Proof that consciousness is NOT in the brain
in [Physics]
|
Prev: *** Re: Experts doubt Einstein..... but Einstein Dingleberries still worship him
Next: Quantum physicists have a novel plan for an experiment that usesthe human eye to detect "spooky action at a distance"
From: Benj on 4 Jun 2010 15:59 On Jun 4, 8:21 am, MarkA <nob...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > Not to belabor the obvious, but the title of your post was "Proof that > consciousness is NOT in the brain". The opening of the drivel that you > posted said, "Neuroscientists and other evolutionists teach and write that > consciousness is simply the synaptic firing in the brain. But that is > proved to not be the case at all." As so many Social Darwinists here have pointed out this is overstated. A correct last sentence would be: "But there is no real proof that the dogma of Neuroscientists is correct and there are suggestions that another viewpoint is possible." OK? > Raven is correctly pointing out that the drivel presented "proves" none of > that. You, however, are demonstrating your profound ignorance. You may > want to read "Blind Spots", by Madeleine L. Van Hecke, to gain a deeper > understanding of why something that seems so correct to you is recognized > as plainly wrong to everyone else. The problem here isn't "drivel" it is the clash of two scientific viewpoints. The strongest one supported today is that of Social Darwinism. This views "man" as nothing more than a developed animal, the universe as simply the three dimensions that are obvious plus time, and creation as happening solely by chance. Hence the SD dogma is that "mind" is nothing more than "brain". There is already MUCH evidence that such is NOT the case and such views are amazingly short- sighted. There are those who extend the SD theory to include as much as the entire physical 3-D universe (connected to all etc. etc.) Such theories when placed against certain observations still come up short. Social Darwinists, however are not deterred. Such antithetical data is simply dismissed and those presenting it nullified with ad hominems. The opposing view is revealed "science". This usually was some sort of teaching by a person or persons impressive enough that the people of the time started a religion over them. Unfortunately like all opinion and statements, they by themselves offer no proof of correctness. These revealed schemes, however, usually contain the same or similar features. Such as a universe of many more dimensions than three. Such a basic assumption can have wide-ranging repercussions such as the hypothesis that mind can exist or even have its source OUTSIDE of the "normal" three dimensions. The choice of which of these world-views is the correct one must be made as always through experiment and observation. In other words science methodology. However so long as the Social Darwinists (as obviously represented here) and the Revelationists (as represented by the authors or the OP) view their "science" as religion and dogma, neither side will have enough of an open mind to settle the questions. And obviously that is pretty much where we are today!
From: panamfloyd on 4 Jun 2010 17:18 On Jun 3, 7:04 pm, Hawkman <worldspiri...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: snip > For a decade or so, brain studies have seemed on the brink of > answering questions about the nature of consciousness, the self, > thought and experience. But they never do, argues University of > California at Berkeley philosopher Alva Noë, because these things are > not found solely in the brain itself. For a philosopher to ponder the rhetorical, and then claim that the neurologists actually "looking" for these answers are wrong. Sure sounds like "monday-morning quarterbacking" to me. Mark Knopfler was right. "Philosophy is useless. Theology is worse." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlAPDQdHqCY -Panama Floyd, Atlanta. aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
From: Kilmir on 4 Jun 2010 20:30 On Jun 4, 1:04 am, Hawkman <worldspiri...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Neuroscientists and other evolutionists teach and write that > consciousness is simply the synaptic firing in the brain. But that is > proved to not be the case at all. > > When in the course of scientific endeavor, it becomes apparent that > deeper truth exist, a decent respect to Nature requires that such > truth be explored. We hold these truth to be scientifically > approachable, that all forms of existence are interconnected, that > they possess certain fundamental and unalienable properties. That to > describe this interconnectedness and these properties, successive > theories shall be constructed by mankind, deriving their explanatory > and predictive powers from the approximations of laws of Nature. That > whenever any theory becomes inadequate of these ends, it is the duties > of mankind to modify it or to abolish it, and to establish new ones, > laying the foundation on such principles and organizing the structures > in such forms, as to mankind shall seem most likely to reflect their > understanding and knowledge of Nature (In memory of Thomas Jefferson, > October, 2003). No Science or Religion is higher than truth (In memory > of HPB) > > We have become too reductive in understanding ourselves, argues > philosopher Alva Noe. Our thoughts and desires are shaped by more than > neurons firing inside our heads. <snip> The article is taken from salon, here: http://www.salon.com/news/environment/atoms_eden/2009/03/25/alva_noe The comments there are quite effective in exposing the nonsense of the interview, both philosophically as well as the subject-matter.
From: raven1 on 7 Jun 2010 08:54 On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 12:59:04 -0700 (PDT), Benj <bjacoby(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: >The problem here isn't "drivel" it is the clash of two scientific >viewpoints. No, it's a clash between a scientific viewpoint and unsupported woo-woo.
From: Mike Painter on 8 Jun 2010 00:13
Benj wrote: <snip> > > The opposing view is revealed "science". So much for it not being drivel. Apparently you have neveer had to develop anything using the scientific method. You and Bible Bob would make great friends Bible Bob says, " A theory is a guess, speculation, abstract thought, a guess based on some facts; but then facts are not truth so it is all about theory." and " Of course I understand the scientific method (the true one, not the false one made up by money grubbing deceivers who stole and corrupted the words "the scientific method." Apparently you have been misled by them so I will try to make it easy for you to understand. Trial and error; screw up till ya get it right. By wrong until you get it right. Develop theories and make wild guesses and try them out until you get one out of ten thousand right and are able to repeat the process." |