I'm prepared to argue that you have not conclusively made the biological case of conscious ability.
This is only true here, in and on this thread (and the forums involved), in that I have not yet carried my presentation of the knowledge aggregate that is firmly in place, to its fullest depth and width. It is close enough to fact, xris
, that it is just as well to call it a fact, that the ability and state of conscious is a matter of the excitable cell--so we're not gonna find it in skin cells, nor hair cells, nor toenail cells, and so on
. Additionally, due to the definition which is more commonly used (as opposed to the sense in which I use it to better describe cellular activity and states which are of preconsciousness, and not acknowledge cognitively by awareness and accessible memory
) even, it is a fact that a non-living structure does not have the capacity for the state of consciousness, nor conscious. (again, unless we change our definition)
I'm still convinced that even though the EM field is created by the brain the consequences of that field gives us reason to believe external influences can effect our conscious ability. Im not saying that the field will carrying on after our death or anything earthly will survive. The contact will die but the sender or the influence will or could survive.
is the collapse in your position. This clearly signifies a need, like others who have emotional appeal for 'skyhooks
,' (a god, a Jesus, a Krishna, a Zeus, etc.), for a cause which matches the human condition of 'will' and 'decision making to achieve goals,' a super-being in, or above and beyond, the universe that life has come to be in and of.
The notion that the brain is like a radio receiver, receiving consciousness and consciousness content, or like a filter (or 'prism
') that filters some cosmic consciousness energy into what an individual human (usually human only, for some strange, illogical and ignorant reason), has also been fully dismantled and laid aside as a passing moment of imaginative thought before better and more accurate knowledge had been empirically accumulated
You refuse to accept anything ethereal is present in our consciousness but even you have to begrudgingly admit the seat of consciousness is still not certain.
The seat of consciousness is in the brain, xris
, that much is exactly known and proven. It is also very well supported that while the particular actors on this theater stage are many and scattered, there are some very big time players which if we were to remove from being able to act at all, consciousness would be destroyed equally. If you knock out the brainstem cortical activation hub, you'll completely knock out consciousness in all cases. However, that hub's being up and running, in and of itself alone, does not guarantee having a full and normal (for the particular brain) state of having consciousness
Now as far as something being non-physical (ethereal
), such a thing would have to be demonstrable and testable, and a degree of control, or effect caused by such proven. How would you think you could demonstrate something that cannot be sensed at all, which has supposed properties distinct from and above such things as heat energy or molecule motion, gravity or charge attraction? It is simply absurd to entertain the idea that the molecules of the pepper and salt I put on my steak are non-physical, and just as much so to think that the seawater that stings my eyes each summer at the beach, is non-physical. Why, then, is it so easy to entertain the idea the extracellular fluid of our brains, which content is VERY much necessary for the neuronal activity and consciousness state of our brains, and which is essentially VERY much simple salt water, has to be non-physical?
The answer xris
, really, is because we humans are slow to get over our need for that 'big brother
' to protect us, keep us from harm, and make sure we survive forever and never die. Even when the evidence is pretty much staring us in the face, it's that emotional tag which causes brain executive to loose out.
Your dismissal of other scientific reasoning is not subtle and makes your subjective beliefs apparent. This pseudoscience of comparison frequencies can be scrutinised and examined so dont dismiss it without questioning it in detail, please.
You'll have to forgive me here, I cannot so precisely see where this is coming from, however (and taking a bit of a shot in the dark at it here
) if you are talking about the different frequencies that will be found in the various brain regions and states of activity, rest, sleep, difficult problem solving (as opposed to easy), and so on, then we are not talking about pseudoscience. If you are talking about the link you had provided earlier, the first link especially, and others which dealt more precisely with the theory as it relates to brain and consciousness, then I'll point out that they had put a degree of spin on the information obviously contained in the paper or papers they had looked at. (the first source, UniSci ( or whatever) only cited one paper . . . I have four papers by teams that work with Susan Pockett (who was mentioned by the site) [the most recent being an 'in press
' release by those who have subscriptions] and I know those papers DO NOT
support the claims of that site's spin.
You have not convinced me Kaseijin , you need to do more than give the workings of the brain to alter my beliefs that we are mere flesh and blood.
Firstly, yes, I remember your example, and am aware of the model from which it possibly had come (a model about a remote controlled flying drone) and understand that the attempted statement made by that thought experiment ignores some known facts--as is often in such attempts to demonstrate the 'brain as receiver' fallacy--and thus utterly fails to make any secure statements towards our practical reality.
, I am not trying, actually, to convince you (nor jeeprs
for that matter); paradigm shifts are things which happen internally, like those 'aha' moments. I am, however, trying to set the facts and close-enough-to-being-factual-to-call-them-fact details straight, and to free the data and study results from a wide spectrum of related factors, from the spin of the theist-based religious belief system adherents, and less careful thinkers.
That point, then brings to mind an interesting thing; and a question (like the others which I want both you and jeeprs
to answer honestly). What is the purpose of blood? and why is blood so awfully important for the brain, but is also so dangerous for it that the brain has to protect itself from it with a brain-blood barrier? And for bonus points then, xris
, if blood is not just a physical material, then why in the universe have it? If blood is actually a non-physical thing first, then what gives in the meaningless duplication, and why is it so common a factor for higher level organisms? (and you do know that mice have states of consciousness too, right?)
And, just in case here, I'd like you to respond to all the questions I have asked in posts above dated as of today. In the past I tried to present, and you guys always questioned the understood position I have been presenting, and I tried to answer them, but now the tables have been turned. It appears that jeeprs
is not willing to try, are you? Would you be willing to have the occipital lobe of your brain totally removed so that you could prove that some something of a being which is you out there in the non-physcial universe could still see without it, and know that it is you, xris
, with all your memory and personality and mental vigor, that is still seeing--so that you can be sure that the death of those cells means nothing like being aware of not being able to see how to drive your car to the store
I am just going to concentrate on Buddhist philosophy from now on.
So Buddhist philosophy (or Vedantic philosophy more specifically, I'd guess) makes no statements about preconscious visual stimuli prompts to premotor neurons so as to cause them to become active thus giving rise to the sensation of wanting to do some in a matter of tens of micro seconds before M1 executes the action...thus causing the apparent consciousness level result to appear as though it was fully an event executed by the state of having consciousness, rather than mostly by totally unaware, non-conscious events...the kind which brain does most of the time anyways
? What about the non-conscious control of the eyes? What statements in Buddhist philosophy are raised concerning that knowledge?
, meree baheen, the studies and documentaries I've seen on remote viewing have quite fully demonstrated a number of substantial points. One is that the said events are never 100% accurate, another is that they are always inconsistent across efforts to achieve results, and finally, that they are very close to never reproducible--they cannot be done more than once. However, another point is simply regarding information. The essence of what could be considered to be happening, holding, for the moment, that such were possible, is how the information is bound by brain. What it means to mentally visualize a matter, is a different thing that what it means to have ones occipital lobe doing its heavy work all the way up to V5...and projecting it to the prefrontal cortex.
When a person imagines a scene, as a purposeful act in a state of consciousness, or when dreaming, even, a different brain state is employed than when one is receiving signals through LGN through the two pathways...one in consciousness, and the other in non-consciousness. This would be what would be happening in a remote viewing setting. But, there is actually a lot involved in that happening, and it would have to be accounted for too. At the moment, salima
chan, it cannot be successfully enough demonstrated that remote viewing is due to any non-physical event at all.