的定位具有内在的合理性,但与此同时,它似乎具有很高的推测性。您有任何证据证明这种猜测吗?

    同样,您似乎暗示着定位是通过大脑的物理机制施加于意识的,而不是来自意识本身的选择。那是你的意思吗如果是这样,您如何处理无损检测数据,这些数据似乎暗示着意识在体内的持续局限性,尽管可能范围较小。

    How good do you think the evidence is for the Jungian 集体无意识? I am very sympathetic to the idea, but I would like to see more evidence for it. I remember reading that a study of children'的梦想并没有产生我们对荣格思想的期望-各种各样的普遍原型出现在不熟悉这些神话主题的孩子的梦想中。

    最后,您最初离开唯物主义模型的权利似乎是由于Groblacher等人的论文所致。由于该论文似乎为您的论证做了大量工作,因此,我希望听到更多有关该论文具体结论的信息。

    In spite of these questions, I 思想 your basic argument was refreshingly clear, straightforward, and, once laid out, intuitively obvious. I hope your paper gets some traction (although I wish the journal cover had been a bit more befitting of your subject 物!).

    回复删除
  5. 罗伯特你好,

    >首先,用类比解释意识的本地化
    >因其益处而捕获阳光的植物具有固有的
    >合理性,但同时似乎也具有高度投机性。做
    >您有任何证据证明这种猜测吗?

    客观证据'意识领域'以我们有客观证据证明'电磁场'几乎按照定义,这是不可能的。这个'意识领域'是_意识_;你现在的意识它'不会像阳光那样在您的外面,因此您无法客观地对其进行测量,因为它是您_。您只能直接体验。这种自我指称的性质'意识领域'将其放在与其他事物完全不同的本体论类别中,因此不应'不能根据与其他任何事物相同的假设进行判断。

    This way, I think the only evidence that is reasonable to expect is evidence from direct experience, as reported by human subjects. That is the evidence I summarize at the end of the article. And I think there is an abundance of such evidence; more than a I mentioned. Here is some of what 我没有'在文章中提到:

    http://www.wisconsinmedicalsociety.org/savant_syndrome/savant_articles/acquired_savant
    http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/59337
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2155919/Derek-Amato-Concussion-turns-Colorado-man-musical-genius-aged-40.html
    http://www.explorejournal.com/article/S1550-8307(12)00084-5/fulltext#sec2

    >另外,您似乎暗示着本地化是在
    >意识是通过大脑的物理机制,而不是
    >是一种来自意识本身的选择。

    In the paper, this is what is implicitly suggested. My broader philosophical position, however, is that the brain itself is a 'knot' of consciousness (see: http://www.yiqimaicha.com/2011/12/brain-as-knot-of-consciousness.html). So to say that the brain limits consciousness is equivalent to saying that consciousness chooses to limit itself, since the brain is a construct of, and in, consciousness. In the article, there was no opportunity to elaborate on these deeper questions, since it needed to be focused on one single key point. The key point I chose was to dispel the myth that mind is 创造d by a material entity outside of mind. For this reason, there was some Dualism sort of implied in the paper, even though I am not a Dualist (but rather an Idealist).

    >如果是这样,您如何处理NDE的数据,这似乎暗示着
    >意识的持续定位超出了身体,尽管
    >也许少一些?

    我不排除这样一种可能性,即形成自我的大脑结构只是定位机制的其他不可见的层次(从自我的角度来看)。一旦自我消失了(即身体死亡),我就不会排除意识只是'hops'上一层,到下一层本地化。大脑可能只是自相似定位环的分形结构的可见尖端或回声。当然,最终的水平是没有本地化的海洋意识。

    >您认为对荣格人集体的证据有多好
    > unconscious?

    我认为很好。您可以先阅读荣格's '原型与集体无意识',然后是'超个人心理学杂志。'

    >最后,您最初的右转离开了唯物主义模型
    >似乎是由于Groblacher等人的论文。自那篇论文以来
    >似乎为您的论证做了很多工作,我很想
    >详细了解该论文的具体结论。

    原始的《自然》论文相当技术性。这是一个受欢迎的摘要:
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2007/apr/20/quantum-physics-says-goodbye-to-reality

    干杯,伯纳多。

    回复删除
  6. Bernardo,非常感谢您的快速实用的回复。一世'm跟进您所提供的链接。

    我了解您关于大脑选择限制自己的意识的想法,并记得您在Skeptiko访谈中对漩涡的类比,我认为这非常有效。我很高兴看到您的观点"大脑可能只是自相似定位环的分形结构的可见尖端或回声。"这就是我的看法。一世've认为它是一系列不断扩展的过滤器中最底层的过滤器。

    我完全同意意识的自我指涉性质。我想我对植物类比的问题应该更清楚一些。我的问题确实是:您的想法是否有证据表明大脑在那里存在以便为身体定位意识'生存?我之所以问是因为,从直觉上来说,我是身体的向上因果关系'需要驱动意识的本地化。但是您的模型似乎包含许多向下的因果关系,在我看来,这将更倾向于将大脑解释为意识的媒介'限制自己的选择(无论选择的性质如何)。你看到我了吗'm driving at?

    回复删除
    回覆
    1. 罗伯特你好,

      >是否有证据表明您的大脑是
      >在那里为了意识而定位意识
      > body'生存?我问是因为直觉上
      > strikes me as 向上的因果关系 with the body's needs
      >推动意识的本地化。然而你
      >模型似乎包含很多向下的因果关系,
      >在我看来,这倾向于解释大脑
      >作为意识的工具' choice to limit
      >本身(无论选择的性质如何)。做
      > you see what I'm driving at?

