5
   

The Brain does not generate the mind; scientific proof

 
 
izzythepush
 
  4  
Mon 31 Jul, 2023 12:09 pm
@izzythepush,
And I've analysed your technique, which is the only part of your concept that requires any analysis at all.

You've dressed up, "the mind can exist outside of/separate to the brain," with a lot of impressive vernacular, but you've not progressed beyond that initial concept.

I'm in the process of marking exams for 16 year olds and I've seen sweet Fanny Adams dressed up in the Emperor's New Clothes umpteen times already this week.

You're just a bit more adept at doing it.
izzythepush
 
  4  
Mon 31 Jul, 2023 12:14 pm
@mmarco,
You are so predictable.

That's what they all do, claim their argument is so superior, nobody else understands and can't refute it.

Have you met Jasper?

He's another simple minded genius who thinks he's solved all of Science's mysteries.

And like you, I think he really believes his own bullshit.

Btw, nobody else does.

Looks like nobody yours either.
0 Replies
 
mmarco
 
  -3  
Mon 31 Jul, 2023 12:16 pm
@izzythepush,
Contrary to what you wrote, my argument has nothing to do with the statement "the mind can exist outside/separate from the brain",

You totally misunderstood my argument which proves once again that you are unable to refute it.
izzythepush
 
  3  
Mon 31 Jul, 2023 12:36 pm
@mmarco,
Yeah, sure.

Crocodiles.
0 Replies
 
fobvius
 
  0  
Mon 31 Jul, 2023 08:03 pm
@mmarco,
Your failure to comprehend, discuss or accept that a soul/god is not a necessary precursor to consciousness is tantamount to acknowledging that you are unable to refute that fact.

0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  3  
Wed 2 Aug, 2023 08:50 am
At least Marco has the decency to nick off after delivering his theory, unlike Jasper who stays around repeating it ad nauseam.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Thu 3 Aug, 2023 03:58 am
Can Consciousness Exist Outside of the Brain?

The brain may not create consciousness but "filter" it.

Quote:
The prevailing consensus in neuroscience is that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain and its metabolism. When the brain dies, the mind and consciousness of the being to whom that brain belonged cease to exist. In other words, without a brain, there can be no consciousness.

But according to the decades-long research of Dr. Peter Fenwick, a highly regarded neuropsychiatrist who has been studying the human brain, consciousness, and the phenomenon of near-death experience (NDE) for 50 years, this view is incorrect. Despite initially being highly incredulous of NDEs and related phenomena, Fenwick now believes his extensive research suggests that consciousness persists after death. In fact, Fenwick believes that consciousness actually exists independently and outside of the brain as an inherent property of the universe itself like dark matter and dark energy or gravity.

Hence, in Fenwick’s view, the brain does not create or produce consciousness; rather, it filters it. As odd as this idea might seem at first, there are some analogies that bring the concept into sharper focus. For example, the eye filters and interprets only a very small sliver of the electromagnetic spectrum, and the ear registers only a narrow range of sonic frequencies. Similarly, according to Fenwick, the brain filters and perceives only a tiny part of the cosmos’ intrinsic “consciousness.”

Indeed, the eye can see only the wavelengths of electromagnetic energy that correspond to visible light. But the entire EM spectrum is vast and extends from extremely low energy, long-wavelength radio waves to incredibly energetic, ultrashort-wavelength gamma rays. So, while we can’t actually “see” much of the EM spectrum, we know things like X-rays, infrared radiation, and microwaves exist because we have instruments for detecting them.

Similarly, our ears can register only a narrow range of sonic frequencies but we know a huge amount of others imperceptible to the human ear exist nevertheless.

When the eye dies, the electromagnetic spectrum does not vanish or cease to be; it’s just that the eye is no longer viable and therefore can no longer filter, be stimulated by, and react to light energy. But the energy it previously interacted with remains nonetheless. And so too when the ear dies, or stops transducing sound waves, the energies that the living ear normally responds to still exist. According to Fenwick, so it is with consciousness. Just because the organ that filters, perceives, and interprets it dies does not mean the phenomenon itself ceases to exist. It only ceases to be in the now-dead brain but continues to exist independently of the brain as an external property of the universe itself.

What’s more, according to Fenwick, our consciousness tricks us into perceiving a false duality of self and other when in fact there is only unity. We are not separate from other aspects of the universe but an integral and inextricable part of them. And when we die, we transcend the human experience of consciousness, and its illusion of duality, and merge with the universe's entire and unified property of consciousness. So, ironically, only in death can we be fully conscious.

This is not to be taken as joining God or a creator because the cosmic consciousness that Fenwick describes did not create the universe but is simply a property of it. Obviously, despite his impressive body of research into this subject, there is no current way to empirically establish the validity of Fenwick’s cosmic consciousness hypothesis. Ultimately, it aligns more with faith than science. Thus it seems the answer to the question in this post’s title is “No.” There is no empirically established explanatory framework for understanding how consciousness can exist independently and outside of the brain.

