How certain is materialism/physicalism as a description of ultimate reality?

There are probably about 100 different philosophy positions that touch on what science would say about our physical world.Specifically, the metaphysical world.Neuroscience is a pretty materialistic profession. It commonly will show that our memories are made up of biological matter. Roger Penrose and Stuart Hammer off have attempted to find a non materialistic interpretation of our brain and consciousness, but an underground (literally subterranean) experiment, in Italy, did not back up the physical description of the theory.LSD experiments are ongoing, and some physicists are always claiming to have made an LSD breakthrough, that challenges materialism.Generally, just about nothing has truly challenged materialism, successfully.UFOs - to the extent there has been "observations" by us, of them - seem to offer potential evidence that our physical laws need a better understanding, and some interpretations of UFOs involved interdimensional interpretations.(John Brennan or James Clapper said UFOs seem to be interdimensional)Materialism is the most relevant philosophy to a spiritual species, which humans seem to be.

Metaphysical is a hypothetical physical concept, as we all know.Or should already know.

Still waiting for the ahem perfect rewording.Don't cheat us all out of the perfect rewording.

This would be a good place to discuss metaphysical-related events, like miracles and the supernatural.Better than a historical Jesus thread, and there are a lot of those around here.And they are full of posters who don't have a fucking clue.I almost laughed (And as a character technique, I never physically laugh at other people's views) when I read the first few posts in a historical Jesus thread started by ICANT.Look at the starting lineup...Post 1 ICANTPOST 2 Percy (promoted thread)Post 3 TanpteryxPost 4. TangleIt was a parade of stupidity and I never saw such an ignoramus-display, even here, in my entire life.I almost laughed, and post five (PaulK) was the first post that started to display some semblance of understanding about the confused b.s.

I will use the historical Jesus issue to offer a dichotomy.I mentioned that I read a book, awhile (kinda far) back, on the historical Jesus, which I liked a bit more than the rest.It was a book by Dale Allison.It is titled Jesus of Nazareth Millenarian Prophet
(I struggle to remember many details)I liked his views on the views of what type of Jew Jesus was, though surely not in all details. Allison feels the Sermon on The Mount was written after 70 CE, and people here would say, "They made it up".Richard Carrier likes Allison. I just found that out days ago. Liberal Christian theology and historical scholarship tends to find the Sermon on the Mount to be historical (it is always complicated, though).Secular historians write articles (and any "historical" book is actually divided into ARTICLES, the presentation is not as unified & sweeping as traders might assume), in historical studies, granting the historicity of the Sermon On The Mount.I read the Allison history book, without knowing or caring about his religion or any details.It turns out he is (per my Google search, days ago) a Christian who wrote a book defending the resurrection.EvC is packed with posters who are - veritable - uncritically minded, the unscientific mindset is the reason for being totally clueless about history and the nature of scientific studies.I also make mistakes, but they are perhaps due to an over compartmentalization, I dunno?NOW A SUPER DIRECT ANSWERMiracles and creation and the supernatural are part of the metaphysical sphere of debate.They just are.

That would be related to "soul" & "spirit"-intellect issues.Continuity of consciousness after biological death, type issues.Sometimes, I have seen a scientific issue describing a " 'hard problem' of consciousness"I did not say I was discussing anything, however.

Why does it need to be me?I will just answer that I don't know.I will link to a study. From 2022I have two books by Riger Penrose from around 35 years ago.The Emperor's New Clothes and a followup.There was just a big study, and it tested the metaphysical with the physical

That is the first point.
THAT WAS the first point.
That still is.People seem to want to quibble about what exactly we are discussing. Fine.Here is another quibble point:I remembered Chris Matthews objected to Rick Warren asking Senator Obama when live begins.Matthews said it was a "metaphysical" question, and it has no place in a Presidential candidate interview.But, there is a way to put science to the "metaphysical":Fetal viability at 23 weeks was around 4.5 percent, if I understood a 2003 journal article I just saw on a routine Google search.But, in a 2023 University of Rochester Medical report shows modern technology now has a 535/958 (55.8 percent) fetal viability rate, for 23 week pre-mature fetuses.So, is this a metaphysical example simply a bad metaphor, via a political pundit, or is this a "viable" example of metaphysics meeting science.Ironically(?):Roe V Wade had a constitutional protection at 24 weeks. But the 1992 Casey decision allowed for earlier bans, based on viability evidenceI

