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.
Of course, but analogies are not evidence. To compare a TV receiver to a brain and argue that there is a transmitter is assuming what you are trying to prove. We know a TV can't produce its' own images, but that is no reason to assume that a brain doesn't. In fact, looking at animal instincts and reactions (and few would argue that they need to be 'beamed in'' from outside), the smart money is on our brains working the same way.
I would toss in a modifier ... as taught by some religions.
reincarnation, or the illusion of it, can be explained by using the standard model. life after death? maybe, if we word it right. But life after death as taught by christianity can't be shown at all.
yes, that's our point. we would measure the signal.
but that's not what you said. you said that consciousness exist outside of the brain in a similar radio wave exist outside of the radio receiver. so, from our vantage point, we kill the brain, we see no consciousness. we measure no more signals.
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.
Ugh, I give up. You simply do not understand what you are reading and posting.
Your need to misrepresent someone more expert than you is most amusing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
This study is simply evidence that the brain INFLUENCES consciousness. This study does not show that the brain CREATES consciousness.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
What you are looking at are the neural correlates of certain measurable behaviors that we think are closely related with consciousness, such as attention, self-awareness, access to information, and the ability to comprehend and communicate. This is the standard materialist position that consciousness is tied up with the brain.
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.
According to you. Other people have a different opinion.
err, yeah ... not any worth their weight in understanding how the universe works. But you can bring them to me, I'll check.
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.