      哦,是的,我现在知道了。它'我认为这是一个很好的观点。

      好吧,在本文中,我试图将攻击重点放在当前科学思想的一个前提(即思维=大脑)上。为了有效地做到这一点,我不能'不要打开太多其他战线,否则我会淡化每一个论点。因此,方法是:好吧,我同意进化和各种各样的事情,但我仍然有一个紧密而连贯的故事'思维比大脑更重要。'

      也就是说,我认为进化不一定是一种形式'upward causation,' something 我没有't提出论文(由于上述原因)。但是我在这里讨论了它:

      http://www.yiqimaicha.com/2012/07/meaningful-evolution.html

      这种推测打开的可能性是,意识使用进化作为通过迭代改进来定位自身的工具。进化可能只是'意识在做事情'如果你赶上我的漂移。

      干杯,伯纳多。

      删除
  7. 我了解需要仔细选择一个'在纸上的战斗。而且我相信我确实能抓住你的麻烦。我喜欢《进化》的帖子和视频。他们肯定在我的思想中留下了印记。谢谢!

    回复删除
  8. 嗨伯纳多

    I'我在几个月后关注您的帖子和视频,我'am literally "glued to the screen"每次您与我们分享您的一些想法和想法。我本人具有计算机科学和哲学背景,我非常感谢您的态度和勇气,通过理性的论证和批判的开放思想超越当前的主流范式。这正是当今所需要的,尤其是在最近,人们甚至感觉到了一些根本性的改变,即使是(或者恰恰是)在与顽强的物理学家同事交谈时,也是如此。

    Anyway, here's a link to a recently published article from Chopra, Kafatos and Tanzi that points very much in your direction of 思想 (I guess): http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/chopra/article/A-Consciousness-Based-Science-3850763.php.

    Possibly you know the authors and their publications already. 我不'不太在乎Chopra(尽管如此,但是有很多"Chopras"那里写着说不错的东西),但Kafatos和最重要的Tanzi都是科学界受人尊敬的成员,这使文章中的大胆陈述更让我着迷。

    我有时间请您对本文提供反馈。

    非常感谢!

    最高

    回复删除
    回覆
    1. 嗨,Max,
      首先,非常感谢您的鼓励和对迟到的答复表示歉意。我终于有机会阅读您所提到的文章。
      是的,我同意本文,而且确实符合我的哲学立场。为了稍微分开头发,我可能会更细微地提及量子物理学,因为那里有很多解释。但是那'细节如您所言,本文的主旨与我的理念完全一致。这篇文章有些肤浅,但仍然值得。
      I'我很高兴您一直喜欢我的东西。随着灵感的到来,我将继续努力生产更多产品。因为我've been working on my fourth book now, the 频率 of new articles in this blog may go down a bit; but not much! :-)
      干杯,伯纳多。

      删除
  9. 问题是'thought'凝聚,即无意识的有意识的显现。这是一种方法'all-that'is'了解自己。因此,将自己组织在所有可能的复杂组织中,每个组织都是其自身的独特视角。
    正如我们的大脑进化一样,'practiced'足够的东西,即始终如一地专注于它,它就变成了一种潜意识,使我们有意识的思维得以释放出来,专注于新信息,沉淀并存储所取得的任何进展的程序。因此,我们可以将自己视为解码器并体现现实。一项发明似乎无处不在,但正是信息的准确内容和发明者的思维能力'manifests'它来自集体信息领域。
    一些'masters' and yogis in India have been known to be able to manifest 物 , because they have identified with a larger aspect of their own consciousness, and can speed up the process enough to 'create',似乎一无所有。无论如何,它全是精力。瑜伽士发生了一起事件,他认识到现实的更大方面,并且在本质上都是相同的'bed'或基金会,他们可以穿过墙壁和许多看似疯狂的壮举,这些举世闻名'Siddhis', as a person grows spiritually beyond the understanding of physical reality. You can affect the atoms of your own body and elements when you have reached the perspective that 物 is indeed an illusion (maya), and it seems fixed because we are mesmerised by its forms and assume an observer mode rather than understanding it is our own energy that keeps it that way. Ancient indian Gods, were known to perform many feats which seemed like magic, but what if they just were another race of spiritually evolved being, more self-realised, and able to affect 物.
    The basic premise is 物 is an illusion, we literally are the infinite, and the more you can identify with that extent, the more you can affect 物 at the most fundamental level. Everything is one, but has differentiated into different forms, much like how Cymatics shows each pattern can be induced with a slight change in the 'frequency'.


    这些是印度Vedanta和advaita哲学的思想。您可能会发现它们很有趣。远距离观看等在古代也很常用'rishis'. I realise this may not be pertinent to the tone of the discussion here, but it really is worth looking into, as probably the next step for understanding the bigger picture and possibly the next state of evolution. The more we identify with our broader more spiritual nature, the more we grasp the bigger picture and the abilities to affect it. The ones who remain transfixed in their detachment to 物, seek to manipulate it with much cruder means, because they are unable to extend their influence having believed the illusion of being apart from it. If a person can 创造 a field around them, through a strong sense of self-awareness, as to consciously control everything that enters it, they could affect everything in that sphere, without requiring crude tools, simply by their minds. That level of identification and understanding however does require some focus and commitment.

    回复删除