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.
If you and others want to have a conversation about whether there is an afterlife and talk about evidence and proof, then fine go to it, have at it, have that conversation, but I have no interest in that conversation. Because it is meaningless and irrelevant to me.
I don't think it's meaningless and irrelevant so much as that you have no evidence or proof to offer to those who require it.
Okay, you refuse to engage the material in abstractions or analogies. The not very difficult point is that when you damage any of the things that PRODUCE consciousness, you affect the production of it. Not rocket science.
No, I refuse to play the consciousness is my proof of a god game with you. Next I am talking about the energy of a living system when it dies.
You're correct old curmudgeon thing, it's certainly not Rocket Science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
All that measures is blood flow within the brain as it produces consciousness, NOT consciousness itself.
It's obvious that no one has clued you in on this so let me help you out. There is no universally accepted theory of what consciousness means. So stop acting as if you have it all figured out.
There are two ways of defining consciousness , that in a dichotomy is generally accepted by most philosophers and cognitive scientists.
In the easy problem of consciousness (which is actually quite difficult, but easy by comparison) we talk about consciousness in terms of colloquial understandings of the term, e.g., executive function, self-awareness, wakefulness, sensation, self-report, deliberate control of behavior and so on. For example, getting knocked unconscious involves loss of a specific set of functions.
This can be measured in any number of ways by measuring the brain activity associated with these different cognitive abilities or states.
A general method in neuroscience and fMRI is to use the Subtraction Method: Measure someone's brain activity (hemodynamic response) when they're conscious or doing some conscious activity, then measure it when they're unconscious. Subtract B from A and your result is consciousness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
The hard problem of consciousness is not remotely addressed by this silliness and cannot be. No confusion at all.
The Subtraction Method is different than measuring the hard problem of consciousness, which refers to the subjective experience of experiencing.
Our inner life. That phenomenon which gives rise to our sense of soul.
As Descartes laid out, this is, by definition, a non-measurable thing as articulated in mind/body dualism. The mind is not in physical space. There's nothing to measure. By contrast, but with the same end results, Monism (non-dualism philosophy) denies the hard problem, does a lot of hand waving or otherwise doesn't have much to say about this side of the coin. So in this view there is, again, nothing to measure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
There are forms of energy/mass/momentum that we cannot measure directly and do not know what they are but they comprise the bulk 95+% of our reality.
You do not know what your are talking about to make such an ignorant claim.
Energy in the form of heat and work are special cases in that they are not properties of systems, but are instead properties of processes that transfer energy. In general we cannot measure how much heat or work are present in an object, but rather only how much energy is transferred among objects in certain ways during the occurrence of a given process. Heat and work are measured as positive or negative depending on which side of the transfer we view them from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
There is a form of energy/mass/momentum that we employ to direct our lives that we cannot measure directly and do not know what it is. It doesn't take a genius to connect the phenomena.Apparently not. I have seen Gaylen's Herculean efforts fail to do so with explanations and narratives that exceed my poor communication skills. Sorry.
Really it directs our lives and we can't measure it? This is news to me.
You're correct, it does not take a genius to understand the world in which we live, but it takes an ultra big step for a credulous mind to make things up and tout them as facts.
Analogies and philosophical abstractions are clearly not your strong suit, nor do they seem to be Matadora's. Everything is God but the part that is God's consciousness manifests as the 95+% "dark" stuff, just as our consciousness is separate from (transcends) our physical body.
Okay, you refuse to engage the material in abstractions or analogies. The not very difficult point is that when you damage any of the things that PRODUCE consciousness, you affect the production of it. Not rocket science. All that measures is blood flow within the brain as it produces consciousness, NOT consciousness itself. The hard problem of consciousness is not remotely addressed by this silliness and cannot be. No confusion at all. There are forms of energy/mass/momentum that we cannot measure directly and do not know what they are but they comprise the bulk 95+% of our reality. There is a form of energy/mass/momentum that we employ to direct our lives that we cannot measure directly and do not know what it is. It doesn't take a genius to connect the phenomena.Apparently not. I have seen Gaylen's Herculean efforts fail to do so with explanations and narratives that exceed my poor communication skills. Sorry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora
No, I refuse to play the consciousness is my proof of a god game with you. Next I am talking about the energy of a living system when it dies.
