HANS ZIMMER

As someone who believes in spirituality, I don't believe the human consciousness ends with the biological brain. But it's certainly intriguing to explore how it works on that level. I just wanted to say that. I have nothing profound to add to the discussion.

That is only partially correct: the "tunnel of light" has been described throughout cultures and times (and has some interesting and quite reasonable physiological explanations).
What differs throughout cultures is the identity of the "figure at the end of the tunnel" (another prototypical NDE aspect) : in India, for example, often a swami is seen, rather than Jesus as is common in the West.

Here's the track that is not on any of the soundtracks I think. One of the most tense moments of the film; The Docking Scene. Never does the organ sound as big and spectacular as this (except for perhaps Mountains). Attention for some minor spoilers because it's just a recording of the movie sound (not images).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrt-L_9L3FI

Terrible sound though. But what a pity this track is not on the cd. So much aggression and doom!!!

Sorry. My brain is out there somewhere but I'm here in this dark tunnel somehow. I certainly strayed off topic here because I cannot see well.

Thor. Where is my conscience at this point in space and time?

For what it's worth, I believe that these NDE events are an indication of how complex the brain is and how the perception of people can be affected when the brain is stressed. I don't doubt that people believe what they remember happened to them did happen but I don't accept that what they think happened was the "truth".

There are numerous examples of how our senses and brain are able to trick us into seeing different "truths" and I think that these NDEs is an extreme example of this. If someone who has lost a leg, but were unaware at that time that they had lost it, was experiencing the sensation of phantom limb or pain then they believe that the lost limb is still in place. But it is not. Their brain is trying to process the various signals coming to it. I think that the NDE is similar to this.

My thinking about the mere possibility that consciousness exists in some other realm serves as a suggestion in itself, as does my ponderance that gnomes are stealing odd socks - but neither serve as particularly convincing arguments for their veracity.

It is true that the peculiarity of NDE experiences appears to suggest an other-worldly realm to consciousness. But often when the evidence is scrutinised, and hearsay is given less credence, the idea begins to lose water. Perhaps I should have chosen my words a little more carefully, instead opting for 'There is no convincing proof that consciousness is immaterial, or 'beyond' the brain.'



Unsurprisingly I am unmoved by your anecdote. Show me the evidence, its ability to withstand serious scientific scrutiny, as well as collecting your $1million from James Randi, and I will happily concede that consciousness really does exist separate from brains.



There's vast bodies of evidence for magical fairies too, though none of it is particularly convincing.



Personal testimonies serve as evidence for such experiences, but they do not reliably inform us about where these experiences come from -aside from the experiencer of the experiences- or why they appear.



Unfalsifiability makes it impossible to study certain pseudoscientific claims. This is just "Special Pleading", a logical fallacy. Quite ridiculous.



I don't doubt they have had such experiences, I'm merely skeptical on extrapolating claims about the nature of reality based on personal experiences, particularly when there are known scientific explanations that better explain them, and particularly when their claims tend to reflect the culture they were brought up in.



No, it just means they have brains capable of having these experiences as well as experiencing faulty recollection (memory is not as reliable as you might think).



I certainly don't call their experiences 'nothing', I think their experiences are very real and worth studying. There just happens to be no convincing evidence that suggest these experiences exist outside of brains, regardless of how sure you, or indeed those who have had the experiences, are. Conviction is not evidence, nor is their apparent sensitivity to counterclaims and rationality.

I can only recommend reading a few books on neuroscience, particularly anything by Bruce Hood, and it will become readily apparent just how reliant we are on how our brains operate, and how easily the rug can be pulled from under us.

I'll leave this on a relevant quote by Alberto Brandolini: "The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it." (But sometimes it is fun.)

Don't forget to buy beer for later, will you?

Short 'documentary' about the score with interviews with Nolan and Zimmer
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/201 … usive.html

Good job punching those straw men Steven. It's pretty much what I expected. A really nice touch was stepping back from your original assertion of "no suggestion" while pretending to still be standing on the same ground. And yes, ad hominem I find it less problematic than the mocking you are doing.



