Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Reading comprehension fails you. I never claimed there was any scientific evidence. Only subjective experiences. Where is the evidence that the brain creates consciousness? Oh yea that's right, there is none.
And yet you quoted it in response to Momentus.
Let me quote you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
No human has ever seen a brain or anything else produce consciousness. All you are describing is the relationship between the conscious mind and the electro-chemical interactions in the body and the possible different levels of the conscious state.
That is the evidence you claim (once again) we do not have. This is what we would have if the brain is the cause of consciousness.
So your claim is no one has seen something they may have seen.
Reading comprehension fails you once again. Learn to read and comprehend please.
Me stupid Kraut, oder?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
I said there were studies based on subjective experiences. I never claimed these studies where scientific evidence that conscsiousness is non local.
Actually you said "There are thousands of studies and research that has been done on subjective experiences that consciousness is "Non-Local" to the brain."
I even quoted that part of your response. Nowhere did I claim that you claimed they were 'scientific'. I was just quoting you.
But please link to any of these none scientific studies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
Wow your projects are based on scientists working on how brain process works? I didn't know this also meant that their same work claimed that consciousness is created by the brain.
You should do, as I pointed this out with aspects of consciousness being modeled using simple models of the brain. Which is more evidence consciousness is a product of the brain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
Ok so Christoph von der Malsburg research is focused on processes of organization in the brain with emphasis on the structure and function of the visual system. No where in his work does he claim that the brain creates consciousness.
His work is based on the idea that the brain creates consciousness. Perhaps if you looked at his work instead of using Google on his name, and then making assertions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
It looks like you just threw out a bunch of scientists names who do research on the brain but none of them have claimed that the brain creates consciousness.
Or I know what I am talking about. Hint, evolution of consciousness in birds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
Here are the well known scientists/experts that side with me: Eugene Wigner, Stuart Kauffman, Rick Strassman, Steven Pinker, Donald Hoffman, Roger Sperry, Nick Herber, Freeman Dyson, Wilder Penfield, john Eccles, Carl Jung, Richard Feynman, Henry Stapp, Erwin Schrödinger, Max Planck are just a few.
You can remove Eccles, Feynman and Pinker from the list of names you threw together. Seriously, learn what you are talking about instead of making things up.
And it is clear you have done this because if they support you, then you DO have evidence for your claim. So which is it, do you or do you NOT have evidence? Why IS it so hard for you to keep your story straight?
Do you know what physiological means? It would help if you looked this up before you go further.
From a quick look, this is talking about predicting what should be unpredictable events. Several possible reasons are given, none of them support you. One possible reason is supported in your next study.
These findings collectively support the hypothesis that pupil dilation can be used to anticipate random and therefore theoretically “unpredictable” events in an implicit unconscious way that is without a conscious awareness, and that this ability is another characteristic of the powerful anticipatory adaptive systems of our psychophysiological system.
In short, your primitive, subconscious brain works faster than your conscious brain, and can pick up information your conscious does not. Old news, and it does not support your claim.
You should do, as I pointed this out with aspects of consciousness being modeled using simple models of the brain. Which is more evidence consciousness is a product of the brain.
You keep making assumptions and correlations with no evidence to back up your statements.
Quote:
His work is based on the idea that the brain creates consciousness. Perhaps if you looked at his work instead of using Google on his name, and then making assertions.
I looked and saw nothing of the sort. Nowhere does he speak that his work is based on the idea that the brain creates consciousness. If he talked about that you would have posted it. Consciousness is independent of the brain. If the brain created consciousiness then all living things including starfish should be considered conscious because starfish have awareness.
Quote:
Or I know what I am talking about. Hint, evolution of consciousness in birds.
Evolution of consciousness in birds is not evidence that consciousness is created in the brain.
Quote:
You can remove Eccles, Feynman and Pinker from the list of names you threw together. Seriously, learn what you are talking about instead of making things up.
And it is clear you have done this because if they support you, then you DO have evidence for your claim. So which is it, do you or do you NOT have evidence? Why IS it so hard for you to keep your story straight?
Why would I remove Eccles, Feynman and Pinker? They share my views.
Do you know what physiological means? It would help if you looked this up before you go further.
From a quick look, this is talking about predicting what should be unpredictable events. Several possible reasons are given, none of them support you. One possible reason is supported in your next study.
These findings collectively support the hypothesis that pupil dilation can be used to anticipate random and therefore theoretically “unpredictable” events in an implicit unconscious way that is without a conscious awareness, and that this ability is another characteristic of the powerful anticipatory adaptive systems of our psychophysiological system.
In short, your primitive, subconscious brain works faster than your conscious brain, and can pick up information your conscious does not. Old news, and it does not support your claim.
Who? All I find is someone who writes books and publishes his own papers on a none peer reviewed site.