You're correct old curmudgeon thing, it's certainly not Rocket Science.
It is not a game, you feisty young thing!
Quote:
It's obvious that no one has clued you in on this so let me help you out. There is no universally accepted theory of what consciousness means. So stop acting as if you have it all figured out.
There are two ways of defining consciousness , that in a dichotomy is generally accepted by most philosophers and cognitive scientists.
In the easy problem of consciousness (which is actually quite difficult, but easy by comparison) we talk about consciousness in terms of colloquial understandings of the term, e.g., executive function, self-awareness, wakefulness, sensation, self-report, deliberate control of behavior and so on. For example, getting knocked unconscious involves loss of a specific set of functions.
This can be measured in any number of ways by measuring the brain activity associated with these different cognitive abilities or states.
A general method in neuroscience and fMRI is to use the Subtraction Method: Measure someone's brain activity (hemodynamic response) when they're conscious or doing some conscious activity, then measure it when they're unconscious. Subtract B from A and your result is consciousness.
Hemodynamic response is "blood flow" and NOT consciousness and you know it, Matadora.
Quote:
The Subtraction Method is different than measuring the hard problem of consciousness, which refers to the subjective experience of experiencing.
Our inner life. That phenomenon which gives rise to our sense of soul.
As Descartes laid out, this is, by definition, a non-measurable thing as articulated in mind/body dualism. The mind is not in physical space. There's nothing to measure. By contrast, but with the same end results, Monism (non-dualism philosophy) denies the hard problem, does a lot of hand waving or otherwise doesn't have much to say about this side of the coin. So in this view there is, again, nothing to measure.
There is definitely something to measure but we cannot directly measure it, again like the "dark" stuff.
Quote:
You do not know what your are talking about to make such an ignorant claim.
Energy in the form of heat and work are special cases in that they are not properties of systems, but are instead properties of processes that transfer energy. In general we cannot measure how much heat or work are present in an object, but rather only how much energy is transferred among objects in certain ways during the occurrence of a given process. Heat and work are measured as positive or negative depending on which side of the transfer we view them from.
Denial is not rebuttal. Your description of energy as heat and work is not probative because it deals only with USES of energy NOT the phenomena themselves.
Quote:
Really it directs our lives and we can't measure it? This is news to me.
We can only measure its effects and use self-reports about what it actualy is. We cannot directly measure the phenomenon any other way.
Quote:
You're correct, it does not take a genius to understand the world in which we live, but it takes an ultra big step for a credulous mind to make things up and tout them as facts.
This old curmudgeon uses only what we actually know as the basis for my hypotheses. the usual scientific method for advancing knowledge, our inability to currently measure and validate them notwithstanding.
It is not a game, you feisty young thing! Hemodynamic response is "blood flow" and NOT consciousness and you know it, Matadora.
I never once made the claim that it was consciousness. I simply pointed out that there is no universally accepted theory of what consciousness means.
I then showed the two ways of defining consciousness , that in a dichotomy is generally accepted by most philosophers and cognitive scientists.
I then showed how one of those is measured.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
There is definitely something to measure but we cannot directly measure it, again like the "dark" stuff.
No it's nothing like Dark Matter or Dark Energy. According to Neil deGrasse Tyson, dark matter and dark energy could just as well be called without a clue A and without a clue B.
Consciousness has no relation at all to what the terms Dark Matter/Dark Energy. Dark Matter is strictly speaking of Matter that we can't account for in the Universe. Dark Energy combined with Dark Matter is strictly speaking about what is driving our Cosmic expansion.
Perhaps Dark Matter and Dark Energy is?????
A) Maybe it's exotic never before seen forms of Matter and Energy?
B) Maybe they reveal a hidden flaw in our understanding on how the Universe works?
*In reality the two terms Dark Matter/Dark Energy are just placeholders for our abject ignorance.
No doubt what we know about the Universe, we know well...yet a larger cosmic truth lies undiscovered before us. This is a humbling yet thrilling prospect for scientists driven not only by the search for answers but by the love for the questions themselves.