Alot of people feel they were pre-existing, prior to birth.I have known people (or, specifically, a person)who had night dreams of living their spirit lives in earth, as a watcher-spirit, and talking to fellow spirits about how he looked forward to the day he got to become a living animal - via a future human birth.Chris Matthews was indeed on the right track, when he saw the Saddleback 2008 interview as crossing over into metaphysical territory.I figured that you would respond by saying twenty-three week-old fetuses are too late in the pregnancy to be truly considered part of the metaphysical debate.(I actually was thinking of the issue, because I was wondering if Jimmy Carter could have been born as late as early June 2024 - thus prematurely, and still be healthy enough to make it to June 2024. I was wondering if our life measurements as starting at birth should be seen as 100.0 percent the correct measure. I was wondering what the odds are of the former President reaching 100.Then I thought of this thread.

My post won't scroll when editing. On my phone.I was wondering if Carter could have been conceived at the same time, in 1924, but born prematurely, and then still survived infancy plus been healthy enough to reach 99/100.I was thinking he might come close to reaching 100 (but not quite), by our reconing, but still come close enough - in months/weeks - that could be within the bounds of survivability in a premature birth.

It might be that my phone is about to die due to moisture corrosion.I cant tap on my text box and get it to scroll, during the initial post and editing. If my post is too long, then I cant change it.(I had this problem earlier as my phone spell check turned READERs into "traders", and I did not catch it when I read it.While we are there:(My point about history books was that items are taken on an article by article basis, even if a work has an author who has a grand theme he wants to get across)(Richard Carrier feels that a historian uniquely has vital skills via a special training, and he has strong views which demand we recognize archaeologists and theologians as simply lacking in the qualifications to produce a sound historical study )(That was what initially caused the issue to be on my mind, and you were the reason Percy. I had a slightly larger point here though)

But a single bacterion is part of the metaphysical debate.Does every life have a conscience experience and did it come from an intellect which can be described as a "spiritual" existence?Where do the minds go when biological death occurs.Every issue touching on life & death will fall squarely into a "spiritual" sphere if you feel your philosophical leanings are so concerned.And, absent some unknown physical law at play, it will also be solidly in the METAPHYSICAL realm.The fact that scientific consensus (via observations)will place the philosophy very much outside of "science" does not overthrow the point. It, in actuality, makes the point.

I was talking about the HARD PROBLEM OF CONSCIOUSNESSThat was what I thought I was fundamentally talking, about

Hard problem of consciousness - WikipediaThat came first.Penrose used his non-deterministic, non local, wave function collapse (albeit not Copenhagen, but an idiosyncratic theory) theory to reach his scientific hypothesis on the Hard Problem Of Consciousness.Non-determinism is the mainstream in QM. Determinism is the minority view.Philosophy came first.The scientific hypothesis came second.I am having computer problems (I could not get the wikipedia page to load), but I will show the 2022 study when I can load pages and paste. The scientific test came much later than Penrose & Hammeroff's theory.(they were interviewed favorably - decades ago - by the Guru you mentioned, but the Guru never had a quantum mechanical theory himself, as a YouTube interview with Richard Dawkins demonstrated.)Aside from tackling a very important philosophical concept, Penrose' scientific theory had the noteworthy feature of using a Quantum Theory of Gravity. So, it was a really big deal.