Yeah, and I don't have enough energy to respond point by point to all the absurd things you just wrote. I'm sorry, I shouldn't have started this, it just drives me crazy when people throw out of unsupportable pseudoscience babble about what they think science has proven about consciousness and the brain.

I think you could cut the irony of this statement with a knife. Fantastic.

One of the first things I will admit, and will continue to admit my dear, is we just don't know - a point you may have glossed over with your sensitivity to rational thought. The difference between you and me is I'm comfortable not knowing, and I like to think I won't cling to the first explanation that simply feels nice or intuitive. I'm led by the evidence, where the most likely explanations fit. Science is not absolute, but we can use scientific rationales to reach the most reasonable conclusions given the information we currently have. I have repeatedly admitted that there could be a 'spiritual realm' (using Thor's definition of the word) to consciousness and experience, and if it's true then it should be discoverable using scientific methods, and that would be a wonderful thing. But as you have quite rightly pointed out, we just don't know. Not only do we not know, but as well its likelihood, its chance of being true to any reasonable degree given what we do know, is weakly supported once you jetison your personal biases and look at the evidence. That could of course change if evidence was found to the contrary, and I look forward to the day this might happen. Nor will its discovery make anything I've said any less relevant. But until that day, it's all just conjecture. [Note how this is utterly un-dogmatic, I'm not blindly asserting the opposite to your hypothesis based on an appeal to emotion, no matter how loudly or how many times you repeat this implication.]

Of course I don't imagine any of this will get through. Unfortunately people like yourself don't like to be told that an idea that gives them comfort is unsubstantiated and, worse, possibly false, which is why honest scientific rationales are seen as being 'arrogant'. But that's simply not true. You've clearly already made your mind up, and anything that appears to support your hypotheses will be viewed through that lens. Confirmation bias gets us all, unfortunately. All I can really ask is you show me convincing evidence, evidence that stands up to scrutiny, and I'll believe anything (for all practical intents and purposes).

I know I shoudnt take the bait, but Christ it's just so much fun.

You obviously don't understand the type of person I actually am, but that's my fault for being poor with communication, especially when subjects I'm passionate about are concerned. I'm an INFP in Myers-Briggs and "we" tend to go into senseless-rant mode when challenged, and fail to fully explain our point of view. Now that you are being a bit more mild with your statements, I have no problem with anything you are saying. Maybe you can see how the statement (I paraphrase) "there is nothing suggesting that consciousness is anything but a product of the brain" might seem a little dogmatic at first blush. I think the ideas I mentioned (NDEs etc) suggest that consciousness might live outside the brain. I certainly don't accept this as dogmatic fact, believe it has been scientifically proven, or expect anyone else to think that. It's a clue. It's a little hint. It definitely qualifies as a 'suggestion', I think. But I don't claim any of these things to be facts, or proven, or anything like that. I readily admit all these phenomena could be nothing more than a product of the brain and I have nothing against anyone who believes that. The rational scientific non-paranormal explanation is, I admit, a likely one.

(if you're not wanting to strangle me)



Yes, it should be discoverable, but what if...

-this is a "virtual" reality* that is specifically designed to have its virtualness difficult to discover and impossible to prove?

-what if this is a reality whose guiding parameters/programming are set up to act out people's confirmation bias, thus refusing to present paranormal phenomena to people disinclined to believe in them, and vice versa?

I realize you could put those questions under the same category as "what if there is a giant pasta deity orbiting Saturn", but I submit that they are rather more useful questions than the latter, with potential answers that fit into a cosmology that makes sense and provides hope, thus making them worth exploring more than the flying spaghetti monster, or even a deity that gets off on punishing people who get off. I like to dream about the best possible interpretation for everything we know about the world. If I get upset when more mundane worldviews are seemingly put forth as dogma, it's because I'm lonely for other such dreamers.

*by virtual reality I simply mean one whose permanence is less than the level of reality from which we come into this one...one that can be reloaded over and over again like a video game with no cost to anyone's true self.

Also, I think Chris Nolan would consider this discussion a victory on his film's part

Do you and David OC have some kind of thing going on ?