Now back to consciousness. Consciousness has nothing to do with that and should not even be in the same sentence.
I will state it again. There is no universally accepted theory of what consciousness means. So stop acting as if you have it all figured out.
Kind of difficult to measure something that has not been completely defined...don't you think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
TYour description of energy as heat and work is not probative because it deals only with USES of energy NOT the phenomena themselves.We can only measure its effects and use self-reports about what it actualy is.
You clearly misunderstood. That was not my description of energy. I was specifically speaking of energy in the form of heat and work. There are other forms of energy. The point of referring to those forms is due to these forms being at work within our bodies and these forms are released when we die.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
We can only measure its effects and use self-reports about what it actualy is.We cannot directly measure the phenomenon any other way.
You need to be much more clear. What is this "it" you are talking about. You initially claimed that this "it" as a form of energy/mass/momentum that we employ to direct our lives.
What do you mean that we employ to direct our lives? Give me an example of what you mean by this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
This old curmudgeon uses only what we actually know as the basis for my hypotheses. the usual scientific method for advancing knowledge, our inability to currently measure and validate them notwithstanding.
This is a false statement. You have made several statements that are clearly "made up" by you. You will not find any supporting evidenced in any credible literature that will back some of your claims.
There is definitely something to measure but we cannot directly measure it, again like the "dark" stuff.
Another reason it's not accurate to compare Conscience with Dark Matter/Energy is because with those latter phenomena, we have no clue at all.
On the subject of conscience we have more than just a few clues.
Quote:
In fact, technological advances in brain imaging have given scientists a new range of tools to more accurately observe and measure the apparent causes and manifestations of consciousness. fMRI (functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) produces vivid images of the areas of the brain that respond to a variety of stimuli. Instead of trying to measure a purely subjective response, such as "that made me feel good," scientists can also see what part of the subject's brain is responding, for how long, and to what degree.
Except no I did not. Those things you quote are me pointing out facts. If pointing out facts to you is "ridicule" then the issue here is not me, but your false definition of ridicule.
For example you actually try to present the sentence "Imagination is a wonderful thing" as ridicule? That is really hammering a large square peg into a TINY round hole that is. Because that statement is lauding praise on a wonderful aspect of humanity.
And as I said the rest of the quotes you offer are not ridicule but observation of facts. The facts ARE that you keep asserting nonsense, you refuse to back up that nonsense in even the smallest way, you pretend ridicule exists where it does not, and more. Everything I said is fact, and fact is not ridicule. You just PRETEND it is so you can dodge actually directly replying to peoples content.
You can pretend all you want that you do not back up your assertions because you simply have no desire to. It seems this move is fooling no one, except possibly yourself. Everyone else so far appears to see through it and they know the reason you do not do it.... is you simply can not do so.
the topic of the thread: The afterlife. Is there ANY arguments, evidence, data or reasoning you can offer that substantiates the claim that human consciousness, subjectivity or awareness can survive independent of.... or following the death of.... the brain?
Analogies and philosophical abstractions are clearly not your strong suit, nor do they seem to be Matadora's. ... Sorry.
You should be. Since your ploy of argument by telling the opposition they are ignorant is getting you nowhere. (Matadora exposed you totally on your consciousness=Dark matter speculation) I respect Gaylen greatly not least because he helped me to understand what you seemed more inclined not to clarify but just used the jargon in your make 'em feel stupid' gambit. I had to refuse to buy his last argument about Chalmer's zombies, and I accept that maybe I didn't understand. But nevertheless, it is still a philosophical argument which is not proof of anything without a scientific validation, even if it supported your theory, which I doubt.
So that said, I merely remind you that poster after poster who has engaged with you has seen through you in the end. It doesn't matter that you still think you have the right of it. What matters is that you are being debunked by one poster after another, even though you deny it and insist everyone is ignorant but you.
Analogies and philosophical abstractions are clearly not your strong suit, nor do they seem to be Matadora's.
Why should they be? You really need to update your outdated thinking.
Philosophy is incapable of addressing the truly fundamental questions about our existence. If you have not noticed, Science is making philosophy obsolete.