Actually you were correct earlier, in that the Penrose-Hammeroff theory is Deterministic. So, it is non-local and deterministic. He does describe his cyclic cosmology as deterministic, but I guess I forgot to connect the dots. All of his views are pretty odd, frankly.

quote:

---

Quantum mind - Wikipedia

​

Experiments
See also: Consciousness § States of consciousness
In 2022, neuroscientists reported experimental MRI results that so far appear to imply nuclear proton spins of bulk water in the brains of human participants were entangled, suggesting brain functions that operate non-classically which may support quantum mechanisms being involved in consciousness as the signal pattern declined when human participants fell asleep. However, the results are far from unambiguous and if such brain functions indeed exist and are involved in conscious cognition, the extent and nature of their involvement in consciousness remains unknown.[further explanation needed][100][101]

​

An experiment about wave function collapse led by Catalina Curceanu in 2022 suggests that quantum consciousness, as suggested by Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff, is highly implausible.[2]

​

Criticism

---

The non-local wave function collapse was falsified at the scale tested (smaller scales coul be tested, however)The neuroscience is a different story, but it has no implications for the wave function collapse issue and non locality evidence.Firtina, Nergis (20 October 2022). "Our brains could use quantum computation – here's how". interestingengineering.com. Retrieved 17 November 2022.
Kerskens, Christian Matthias; López Pérez, David (1 October 2022). "Experimental indications of non-classical brain functions". Journal of Physics Communications. 6 (10): 105001. arXiv:1806.07998. Bibcode:2022JPhCo...6j5001K. doi:10.1088/2399-6528/ac94be. ISSN 2399-6528.The neuroscience first:

quote:

---

Journal of Physics Communications
Inclusive Publishing Trusted Science, find out more.

​

Purpose-led Publishing, find out more.

​

PAPER • THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE ISOPEN ACCESS
Experimental indications of non-classical brain functions
Christian Matthias Kerskens1 and David López Pérez2,1

​

Published 7 October 2022 • © 2022 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd
Journal of Physics Communications, Volume 6, Number 10
Citation Christian Matthias Kerskens and David López Pérez 2022 J. Phys. Commun. 6 105001
DOI 10.1088/2399-6528/ac94be
Article and author information
Abstract
Recent proposals in quantum gravity have suggested that unknown systems can mediate entanglement between two known quantum systems, if the mediator itself is non-classical. This approach may be applicable to the brain, where speculations about quantum operations in consciousness and cognition have a long history. Proton spins of bulk water, which most likely interfere with any brain function, can act as the known quantum systems. If an unknown mediator exists, then NMR methods based on multiple quantum coherence (MQC) can act as an entanglement witness. However, there are doubts that today's NMR signals can contain quantum correlations in general, and specifically in the brain environment. Here, we used a witness protocol based on zero quantum coherence (ZQC) where we minimized the classical signals to circumvent the NMR detection limits for quantum correlation. For short repetitive periods, we found evoked signals in most parts of the brain, whereby the temporal appearance resembled heartbeat-evoked potentials (HEPs). We found that those signals had no correlates with any classical NMR contrast. Similar to HEPs, the evoked signal depended on conscious awareness. Consciousness-related or electrophysiological signals are unknown in NMR. Remarkably, these signals only appeared if the local properties of the magnetization were reduced. Our findings suggest that we may have witnessed entanglement mediated by consciousness-related brain functions. Those brain functions must then operate non-classically, which would mean that consciousness is non-classical.

​

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

---

Now the Quantum Mechanics wave function issue, which does not measure up to the theories claims.

quote:

---

Physics of Life Reviews
Volume 42, September 2022, Pages 8-14
Physics of Life Reviews
Review
At the crossroad of the search for spontaneous radiation and the Orch OR consciousness theory
Author links open overlay panelMaaneli Derakhshani a, Lajos Diósi b c, Matthias Laubenstein d, Kristian Piscicchia e f, Catalina Curceanu f

​

Highlights
•
In our article entitled “At the crossroad of the search for spontaneous radiation and the Orch OR consciousness theory”, we present for the first time a critical analysis of the Orch OR consciousness theory, at the crossroad with the newest experimental results coming from the search for spontaneous radiation predicted by (the simplest version of) gravity-related dynamical collapse models.

​

•
Our article is strongly connected to that published in 2014 by Stuart Hameroff and by Roger Penrose, entitled “Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR ‘theory”, Volume 11, Issue 1, March 2014, Pages 39-78.

