Conciousness

Great Debates
21

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
To put what Czarcasm said in other words, we can detect the electrical pattern and biochemistry involved in those things; we can’t just read them yet, unlike the hard disk he mentioned. We’ve known for decades how to do things like stimulate a spot on the brain to recall a memory. We have chemicals that affect the emotions. Damage to the brain can alter or destroy thoughts, memories and emotions. All the evidence is that we ARE our brains and bodies; no need to postulate something nonphysical.
[/QUOTE]

There is a great deal of research showing we are not our brains.

First there is research showing brains may not be so important afterall:

http://www.mysteries.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/6,2.htm

Then there is research showing consciousness lives on after the clinical death of the brain:

http://wired-vig.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2002/10/55826

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/1/prweb334515.htm

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-10/2006-10-26-voa52.cfm?CFID=117421112&CFTOKEN=20978124

Then there is confusion about brain mapping that makes it inconsistent and frustrating:

And last, but not least there is the problem of perception:

It is only the perception of scientists that memories are stored in the brain and recalled by brain probes. If one probed a television tuner and discovered different programs would he believe the programs existed in the television. He might if he didn’t understand how a television worked. The brain is only a receiver for the conscious energy that is the spiritual “you.” Brain waves are not coming from the brain, they are going to the brain. That is why when a brain injury occurs in one part of the brain you can switch the functions of the injured part to a part that is not injured through thought. If brains were born with static functions, or hard-wired this could not happen.

Damage to the brain does not destroy thoughts, memories and such, it merely closes the route these functions took into the physical world.

Can a brain examine a brain or a liver examine a liver? What other body organs have electromagnetic waves of such diversity flowing around them?

No, a hard disk does not have electromagnetic waves hovering around it.

22

If you’re going to try to claim that conciousness has some supernatural element to it, then you have to give some evidence for it. ‘Well it’s obvious’ isn’t evidence. ‘We don’t completely understand X, so it has to be god’ isn’t evidence. It isn’t even an explanation, it’s the opposite of one. Saying ‘It must be god’ is the same as saying ‘It must be faeries/aliens/ghosts’. Its not an explanation, its a cop out, a shrugging of the shoulders to indicate that you dont know so youre just going to stick a label on it and go think about something else. When you have evidence that there is something supernatural to conciousness, you be sure and let us know.

[QUOTE=lekatt]
It would then be physical, however, nothing evenly remotely similar to thoughts, memory, or emotions, have ever been found to physically exist in the brain.
[/QUOTE]

So observed electrical activity within specific sections of the brain while a person is doing a specific activity doesn’t physically exist?

23

Hey lekatt, before you jump into another thread, why not finish the old one? I’m still waiting for you to back up your claims.

24

[QUOTE=hotflungwok]
If you’re going to try to claim that conciousness has some supernatural element to it, then you have to give some evidence for it. ‘Well it’s obvious’ isn’t evidence. ‘We don’t completely understand X, so it has to be god’ isn’t evidence. It isn’t even an explanation, it’s the opposite of one. Saying ‘It must be god’ is the same as saying ‘It must be faeries/aliens/ghosts’. Its not an explanation, its a cop out, a shrugging of the shoulders to indicate that you dont know so youre just going to stick a label on it and go think about something else. When you have evidence that there is something supernatural to conciousness, you be sure and let us know.
So observed electrical activity within specific sections of the brain while a person is doing a specific activity doesn’t physically exist?
[/QUOTE]

There is nothing supernatural, only things we don’t understand. The evidence is in the links I provided. The observed electrical activity exists, but is not proof the brain is creating it. Without physical proof of memory, thoughts, etc, resident in the brain we can not say we are a brain. Especially in light of so much evidence that say we are not a brain, but spiritual beings.

25

[QUOTE=Apos]
Hey lekatt, before you jump into another thread, why not finish the old one? I’m still waiting for you to back up your claims.
[/QUOTE]

I made no claims, only showed solid scientific evidence. If you are unhappy please contact the University of Colorado for more information.

26

[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
And no one has ever found an actual “game” lodged inside a computer hard drive, just a bunch of scratches on a disk. Are you claiming that computer programs are supernatural?
[/QUOTE]

In fact, if you looked inside the computer while the game was running, you’d see nothing physical, but using an E-beam prober (and a somewhat weird setup) you could observe the bits floating around in the CPU, and perhaps on the I/O. Just exactly the kind of thing you see in the brain. The program - the disk scratches - is not the same thing as the process, the program running.

I don’t get why people like lekatt believe materialists think that nothing exists except what can be held in one’s hand. Forget thoughts and computer processes - you can’t hold interstate commerce either, but it exists.

27

[QUOTE=lekatt]
I made no claims, only showed solid scientific evidence. If you are unhappy please contact the University of Colorado for more information.
[/QUOTE]

No, you stated blatant flasehoods and misrepresentations, as I documented. At that point, you just ran off and changed the subject. You don’t get to jump from thread to thread making the same claims over and over and then failing to respond to people who point out the flaws in those claims. Bad form.

