Is there a GOD? Or a continuous recycle process of life? Or does everything cease to exist in death? (originate, organization)
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.
Your need to misrepresent someone more expert than you is most amusing.
Only your confusion is leading to that conclusion
Quote:
It is ALSO evidence that the brain CREATES consciousness, because if that hypothesis is true, then this result is what we expect.
You can deny this as much as you want, but it is the more simple explanation; because it does not require a source X for a consciousness to influence. A source you have not provided any evidence for (which logically means you are probably wrong).
It also says much that you deny the decades of work done by experts in this forum instead of the science forum.
I know exactly what I am looking at. I based my BSc project on how the brain works. I earn good money modelling this. I notice you avoided that I model aspects of consciousness using simplified models of the brain. Which is even more evidence for the standard materialist position that consciousness is tied up with the brain.
Ladies and Gentleman, We have someone who based his BSc project on how the brain works that claims he has evidence that the brain CREATES consciousness. Something no other leading neuroscientist in the ENTIRE world has claimed. Give this man the Albert Einstein World Award of Science. Bravo Bravo!!! I'm impressed you made such an amazing discovery that you can now share with all the scientists of the world.
yes, that's our point. we would measure the signal.
No, the TV analogy points towards consciousness being "non local"
Quote:
again, you are approaching how we came up with our beliefs exactly opposite of how we actually do. lets look at how people like me believe ...
we see consciousness. ok,so do you. all good.
we watch deformed brains and people die. so do you. all good
we see no more "signals". ok, so do you. all good again right?
here is where we diverge ...
we measure all the signals we know of and don't see "human consciousness" signals being exchanged by the particles we know of after the person dies. we say 'ok, no signals, no human consciousness after death. It looks like human consciousness is formed from the human brain.
what is your evidence that it comes from outside the brain? because, your study , that you posted, shows exactly what I am saying.
The problem is no one knows how to define consciousness from an objective, third-person perspective. We only have access to one consciousness: our own. Every other consciousness is in a sense inferred from behavior. We never actually see consciousness. All we see are its consequences in behavior.
Again, I never said I had any evidence because the problem is that consciousness is the field of subjective experience. We can communicate aspects of this experience, but we can never share directly in any consciousness other than our own.
What foreign substances are you talking about? Can you provide solid evidence?
Thats the thing - if you would keep up - I am not talking about any one particular substance at all. I was making a general comment. When we put a physical foreign thing into our body we can measure the brain before and during and after and compare.
We can do this with any substance. Take sugar for example. When we feed refined sugar like Coca Cola into something we can - at the level of the brain - detect the changes in conscious experience. We can observe the reward centers of the brain light up for example. And these changes correlate with reported changes in experience.
So we have evidence correlating brain activity with conscious experience. Precisely the very thing you are _not_ offering for your own narrative and that is the difference. No one is saying we have 100% proof either way - but we have lots and you so far have none. And this is no small difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
I've only seen hypothesis thrown around in regards to this. Can you provide solid evidence? Nobody knows what happens to your consciousness when you are put under. If you have solid evidence for what happens to your consciousness I'd like to see it.
Could you try to be more specific in your questioning? Evidence for what exactly? Similar wiring observed in them that is not similarly common in the rest of the population? Sure we can offer that as Synaesthesia has become a well researched field in science with ever increasing numbers of publications on the topic.
We have discovered the areas of the brain related to colour and to numbers (specifically Graphemes) are actually neighbours. They sit beside each other. And when scanning the brains of normal people with those of Synaesthetes we quite simply see more cross-activiation of the latter structures than is normal. Read the paper from Ramachandran & Hubbard 2001 on this if you want.
Again however this is all not 100% conclusive nor is anyone suggesting it is. But what we do see is differing conscious experience correlating with differing brain activity. Once again evidence that consciousness and the brain are linked - to contrast to your complete lack of evidence of any kind of disconnect between them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
So basically just hypothesis you said "drugs" I asked you to be more specific and you just hid and deflected. Agreed, not everyone has the same exact experience but many people have the reported the same experience.
