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.
Everybody has an opinion about what Consciousness is. You cannot know what it is without scientific proof if science is all you rely on for evidence. Mystic and others like us rely on our observation and inquiry and experience of consciousness to base our belief in the truth about Consciousness.
No, if you relied on observation and inquiry, you would be aware of the centuries of medical evidence, and the decades of neuroscience. All you are doing is asserting Consciousness with a capital C actually exists, even though it has no explanatory powers that consciousness created by an evolved brain does.
As you said ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
This is false. Provide Link to credible source such as peer reviewed published papers with data, analysis, and proof. Not theories. Not pointing. Everything else is merely your opinion, which is irrelevant.
And that is just for the neuroscience. There is centuries of evidence about controlling consciousness through medical procedures, and the fact that we can change conscious thought through influencing the brain with probes, drugs and alcohol is yet more evidence, as is observing people with brain injuries. And we can model aspects of consciousness (such as facial recognition) by modelling the brain using computers, and my BSc degree is based on decades of actual science you simply dismiss with your assertion.
Now you link to credible source such as peer reviewed published papers for your position.
Irony.
But it is evidence. And all you need to do to refute it is to show consciousness without a brain.
True, we have no precise definition, but all the different, overlapping definitions still point to the brain being the source.
And I should ignore all the evidence simply because you assert something you can not possibly know.
I think that for cb to say that:
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
No evidence is not proof.
is rather substantial proof that she is merely here to argue. We atheists frequently say that evidence of religion is not proof of religion. But, base don her own statement, the Indian gods and goddesses can only be seen as possibilities.
And that is just for the neuroscience. There is centuries of evidence about controlling consciousness through medical procedures, and the fact that we can change conscious thought through influencing the brain with probes, drugs and alcohol is yet more evidence, as is observing people with brain injuries. And we can model aspects of consciousness (such as facial recognition) by modelling the brain using computers, and my BSc degree is based on decades of actual science you simply dismiss with your assertion.
Now you link to credible source such as peer reviewed published papers for your position.
Irony.
But it is evidence. And all you need to do to refute it is to show consciousness without a brain.
True, we have no precise definition, but all the different, overlapping definitions still point to the brain being the source.
And I should ignore all the evidence simply because you assert something you can not possibly know.
Evidence is not proof. Pointing is not proof. It remains a theory.
Considering how our brains are not even attuned to spot Reality the way it is it seems pretty niave to go around saying that we have some ultimate truth. That's why the scientific method exists.
You cannot know what it is without scientific proof if science is all you rely on for evidence.
From scientific and philosophical stand point this sentence does not make sense.
I would be very worry about quality of your conclusions if this informs your thought process in any way.
I find these interesting, although not necessarily definitive. But, we should not exclude that consciousness exists outside of organisms that do not have brains as we define it.
Quote:
Irrelevant.
Because we have no evidence consciousness can exist without brains. That it can exist sans brains is just you presuming what you want to be true.
All conscious creatures having brains is a direct indication that consciousness is a product of brains, and if you want to argue for anything else, perhaps you should present some evidence instead of ::Sigh:: gaslighting and implying decades of science and medical research does not exist.
Consciousness is a set of processes, and all the scientific and medical evidence points to them being a product of brains.
Irrelevant.
Because we have no evidence consciousness can exist without brains. That it can exist sans brains is just you presuming what you want to be true.
All conscious creatures having brains is a direct indication that consciousness is a product of brains, and if you want to argue for anything else, perhaps you should present some evidence instead of ::Sigh:: gaslighting and implying decades of science and medical research does not exist.
I am not gaslighting. You seem to believe that the ONLY manifestation we have of consciousness is OUR unique LEVEL of consciousness that requires processes in our unique brain so it only manifests in organisms with brains. Non-sequitur, indicating your lack of familiarity with other manifestations of consciousness. First, the individual processes are NOT the consciousness which is something you either philosophically have no awareness of or understanding about.
The individual neural activity produces a composite that is a synthesis of the individual activity that we experience as our sense of Self. Obviously, since it is mediated through the brain, it will depend on the state of the brain and its function to manifest. The fact that alterations, trauma, etc. produce different manifestations of the Self is not remotely surprising since we are dependent upon the condition of the brain to report it.
You seem to believe that the ONLY manifestation we have of consciousness is OUR unique LEVEL of consciousness that requires processes in our unique brain so it only manifests in organisms with brains.
That's correct. I believe that too. Not only I believe that to be true, I know it is true.
I don't see how can it even be controversial if we have never seen any other way consciousness manifests itself but in organisms with brains.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,550 posts, read 81,131,933 times
Reputation: 57755
It doesn't require any scientific expertise or knowledge to be an atheist. It's just a matter of not believing what one's parents, clergy and the bible are telling you. If it makes no sense, and has not been proven to my satisfaction, then it's not true. I was raised Catholic, and even went to a Catholic school 1st-3rd grades, with nuns! Even back then I just went along with it to satisfy my parents, none of it ever struck me as being even remotely possible.
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.
