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.
Altered states of consciousness do not prove that consciousness is created in the brain.
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.
There are thousands of studies and research that has been done on subjective experiences that consciousness is "Non-Local" to the brain.
Link?? If there are thousands of studies, there must be at least a couple to which you can point us.
I will admit to being confused by this revelation, because the last time(s) you were asked for evidence to support the proposition that consciousness arises from outside the brain, these were your repeated responses...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
Specifically nobody knows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
I never said I had any evidence from the beginning. Only you have claimed that.
If there are now "thousands of studies" that shed light on this question, I am eager to learn!! Switchboard operators are standing by.....................
Altered states of consciousness do not prove that consciousness is created in the brain.
you don't get it.
what we are saying is that "yes, we don't know what consciousness is". you say the same thing.
we say , base on what we said already, we only see consciousness in the brain. which, isn't actually totally true.
whats your evidence?
Moderator cut: Don't use language like that to describe other members you denying everything we say is not evidence. that's you denying everything, not stating anything. its people's right to deny everything and not offer evidence to anything else. but then its my right to call that sect a runaway that takes the easy cop out way. not the logic, reason, and common sense way.
I can actually give you some data suggesting a larger volume of just humas, its a little weak, but it fits. I think its really better you do it yourself.
Last edited by Mightyqueen801; 12-18-2018 at 07:06 AM..
Reason: Removed disparaging remarks
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.
You are increasingly contriving to be unclear what it is you are asking in fact. The simple fact however is that I am making a distinction between an idea that we do have evidence for - consciousness being connected with the brain - and an idea that we have no evidence for - consciousness somehow being produced outside, operating independent of, surviving without, or leaving that brain.
I am pointing out that everything I have listed so far - including the neural correlates of altered states of consciousness on everything from food to drugs - is evidence for the former claim not the latter. We can even flick an "off switch" in the brain and consciousness seemingly stops for the patient. Again this is evidence.
The sum total of evidence for the latter idea - the separation and non-local operation of consciousness from your side however has thus far been - well - nothing whatosever at all. Absolute Zip.
And my point is - and has been since the start of this conversation - that it is therefore not useful to talk in absolutist terms about what we "know" to be true about consciousness. Rather what we can meaningfully talk about is what data and evidence we currently have - and what that data and evidence does and does not suggest.
And at this time all the data suggests the brain to be the source and locus of consciousness entirely. Nothing at all other than your claims to have had a funny experience - suggests the opposite. Simple as.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
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?
The problem here is not me failing to answer a simple question - but you asking a question based on a false presumption. In other words you are misconstruing your misunderstanding of my simple use of English - as me not answering the question. Let me correct the error. I did _not_ claim I took a drug that "had the same experience as DMT/Ayahuasca". That was not and never has been my claim. You made that up yourself.
Here are the things I _did_ in fact say:
When you first were asked by a user who was not me if you think there is consciousness after death you answered "Yes based on ayahuasca/DMT experiences." to which I replied "I have had similar experiences". You will notice that _nothing_ in that response suggests the use of a drug that in your words "had the same experience as DMT/Ayahuasca". You made that bit up entirely by yourself. I urge you to simply read it again. You said you have had DMT/Ayahuasca experiences and I said I have had similar experiences. Now see if you can get the right implication from that statement this time. It is easy to do.
So forget why I can not answer a simple question - I can - and I did - the real issue is why you can not understand a simple answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
You said I'm not actually describing the experience? What exactly is it that you want me to describe?
I do not care what you describe. It was you not me coming in demanding people describe the experiences they have had. I am just pointing out that you have not been doing that either. So it is a bit rich to demand it of others. I have little to no interest as it happens in your describing them at all. The only interest I have is whether you have any arguments at all - any evidence at all - or any reasonable basis at all by which you might suggest that the things it _felt like_ were happening - actually were. And so far the answer to that question is a clear loud and resounding "no". You do not.
So when you say it felt like you left your body - fine. When you say it felt like you were in another dimension - great. When you say it convinces you there is a consciousness after death - wonderful. That is all just fine and dandy.
All I have done however is point out the vast and huge and massive difference between you feeling _like_ those things and us as a species having _any evidence whatsoever_ to think those things in any way true or likely - or anything but something you felt was true but likely actually is not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
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?
By trying and trying and trying again. There are many things difficult to describe - but one can either throw their hands up and never make the attempt - or one can try and try again - refining the attempt each time. Only then will you get better at it. It helps to find people who have had similar experiences to your own too - and explore it with them. I have listed for you a small subset of the experiences I have had already for example.
But take Ego Dissolving for example. That is very hard to describe to people. It is however not impossible. And some very erudite people have made good attempts. Sam Harris for example has attempted to explain it in over 20 or 30 different and very accessible ways. And he appears to get better at it with every attempt. And the variety in his attempts mean that one description that did not quite cut mustard with any individual - means another one may. So he reaches many people with his diversity of attempts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
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.
