Quote from: username18333 on April 25, 2015, 06:56:31 AM

Quote from: bl4kjaguar on April 21, 2015, 07:02:09 AM

If you are using the premise that no one understands quantum mechanics to assert a conclusion bearing on human knowledge, then I am afraid that your argument is lost on me.

Quote from: Axel Cleeremans. The Radical Plasticity Thesis: How the Brain Learns to Be Conscious. _Frontiers in Psychology_ 2 (2011). 10-11. Web. 30 Mar. 2015.

In other words, such a network is unable to distinguish between a veridical perception and an hallucination. Doing so would require the existence of another, independent network, whose task it is to learn to associate specific input patterns with specific patterns of activity of the first networks hidden units. That system would then be able to identify cases where the latter exists in the absence of the former, and hence, to learn to distinguish between cases of veridical perception and cases of hallucination. Such internal monitoring is viewed here as constitutive of conscious experience: A mental state is a conscious mental state when the system that possesses this mental state is (at least non-conceptually) sensitive to its existence. Thus, and unlike what is assumed to be case in HOT Theory, meta-representations can be both subpersonal and non-conceptual.

Nothing, there, provides for the acquisition of an accurate knowledge of anything (e.g., quanta)intrinsic (to the brain) or otherwise.

Hey username18333, I would like to reject your Thesis because:
1) If our brains are only a high-tech computer-like lump of tissue which produces our mind and personality, why does it bother to create illusions at the time of death?
2) Even if NDE elements can be reduced to only a series of brain reactions, this does not negate the idea that NDEs are more than a brain thing.
3) Your Thesis includes assumptions that survival is impossible even though survival has not been ruled out.
4) You can see that the materialism of Dennett, which you promote, is refuted by Nagel's common sense.
5) You are simply projecting your ignorance. To prove that all atheists (humanists) are mistaken, it is enough that I point to the observations which strongly support the survival hypothesis. This leaves only theism as a viable answer to the God-question.

Like I have mentioned...
Skepticism of psychic phenomena is based more on a religion of materialism than on hard science.

Many researchers use scientific reductionism to reduce everything to its most basic elements. There is no doubt that the near-death experience involves the mind/brain connection, but to say that the mind is nothing more than a brain and chemicals is to assume a lot.