The research above supports my opinion that consciousness is non-local. If you cannot see that then either you are not understanding the research or you just skimmed over it without reading it. The research does not have to be peer reviewed to support my view.
You keep making assumptions and correlations with no evidence to back up your statements.
The correlations ARE the evidence. How many times do I need to explain this to you? If consciousness is a product of the brain, then these correlations are expected. As we have the correlations, that is evidence the theory is correct. If the correlations did not exist, then the theory would have failed. That is how science works.
Which is probably why you do not post any of this in the science section.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
I looked and saw nothing of the sort. Nowhere does he speak that his work is based on the idea that the brain creates consciousness. If he talked about that you would have posted it.
No I would not post it, because the last time I posted scientific evidence, you misrepresented it. If you was honest, you would actually look at his papers. Like I did yours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
Consciousness is independent of the brain. If the brain created consciousiness then all living things including starfish should be considered conscious because starfish have awareness.
Starfish have human brains?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
Evolution of consciousness in birds is not evidence that consciousness is created in the brain.
So avian consciousness evolved at the same time as avian brains? Yet this is somehow NOT evidence that consciousness is a product of the brain?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
Why would I remove Eccles, Feynman and Pinker? They share my views.
Because they do not share your view. You just collected a few names, just as you did THREE papers, and claimed they supported your view.
The research above supports my opinion that consciousness is non-local.
Paper 2 has nothing to do with a non local consciousness. You might as well have posted a rezept for Apple Strudel. Shall I post the relevant part of the abstract again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
If you cannot see that then either you are not understanding the research or you just skimmed over it without reading it.
So once again I am earning lots of money by not knowing what I am doing, but getting results anyway?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
The research does not have to be peer reviewed to support my view.
Indeed. It does have to 1) actually support your view (where you failed 3 times out of 6) and 2) be based on good evidence (where you failed the other 3 times).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
It doesn't matter if it relies on other peoples work. It supports my view.
And there we have it. Even if the other peoples works are invalid rubbish, it supports your views.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
I guess all research based on subjective experiences should be written off as hogwash then?
Nothing to do with the fact your last link was financed by a company that sells woo.
The correlations ARE the evidence. How many times do I need to explain this to you? If consciousness is a product of the brain, then these correlations are expected. As we have the correlations, that is evidence the theory is correct. If the correlations did not exist, then the theory would have failed. That is how science works.
Which is probably why you do not post any of this in the science section.
Repeat after me. Correlation does not imply causation, Correlation does not imply causation, Correlation does not imply causation, Correlation does not imply causation, Correlation does not imply causation,
Quote:
No I would not post it, because the last time I posted scientific evidence, you misrepresented it. If you was honest, you would actually look at his papers. Like I did yours.
I'm not asking you to post scientific evidence. I'm asking you to post where Christoph von der Malsburg states from his own mouth that he believes that consciousness is created by the brain. Oh yea that's right you can't post that because HE NEVER SAID IT and he does not know if it does.
Quote:
Starfish have human brains?
Well you posted earlier supposed evidence that awareness and consciousiness go hand in hand. According to your evidence without awareness, you cannot have consciousness. So if starfish are not conscious how do they operate without having awareness?
Quote:
So avian consciousness evolved at the same time as avian brains? Yet this is somehow NOT evidence that consciousness is a product of the brain?
This is not a good theory. It is not conclusive evidence that the consciousness is a product of the brain but since you are such an expert in this, claim to know that consciousness is created in the brain and have already found solid evidence that proves your point then we should probably just stop this dialogue now. You are basically saying that you are smarter and know more about the subject than all the geniuses out there. Even smarter than geniuses like Mathematical physicist Roger Penrose who has openly said many times he does not understand consciousness and how it was created. You must be truly brilliant to know more about his subject than Roger Penrose, yet you have done no work of your own on this subject. I am amazed that you are smarter than all the geniuses out there that still do not understand where consciousness comes from.
Quote:
Because they do not share your view. You just collected a few names, just as you did THREE papers, and claimed they supported your view.
Ahh but they do share my view. Pinker quote on quote from his mouth said “Beats the heck out of me. I have some prejudices, but no idea of how to begin to look for a defensible answer. And neither does anyone else." When he was asked on how consciousness might arise from something physical, such as the brain.
Hmm seems to me that Pinker agrees with my view point that no one knows exactly where consciousness comes from.
Quote from John Eccles:
“We regard promissory materialism as superstition without a rational foundation. The more we discover about the brain, the more clearly do we distinguish between the brain events and the mental phenomena, and the more wonderful do both the brain events and the mental phenomena become. Promissory materialism is simply a religious belief held by dogmatic materialists . . . who often confuse their religion with their science.”
By his open criticism of the physical narrative he is agreeing with my view point.
Richard Feynman openly said “What is time? We physicists work with it every day, but don’t ask me what it is. It’s just too difficult to think about.”
He agrees with my view point on immortality.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