It is not about what evidence you claimed to have though. But this is a discussion and debate forum - you might not have noticed - with a thread specifically arguing the idea of things ceasing at death. You were specifically asked be a user "You are presuming soul/consciousness exists after death? Why?" and you replied "Yes based on ayahuasca/DMT experiences." and given the context of this thread it was right and proper to discuss deeply the limitation of your experience and it's relevance to the thread and that no amount of "The experience felt like" actually meaningfully addresses the topic of the thread which is about what is true - not what it feels like to you might be true.
So the discussion between me and you since then has - quite rightly - been to see if there is any bridge at all between what you felt was true and what actually could be or might be or is likely to be true.
And so far the answer is no bridge. At all. Even a little. There is absolutely no evidence anywhere - certainly none from you - to suggest that the things it "felt like" happened to you in any way actually did or even could have actually happened to you.
That is 100% all my point is - was - has been - and continues to be. So perhaps another kind of bridge is required for you to get over it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
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.
^ Argument From Authority Fallacy. Not useful. It does not matter if a person is a scientist (qualification) or how smart they are (IQ etc.). All that matters is what their evidence for the claim actually is. Appealing to their smarts or job title is a fallacious move.
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.
Nope - he just understands what "evidence" is and means. There is activity in the brain when consciousness is online. Stop that activity and the consciousness stops. That is "evidence" the brain is producing that consciousness. When we bring in foreign substances like a drug or even just sugar - we see changes in the brain activity and that change correlates with changes in conscious experience. Again this is evidence consciousness is being produced in the brain.
If for whatever reason you think "evidence" means "It shows 100% conclusively" then your continued errors while using the word would be pretty clear. Otherwise why you fail to use it correctly or understand evidence when shown it - makes no sense. Or why you jump from "evidence" to "proof" when it suits you. For example you talk above about evidence but then in the next breath write "Altered states of consciousness do not prove that consciousness is created in the brain.". You appear to treat the two words as direct synonyms. Which is not clever or useful.
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.
Using the proposed radio analogy, if we change the radio's channel/frequency that does not prove the signals originate within the radio.
You are increasingly contriving to be unclear what it is you are asking in fact. The simple fact however is that I am making a distinction between an idea that we do have evidence for - consciousness being connected with the brain - and an idea that we have no evidence for - consciousness somehow being produced outside, operating independent of, surviving without, or leaving that brain.
I am pointing out that everything I have listed so far - including the neural correlates of altered states of consciousness on everything from food to drugs - is evidence for the former claim not the latter. We can even flick an "off switch" in the brain and consciousness seemingly stops for the patient. Again this is evidence.
The sum total of evidence for the latter idea - the separation and non-local operation of consciousness from your side however has thus far been - well - nothing whatosever at all. Absolute Zip.
And my point is - and has been since the start of this conversation - that it is therefore not useful to talk in absolutist terms about what we "know" to be true about consciousness. Rather what we can meaningfully talk about is what data and evidence we currently have - and what that data and evidence does and does not suggest.
And at this time all the data suggests the brain to be the source and locus of consciousness entirely. Nothing at all other than your claims to have had a funny experience - suggests the opposite. Simple as.
I'm not unclear. You are just not understanding what I'm saying or you have a different definition for consciousness. 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. At no moment in this debate have you shown that the brain CREATES or PRODUCES consciousness. Eugene P. Wigner, Nobelist in physics says “We have at present not even the vaguest idea how to connect the physio-chemical processes with the state of mind.”
Quote:
The problem here is not me failing to answer a simple question - but you asking a question based on a false presumption. In other words you are misconstruing your misunderstanding of my simple use of English - as me not answering the question. Let me correct the error. I did _not_ claim I took a drug that "had the same experience as DMT/Ayahuasca". That was not and never has been my claim. You made that up yourself.
Here are the things I _did_ in fact say:
When you first were asked by a user who was not me if you think there is consciousness after death you answered "Yes based on ayahuasca/DMT experiences." to which I replied "I have had similar experiences". You will notice that _nothing_ in that response suggests the use of a drug that in your words "had the same experience as DMT/Ayahuasca". You made that bit up entirely by yourself. I urge you to simply read it again. You said you have had DMT/Ayahuasca experiences and I said I have had similar experiences. Now see if you can get the right implication from that statement this time. It is easy to do.
So forget why I can not answer a simple question - I can - and I did - the real issue is why you can not understand a simple answer.
Ok you said you had "Similiar experiences" How could you know you had similar experiences to DMT if you never took DMT? You cannot know about something non-physical until you experience it. Someone could describe to me the experience of an NDE but there is no possible way for me to claim that I had a similar experience to that person without experience it.
Quote:
I do not care what you describe. It was you not me coming in demanding people describe the experiences they have had. I am just pointing out that you have not been doing that either. So it is a bit rich to demand it of others. I have little to no interest as it happens in your describing them at all. The only interest I have is whether you have any arguments at all - any evidence at all - or any reasonable basis at all by which you might suggest that the things it _felt like_ were happening - actually were. And so far the answer to that question is a clear loud and resounding "no". You do not.