28

[QUOTE=lekatt]
There is nothing supernatural, only things we don’t understand.
[/QUOTE]

Ok, I can agree with this, kinda.

So you see a system of chemical/electrical pathways and electrical signals travelling those pathways according to rules those pathways have been shown to follow, and you’re conclusion is that the electical signals could be coming from somewhere else? Until you can show that there is something else that can produce those signals, it can be concluded that the brain is producing them.

Just because you dont understand it doesn’t mean everyone else doesn’t either. And just because other people don’t completely understand it doesn’t mean you need to leap to really wierd conclusions. ‘We dont know yet’ is a perfectly acceptable explanation, you don’t need to start speculating about invisible spirits.

Um, what? You point out a few abberations and call it ‘so much evidence’? You wouldn’t happen to have any other ‘evidence’ that we are spiritual beings? NDEs are pretty well known, and can be reproduced. You can’t point to one specific thing that people can’t explain, right now, and go ‘There see? Proof of spirits’.

29

[QUOTE=Cryptoderk]
Seems to me that conciousness proves God (in the sense of something supernatural). Anyone disagree? Why?
[/QUOTE]

That doesn’t seem to follow at all.

30

[QUOTE=Cryptoderk]
Because who or what is ultimately ‘observing’ the conciousness is obviously not a fundamental particle or something created from them. At least so far as current physics goes. I don’t rule out that it couldnt’ be discovered sometime.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t see how you can make this claim. At best you could say that it doesn’t look like this yet. I don’t see how you can rule out property dualism either.

First you’d have to define free will. Are we talking about the libertarian (sp?) sort?

31

[QUOTE=Apos]
No, you stated blatant flasehoods and misrepresentations, as I documented. At that point, you just ran off and changed the subject. You don’t get to jump from thread to thread making the same claims over and over and then failing to respond to people who point out the flaws in those claims. Bad form.
[/QUOTE]

Everthing you said is false. I reget answering.

32

[QUOTE=hotflungwok]
Ok, I can agree with this, kinda.
So you see a system of chemical/electrical pathways and electrical signals travelling those pathways according to rules those pathways have been shown to follow, and you’re conclusion is that the electical signals could be coming from somewhere else? Until you can show that there is something else that can produce those signals, it can be concluded that the brain is producing them.
Just because you dont understand it doesn’t mean everyone else doesn’t either. And just because other people don’t completely understand it doesn’t mean you need to leap to really wierd conclusions. ‘We dont know yet’ is a perfectly acceptable explanation, you don’t need to start speculating about invisible spirits.
Um, what? You point out a few abberations and call it ‘so much evidence’? You wouldn’t happen to have any other ‘evidence’ that we are spiritual beings? NDEs are pretty well known, and can be reproduced. You can’t point to one specific thing that people can’t explain, right now, and go ‘There see? Proof of spirits’.
[/QUOTE]

Don’t discount NDEs, there are several universities doing research on them as we speak, and no NDEs can not be reproduced. Never have been.

I will show you proof of spirits as soon as you show me proof you are only a brain and nothing more.

33

[QUOTE=lekatt]
No, a hard disk does not have electromagnetic waves hovering around it.
[/QUOTE]

Yes it does. I mean, hard disks are shielded, but a hard disk is pretty much a metalic platters with an electromagnetic head. As the platter spins, the electromagnet turns itself on and off so as to magnitize certain sections of the platter. That’s how hard disks store data.

34

[QUOTE=lekatt]
Everthing you said is false. I reget answering.
[/QUOTE]

Sorry, but I provided the documentation in the form of a quote from the source that YOU claimed was authoritative, proving that things were not as you said they were. Now you’re just evading the point.

35

[QUOTE=lekatt]
Don’t discount NDEs, there are several universities doing research on them as we speak, and no NDEs can not be reproduced. Never have been.
[/QUOTE]

Wrong. Humans put through centrifugal acceration can experience the exact same conditions and symptoms of an NDE, right down to the hallucinations. This is old news.

You made the claim we are spiritual beings, remember? You’re the one that needs to back it up. You even said there was so much evidence for it. Here, I’ll remind you:

I never claimed that we are just a brain, I claimed that as far as we know right now we are just a brain. We don’t have any evidence for anything beyond a brain, so we conclude that the brain is it. Just because we don’t understand absolutely everything doesn’t mean you can claim that your theory is right without any evidence. So, if you’ve got it, lets see it.

36

[QUOTE=lekatt]
There is a great deal of research showing we are not our brains.