Nope the deflections are still all yours as you have ignored multiple times _direct_ questions put to you about the experiences. Which is not an honest move from you - nor is projecting your dishonesty on to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
I did post the experience briefly earlier in this thread but you must have forgotten about it. I talked about ego death, separation of body, communicating with entities, seeing colors and objects that are indescribable, experiencing no time and space, seeing how this world is held together, experiencing true reality, seeing every part of the universe. Alot of what was experienced can't be explained or understood by the human brain. Almost like trying to explain to someone the concept of infinity.
Nothing was forgotten - but that is not a description at all. Just a lot of terms thrown out in quick succession. It is like me claiming to have described the experience of jealousy just because I said the words "hot" and "green".
The problem is that not only are you not actually describing the experiences - but declaring them to be impossible to describe - but no description of them is going to evidence the claims you make about them. That you felt like you shot out of your body - great - that you felt ego death - fine - that you imagined yourself in another dimension - wonderful.
But none of that experience suggests you _actually did_ leave your body or enter another dimension or that consciousness can work independently of the brain. It just evidences the idea some experiences can feel _like_ those things are happening. And if you want to stop the conversation at that - that it felt like those things happened but you and I and everyone else have zero evidence those things actually happened - then I am good with that.
If you want to offer any arguments or evidence those things can or did actually happen though - I am all ears.
I never said I had any evidence from the beginning. Only you have claimed that.
So which is it? The study is simply evidence that the brain INFLUENCES consciousness, or you have no evidence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
Only your confusion is leading to that conclusion
You claim there is no evidence. I have looked at that evidence. Therefore I must be more of an expert than you? Perhaps that is why part of my work is based on artificial intelligence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
Ladies and Gentleman, We have someone who based his BSc project on how the brain works that claims he has evidence that the brain CREATES consciousness. Something no other leading neuroscientist in the ENTIRE world has claimed.
They do not? That must be news to the many Neuroscientists who do make that claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
Give this man the Albert Einstein World Award of Science. Bravo Bravo!!! I'm impressed you made such an amazing discovery that you can now share with all the scientists of the world.
Why should I share with them when I based my studies on their work? A big clue, the horse goes in front of the cart.
Last edited by Harry Diogenes; 12-17-2018 at 06:21 AM..
The problem is no one knows how to define consciousness from an objective, third-person perspective. We only have access to one consciousness: our own. Every other consciousness is in a sense inferred from behavior. We never actually see consciousness. All we see are its consequences in behavior.
.. and how it changes under the influences of drugs, alcohol, electrical stimulation of the brain, lobotomies and other medical procedures on the brain.
Thats the thing - if you would keep up - I am not talking about any one particular substance at all. I was making a general comment. When we put a physical foreign thing into our body we can measure the brain before and during and after and compare.
We can do this with any substance. Take sugar for example. When we feed refined sugar like Coca Cola into something we can - at the level of the brain - detect the changes in conscious experience. We can observe the reward centers of the brain light up for example. And these changes correlate with reported changes in experience.
So we have evidence correlating brain activity with conscious experience. Precisely the very thing you are _not_ offering for your own narrative and that is the difference. No one is saying we have 100% proof either way - but we have lots and you so far have none. And this is no small difference.
Could you try to be more specific in your questioning? Evidence for what exactly? Similar wiring observed in them that is not similarly common in the rest of the population? Sure we can offer that as Synaesthesia has become a well researched field in science with ever increasing numbers of publications on the topic.
We have discovered the areas of the brain related to colour and to numbers (specifically Graphemes) are actually neighbours. They sit beside each other. And when scanning the brains of normal people with those of Synaesthetes we quite simply see more cross-activiation of the latter structures than is normal. Read the paper from Ramachandran & Hubbard 2001 on this if you want.
Again however this is all not 100% conclusive nor is anyone suggesting it is. But what we do see is differing conscious experience correlating with differing brain activity. Once again evidence that consciousness and the brain are linked - to contrast to your complete lack of evidence of any kind of disconnect between them.
All you are talking about are different states of altered consciousness and what we are looking at here is the neural correlates of certain measurable behaviors. I am asking you specifically for evidence that the brain CREATES or PRODUCES consciousness.
Quote:
Nope the deflections are still all yours as you have ignored multiple times _direct_ questions put to you about the experiences. Which is not an honest move from you - nor is projecting your dishonesty on to me.