So when you say it felt like you left your body - fine. When you say it felt like you were in another dimension - great. When you say it convinces you there is a consciousness after death - wonderful. That is all just fine and dandy.
All I have done however is point out the vast and huge and massive difference between you feeling _like_ those things and us as a species having _any evidence whatsoever_ to think those things in any way true or likely - or anything but something you felt was true but likely actually is not.
You cannot prove a subjective experience. I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here. People have these experience and the experience is either in your head or consciousness is seperate from the mind. There is no scientific evidence for either view.
Quote:
By trying and trying and trying again. There are many things difficult to describe - but one can either throw their hands up and never make the attempt - or one can try and try again - refining the attempt each time. Only then will you get better at it. It helps to find people who have had similar experiences to your own too - and explore it with them. I have listed for you a small subset of the experiences I have had already for example.
But take Ego Dissolving for example. That is very hard to describe to people. It is however not impossible. And some very erudite people have made good attempts. Sam Harris for example has attempted to explain it in over 20 or 30 different and very accessible ways. And he appears to get better at it with every attempt. And the variety in his attempts mean that one description that did not quite cut mustard with any individual - means another one may. So he reaches many people with his diversity of attempts.
You are sadly mistaken if you have had a similar experience to DMT. You keep believing that.
Quote:
It is not about what evidence you claimed to have though. But this is a discussion and debate forum - you might not have noticed - with a thread specifically arguing the idea of things ceasing at death. You were specifically asked be a user "You are presuming soul/consciousness exists after death? Why?" and you replied "Yes based on ayahuasca/DMT experiences." and given the context of this thread it was right and proper to discuss deeply the limitation of your experience and it's relevance to the thread and that no amount of "The experience felt like" actually meaningfully addresses the topic of the thread which is about what is true - not what it feels like to you might be true.
So the discussion between me and you since then has - quite rightly - been to see if there is any bridge at all between what you felt was true and what actually could be or might be or is likely to be true.
And so far the answer is no bridge. At all. Even a little. There is absolutely no evidence anywhere - certainly none from you - to suggest that the things it "felt like" happened to you in any way actually did or even could have actually happened to you.
That is 100% all my point is - was - has been - and continues to be. So perhaps another kind of bridge is required for you to get over it.
This is where you are mistaken because I never claimed I had any scientific evidence. Only subjective experiences of myself and thousands of others.
Quote:
Nope - he just understands what "evidence" is and means. There is activity in the brain when consciousness is online. Stop that activity and the consciousness stops. That is "evidence" the brain is producing that consciousness. When we bring in foreign substances like a drug or even just sugar - we see changes in the brain activity and that change correlates with changes in conscious experience. Again this is evidence consciousness is being produced in the brain.
If for whatever reason you think "evidence" means "It shows 100% conclusively" then your continued errors while using the word would be pretty clear. Otherwise why you fail to use it correctly or understand evidence when shown it - makes no sense. Or why you jump from "evidence" to "proof" when it suits you. For example you talk above about evidence but then in the next breath write "Altered states of consciousness do not prove that consciousness is created in the brain.". You appear to treat the two words as direct synonyms. Which is not clever or useful.
Wrong! As I already said you are mistaken. 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. If consciousness is being produced in the brain that is what the study would claim but that is not what it claims.
what we are saying is that "yes, we don't know what consciousness is". you say the same thing.
we say , base on what we said already, we only see consciousness in the brain. which, isn't actually totally true.
whats your evidence?
Like I point out my fundy mental atheist dork holes team members, you denying everything we say is not evidence. that's you denying everything, not stating anything. its people's right to deny everything and not offer evidence to anything else. but then its my right to call that sect a runaway that takes the easy cop out way. not the logic, reason, and common sense way.
I can actually give you some data suggesting a larger volume of just humas, its a little weak, but it fits. I think its really better you do it yourself.
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.
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?
Reading comprehension fails you once again. Learn to read and comprehend please. I said there were studies based on subjective experiences. I never claimed these studies where scientific evidence that conscsiousness is non local.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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?
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. 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. Again, you have failed to show any scientist claim that the brain creates consciousness.
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.
Last edited by Diesel350z; 12-18-2018 at 07:47 AM..
Link?? If there are thousands of studies, there must be at least a couple to which you can point us.
I will admit to being confused by this revelation, because the last time(s) you were asked for evidence to support the proposition that consciousness arises from outside the brain, these were your repeated responses...
If there are now "thousands of studies" that shed light on this question, I am eager to learn!! Switchboard operators are standing by.....................
Again, I never said I had scientific evidence but here are just a few of the many thousands of studies/research out there that support my stance.
Last edited by Diesel350z; 12-18-2018 at 07:37 AM..
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.