At one time Philosophy was merged with Science. Philosophy is merely a reflection on the knoweldge that we learn, but it does not generate knowledge.
The knowledge about how the Universe works comes from Science.
The Philosophers can talk about it and think about all they want and maybe even add insight, but at the end of the day they don't generate knowledge. In this sense, once Philosophy became divorced from Science...i.e. once Philosophy separated out on it's own, Science became Natural Science and Philosophy remained Philosophy. At this point Philosophy started becoming marginalized and it's been more and more marginalized ever since.
Of course Philosophers are not thrilled with this fact, but it's just a fact.
Analogies and philosophical abstractions are clearly not your strong suit, nor do they seem to be Matadora's. Everything is God but the part that is God's consciousness manifests as the 95+% "dark" stuff, just as our consciousness is separate from (transcends) our physical body.
Okay, you refuse to engage the material in abstractions or analogies. The not very difficult point is that when you damage any of the things that PRODUCE consciousness, you affect the production of it. Not rocket science. All that measures is blood flow within the brain as it produces consciousness, NOT consciousness itself. The hard problem of consciousness is not remotely addressed by this silliness and cannot be. No confusion at all. There are forms of energy/mass/momentum that we cannot measure directly and do not know what they are but they comprise the bulk 95+% of our reality. There is a form of energy/mass/momentum that we employ to direct our lives that we cannot measure directly and do not know what it is. It doesn't take a genius to connect the phenomena.Apparently not. I have seen Gaylen's Herculean efforts fail to do so with explanations and narratives that exceed my poor communication skills. Sorry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
You should be. Since your ploy of argument by telling the opposition they are ignorant is getting you nowhere. (Matadora exposed you totally on your consciousness=Dark matter speculation) I respect Gaylen greatly not least because he helped me to understand what you seemed more inclined not to clarify but just used the jargon in your make 'em feel stupid' gambit. I had to refuse to buy his last argument about Chalmer's zombies, and I accept that maybe I didn't understand. But nevertheless, it is still a philosophical argument which is not proof of anything without a scientific validation, even if it supported your theory, which I doubt.
So that said, I merely remind you that poster after poster who has engaged with you has seen through you in the end. It doesn't matter that you still think you have the right of it. What matters is that you are being debunked by one poster after another, even though you deny it and insist everyone is ignorant but you.
As Arq, you were a genuine open-minded (if concrete) thinker. But as Transponder you have become antagonistic and taken to blatant lying and misrepresentation characterizing any and every disputation as a debunk of my views in the manner of "he who must not be named." Your qualification to understand my views is non-existent. Your qualification to pass judgment on what has or has not debunked my views is non-existent. And, sadly, any and all respect I had for your open-mindedness has been shattered. I truly miss the Arq that I considered a friend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora
Why should they be? You really need to update your outdated thinking.
Philosophy is incapable of addressing the truly fundamental questions about our existence. If you have not noticed, Science is making philosophy obsolete.
At one time Philosophy was merged with Science. Philosophy is merely a reflection on the knowledge that we learn, but it does not generate knowledge.
The knowledge about how the Universe works comes from Science.
The Philosophers can talk about it and think about all they want and maybe even add insight, but at the end of the day, they don't generate knowledge. In this sense, once Philosophy became divorced from Science...i.e. once Philosophy separated out on its own, Science became Natural Science and Philosophy remained Philosophy. At this point, Philosophy started becoming marginalized and it's been more and more marginalized ever since.
Of course, Philosophers are not thrilled with this fact, but it's just a fact.
This is a legitimate position that essentially places all speculation on the true nature of our reality and the more intractable issues off limits. I can accept that, even from a feisty young thing! These fundamental issues are not easy to contemplate nor to integrate with the extant knowledge, especially as we learn more and more about what we don't know. My efforts to bridge the gap with analogies, philosophical speculation and hypotheses are tainted by my experiences and certainty that God exists. It seems that my BELIEFS cannot be parsed from my scientific speculations. The resistance, nay, absolute repugnance for God concepts seems to color any serious and objective consideration of my hypotheses. Gaylen's efforts have only deepened my hopelessness.
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.