​

•
Based on a novel intertwined theoretical and experimental approach, we examined one of the pillars of the Orch OR model, namely the gravity-related collapse model. In this context, we examined the Orch OR calculations using the gravity-related (called Diosi-Penrose, DP, for reasons we explain in the article) theory along with recent experimental constraints on the DP cutoff parameter (R0). We showed that, in this context, the Orch OR based on the DP theory is definitively ruled out for the case of atomic nuclei level of separation, without needing to consider the impact of environmental decoherence; we also showed that the case of partial separation requires the brain to maintain coherent superpositions of tubulin of such mass, duration, and size that vastly exceed any of the coherent superposition states that have been achieved with state-of-the-art optomechanics and macromolecular interference experiments. We conclude that none of the scenarios we discuss (with possible exception to the case of partial separation of tubulins) are plausible.

​

•
The implications of our findings, towards future developments of more realistic gravity-related collapse models, including dissipation and/or non-Markovianity, that may leave the door open for Orch Or theory, are also discussed.

​

•
Based on the strong connection with previous published papers on this topic, and on the importance of these studies for the Physics of Life, we kindly ask you to consider the publication of our original article in Physics of Life Reviews.

​

Abstract
In this paper we perform a critical analysis of the Orch OR consciousness theory at the crossroad with the newest experimental results coming from the search for spontaneous radiation predicted by the simplest version of gravity-related dynamical collapse models. We conclude that Orch OR theory, when based on the simplest version of gravity-related dynamical collapse, is highly implausible in all the cases analyzed. We discuss the implications of our findings, the limitations, and future plans toward the development of more realistic gravity-related collapse models.

​

Introduction
Since the 1990s, Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose (hereafter, HP) have sought to link microtubular neurobiological processes with quantum wave function collapse, as part of a comprehensive theory of how the (arguably) non-computable phenomenon of consciousness emerges from brain function [1], [2]. They call their theory Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR) [2]. Crucial to Orch OR is the hypothesis, due to Roger Penrose, that wave function collapse is related to gravity in that quantum superpositions of matter degrees of freedom are accompanied by quantum superpositions of the curved spacetime geometries produced by the matter degrees of freedom, where the latter are unstable resulting in a random collapse of the total wave function in an average time τ given by the expression
[1], [3], [4], [5], [6], [2]. Here ħ is the reduced Planck's constant and
is the gravitational self-energy of the difference between two (stationary) mass distributions of the superposition.

​

Another crucial (and highly controversial [7], [8], [9], [10], [2]) assumption needed by HP for the Orch OR mechanism to occur in brain microtubules is that quantum superpositions of gravitational self-energy
avoid environmental decoherence long enough to reach time τ [2]. Relatedly, HP argue that in order for Orch OR to be operative in the brain there would need to be coherent superpositions of sufficient amounts of microtubule material such that
, undisturbed by environmental entanglement, results in reduction on a timescale of the general order for a conscious experience [2]. For an ordinary type of experience, they note that this might be about
, which concurs with neural correlates of consciousness, such as particular frequencies of EEG, visual gestalts, and reported conscious moments. Thus they take τ to correspond to the duration of, or possibly the interval between conscious moments. The assumption of coherent superpositions is important for HP as their hypothesis is that a moment of conscious experience emerges from (or is identical to) a collapse event that destroys coherence in a previously unitarily evolving coherent quantum state of tubulins in neurons. They also suggest that “coherent quantum processes correlate with, and regulate, neuronal synaptic and membrane activity” [2]. In other words, in Orch OR, coherent quantum processes are essential for regulating brain function while moments of conscious experience arise via gravity-related OR of coherently superposed states of tubulin.

---

https://www.sciencedirect.com/...e/abs/pii/S1571064522000197I only quoted a tiny amount of both journalsSo the Neuroscience does challenge conventional theories about consciousness. Per first journal.But The Penrose Wave Function Collapse and non locality were completely not backed up by the results. Per second journal