Nothing was forgotten - but that is not a description at all. Just a lot of terms thrown out in quick succession. It is like me claiming to have described the experience of jealousy just because I said the words "hot" and "green".
The problem is that not only are you not actually describing the experiences - but declaring them to be impossible to describe - but no description of them is going to evidence the claims you make about them. That you felt like you shot out of your body - great - that you felt ego death - fine - that you imagined yourself in another dimension - wonderful.
But none of that experience suggests you _actually did_ leave your body or enter another dimension or that consciousness can work independently of the brain. It just evidences the idea some experiences can feel _like_ those things are happening. And if you want to stop the conversation at that - that it felt like those things happened but you and I and everyone else have zero evidence those things actually happened - then I am good with that.
If you want to offer any arguments or evidence those things can or did actually happen though - I am all ears.
Your claim was the drugs that you took had the same experience as DMT/Ayahuasca. I asked you what drug you took that was the same experience and you failed to answer me multiple times? Why can you not answer a simple question?
You said I'm not actually describing the experience? What exactly is it that you want me to describe? I cannot describe something for which the human brain cannot comprehend. How do you explain a dimension of no space and time to someone else? How can you explain to someone a color or object a human has never seen? Until you actually experience it you will never have any idea of the experience. Again, you keep confusing subjective experience and evidence. I did not claim scientific evidence. I am saying it was a subjective experience that has been documented thousands of times by many studies, scientists, and doctors. If you would like to see some evidence on this subject I highly recommend looking at the research of Dr. Rick Strassman. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rick_Strassman
So which is it? The study is simply evidence that the brain INFLUENCES consciousness, or you have no evidence?
This is not evidence that the brain CREATES or PRODUCES consciousness. There are thousands of studies and research that has been done on subjective experiences that consciousness is "Non-Local" to the brain. There are many scientists infinitely smarter than I am that agree with my viewpoint.
Quote:
You claim there is no evidence. I have looked at that evidence. Therefore I must be more of an expert than you? Perhaps that is why part of my work is based on artificial intelligence.
You have looked at evidence that the brain CREATES consciousness? Fascinating no one else in this entire planet has seen that evidence. You must be special.
Quote:
They do not? That must be news to the many Neuroscientists who do make that claim.
Like who? Name one scientist that makes this claim.
Quote:
Why should I share with them when I based my studies on their work? A big clue, the horse goes in front of the cart.
And again who are these scientists that make this claim?
Last edited by Diesel350z; 12-17-2018 at 09:56 AM..
.. and how it changes under the influences of drugs, alcohol, electrical stimulation of the brain, lobotomies and other medical procedures on the brain.
Altered states of consciousness do not prove that consciousness is created in the brain.
This is not evidence that the brain CREATES or PRODUCES consciousness. There are thousands of studies and research that has been done on subjective experiences that consciousness is "Non-Local" to the brain. There are many scientists infinitely smarter than I am that agree with my viewpoint.
The irony is you evaded me pointing out that you contradicted yourself by once again contradicted your self. First there is NO evidence, now there are thousands of studies? Why can you not keep your story straight?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
You have looked at evidence that the brain CREATES consciousness? Fascinating no one else in this entire planet has seen that evidence. You must be special.
You are just repeating your BS now. What part of my BSc was based on these allegedly none existent people do you NOT understand?
Once again, for those unable or unwilling to understand the evidence, if consciousness is a product of the brain, then we should be able to influence consciousness with drugs, alcohol, brain surgery and probes. So when we get those results with drugs, alcohol, brain surgery and probes, THAT is the evidence consciousness is a product of the brain. Now unless you have evidence for some other source of consciousness, I will go with the evidence you claim does not exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
Like who? Name one scientist that makes this claim.
Why? The last time I did you just misrepresented it. But eh, you have dug the hole big enough, let us bring in the bulldozer.
Von der Malsburg, Singer, Minsky, Kastner, Butler (for consciousness in birds), Fuster, Crick, Griffin (on the evolution of consciousness), Popper, Baars, Edelman, Brooks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
And again who are these scientists that make this claim?
Von der Malsburg, Singer, Minsky, Kastner, Butler (for consciousness in birds), Fuster, Crick, Griffin (on the evolution of consciousness), Popper, Baars, Edelman, Brooks.
Now, where are your experts?
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.