First there is research showing brains may not be so important afterall:

http://www.mysteries.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/6,2.htm

Then there is research showing consciousness lives on after the clinical death of the brain:

http://wired-vig.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2002/10/55826

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/1/prweb334515.htm

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-10/2006-10-26-voa52.cfm?CFID=117421112&CFTOKEN=20978124

Then there is confusion about brain mapping that makes it inconsistent and frustrating:

[/QUOTE]

1st link-untraceable story, nothing we can actually research.
2nd link-story about event without link to research on a site devoted to “alternative” science.
3rd link-No research yet, just speculation.
4th link-puff piece by fan disguised as actual press release.
5th link-Only a review of Deepak Chopra’s newest book.
6th link-Preliminary tests are inconclusive. The link is from your own site, I noticed.

No actual scientific research that supports your theories, as usual.

37

[QUOTE=hotflungwok]
Wrong. Humans put through centrifugal acceration can experience the exact same conditions and symptoms of an NDE, right down to the hallucinations. This is old news.
You made the claim we are spiritual beings, remember? You’re the one that needs to back it up. You even said there was so much evidence for it. Here, I’ll remind you:
I never claimed that we are just a brain, I claimed that as far as we know right now we are just a brain. We don’t have any evidence for anything beyond a brain, so we conclude that the brain is it. Just because we don’t understand absolutely everything doesn’t mean you can claim that your theory is right without any evidence. So, if you’ve got it, lets see it.
[/QUOTE]

No near death experience has been reproduced. NDEers have a conversation with light beings about returning to life, it usually ends in the experiencer being told they must go back to their body. It is a lack of knowledge of the experience that allows the duplication lie to continue.

I have backed up the spiritual nature of man with scientific research that shows consciousness continues to live after the death of the body.

Either we are just a brain or we are spiritual, what could there be between the two choices. We are either physical or spiritual. Yes, we do have evidence we are not a brain. There are many universities that have completed reseach that shows consciousness will live after our death. Skeptics can deny this if their wish, but the research is growing and will soon be common knowledge.

I don’t understand what makes otherwise intelligent people believe that a hunk of tissue could create them. The human personality is very complex and diverse and huge by the amount of memory needed. How could something far lesser create something far greater? The idea is just not rational or logical.

38

You have nothing. No valid links, no completed research by reputable universities, no varifiable cases.
Nothing.

39

[QUOTE=lekatt]
No near death experience has been reproduced. NDEers have a conversation with light beings about returning to life, it usually ends in the experiencer being told they must go back to their body. It is a lack of knowledge of the experience that allows the duplication lie to continue.
[/QUOTE]

Um, what? Are you making stuff up or do you have actual evidence that they are talking to light beings? Or are you selectively interpreting oxygen deprevation hallucinations?

You have? You’ll have to show us where because it hasn’t happened in this thread. Those links you posted don’t have any actual evidence, they just mention studies that havent been done yet or books that don’t seem to have any scientific basis.

Oh that makes it easy then. I know we are physical, that’s pretty obvious. If we are either physical or spiritual, but not both, then that answers it.

Cite please?

The fact that there is plenty of evidence for it, and no evidence to the contrary? That normally does it for rational people.

Huh? How is an adult human creating a baby human ‘something far lesser creating something far greater’?

40

[QUOTE=lekatt]
No near death experience has been reproduced. NDEers have a conversation with light beings about returning to life, it usually ends in the experiencer being told they must go back to their body. It is a lack of knowledge of the experience that allows the duplication lie to continue.

I have backed up the spiritual nature of man with scientific research that shows consciousness continues to live after the death of the body.

Either we are just a brain or we are spiritual, what could there be between the two choices. We are either physical or spiritual. Yes, we do have evidence we are not a brain. There are many universities that have completed reseach that shows consciousness will live after our death. Skeptics can deny this if their wish, but the research is growing and will soon be common knowledge.

I don’t understand what makes otherwise intelligent people believe that a hunk of tissue could create them. The human personality is very complex and diverse and huge by the amount of memory needed. How could something far lesser create something far greater? The idea is just not rational or logical.
[/QUOTE]

Here’s an anecdotal account that claims that NDE-type experiences can be had without actual death, and distinctly different from the usual OBE that some claim to be able to acheive (note that this is of course anecdotal and should certainly be taken with a very liberal dose of salt):
http://www.beyondindigo.com/articles/article.php/artID/300025

Here’s a paper from Susan Blackmore (surely you know of her story?) and Tom Troscianko which concludes that NDEs most likely are not evidence of survival of the mind after death and are more similar to OBE-type experiences that can be induced by drug use and hallucination.

Here’s a quote from another Blackmore article:

Are Blackmore’s conclusions irrefutable? No, of course not. There is some science and some speculation that remains to be tested in her hypotheses. There are dozens more “cites” like this that I could pull from the internet, but that should suffice for my point: It’s easy to find lots of quotes and links to argue one way or another, isn’t it? Depending on your level of credulity and your own personal bias, you can probably find dozens of “supporting cites” for such things, especially areas that are rife with pseudoscience. A brief search for “cites” supporting creationism of one form or another yields plentiful results, but is the science any good?