Recall the old riddle, “If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it still make a sound?” Well, it seems the answer is “No.” Because sound is the conscious perception of sonic or acoustic stimuli that requires a sense organ to experience. Without an ear to hear and a brain to interpret the stimulation there will be only molecular vibrations but no sound, per se. In the same vein, all of the energies and biophysical phenomena that the brain experiences as consciousness do indeed exist independently and outside of the brain (e.g., physics, chemistry, and quantum events). But the wondrous experience of consciousness itself seems to require a brain to give rise to it and a brain-based mind to perceive it.

psychologytoday

mmarco
 
  -1  
Thu 3 Aug, 2023 06:09 am
@hightor,
What you posted is just a fanciful guess; converseley, my initial message explains some rational arguments that have never been refuted
izzythepush
 
  3  
Thu 3 Aug, 2023 06:22 am
@mmarco,
You can't refute Hightor's article.

Go on try.
mmarco
 
  -1  
Thu 3 Aug, 2023 06:46 am
@izzythepush,
Hightor simply hypothesizes that the brain filters a pre-existing cosmic consciousness; this is not an argument but just an arbitrary statement. Since Hightor provides no rational argument to prove his hypothesis, there is nothing to refute.
izzythepush
 
  4  
Thu 3 Aug, 2023 07:08 am
@mmarco,
You can't refute it.
mmarco
 
  -1  
Thu 3 Aug, 2023 11:50 am
@izzythepush,
You do not seem to understand the difference between an arbitrary hypothesis and an rational argument.
Anuway the expression "cosmic consciousness" is simply nonsensical, Consciousness is a concept that refers to the property of being conscious= having a mental experience, such as sensastions, emotions, thoughts or even dreams. The fundamental property of consciousness, as we directly experience it, is subjectivity, i.e. the immediate and intuitive awareness of oneself as an indivisible unit, our "I". Consciousness is inherently subjective because a subject is an intrinsic property of experience, and subjectivity cannot be broken down into simpler elements / pieces.
So, the term “consciousness” always refers to a subject who has a mental experience. For example, when we feel pain, what exists is not pain alone but “we who feel pain”; the “we” is an intrinsic part of the experience of pain. The same is true for any action: for example, there is no “walking” without a “walking subject”. The idea that an experience can exist without an experiencer is simply a nonsensical expression, exactly as the expression “spherical cube”, which is an expression formed by juxtaposing two words whose meaning is mutually exclusive, thus leading to an intrinsic logical contradiction. Language allows us to form meaningless expressions and this can create illusory definitions; these expressions may create the illusion of a meaning, while they are devoid of any meaning. The idea that consciousness or a mental experience can be subjectless, in the sense that it does not imply a unitary subjectivity that has a mental experience, is an illusory idea exactly like the idea of ​​a spherical cube or the idea that there may be a “walking” without a “walking subject”.
What distinguishes science from supertitions or philosophical speculations is that science is a combination of logic and empirical evidence, and the most fundamental and direct empirical evidence is that mental experience imply a conscious subject.
izzythepush
 
  3  
Thu 3 Aug, 2023 12:09 pm
@mmarco,
Still can't refute it.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Thu 3 Aug, 2023 02:23 pm
@mmarco,
mmarco wrote:


You do not seem to understand the difference between an arbitrary hypothesis and an rational argument.
Anuway the expression "cosmic consciousness" is simply nonsensical, Consciousness is a concept that refers to the property of being conscious= having a mental experience, such as sensastions, emotions, thoughts or even dreams. The fundamental property of consciousness, as we directly experience it, is subjectivity, i.e. the immediate and intuitive awareness of oneself as an indivisible unit, our "I". Consciousness is inherently subjective because a subject is an intrinsic property of experience, and subjectivity cannot be broken down into simpler elements / pieces.
So, the term “consciousness” always refers to a subject who has a mental experience. For example, when we feel pain, what exists is not pain alone but “we who feel pain”; the “we” is an intrinsic part of the experience of pain. The same is true for any action: for example, there is no “walking” without a “walking subject”. The idea that an experience can exist without an experiencer is simply a nonsensical expression, exactly as the expression “spherical cube”, which is an expression formed by juxtaposing two words whose meaning is mutually exclusive, thus leading to an intrinsic logical contradiction. Language allows us to form meaningless expressions and this can create illusory definitions; these expressions may create the illusion of a meaning, while they are devoid of any meaning. The idea that consciousness or a mental experience can be subjectless, in the sense that it does not imply a unitary subjectivity that has a mental experience, is an illusory idea exactly like the idea of ​​a spherical cube or the idea that there may be a “walking” without a “walking subject”.
What distinguishes science from supertitions or philosophical speculations is that science is a combination of logic and empirical evidence, and the most fundamental and direct empirical evidence is that mental experience imply a conscious subject.



There was a time when the most fundamental and direct empirical evidence about the sun and moon was that, since we were absolutely stationary, they had to be moving across the sky. The "science" of that time was sure that was what was happening.

The science of a future day may show that our scientific understanding of consciousness today is as naïve as was the science that had the sun travelling across our sky...or the notion that we were stationary.

Could be one way...could be the other. Arguing that the one you favor is THE correct one...is about as silly as someone else arguing the opposite that his/her way is the correct one.
mmarco
 
  -1  
Thu 3 Aug, 2023 03:25 pm
@Frank Apisa,
You are totally wrong.

In the first place, science, in the modern sense of the term, began with the experimental method introduced by Galileo, which is based on empirical evidence. The formidable scientific progress of the last centuries is based on this method.

My thread title indicates that I am discussing a scientific argument; I am not interested in debating a fanciful hypothesis in total disagreement with our scientific and empirical evidence. It would be like discussing magic or other kinds of superstitions.

The point is to establish which view is in agreement with our scientific and empirical evidence and is logically consistent.










Jasper10
 
  -3  
Fri 4 Aug, 2023 12:34 am
@mmarco,
You talk about empirical scientific evidence mmarco and yet matter is entering and exiting from multiple points at varying timescales within the cosmos and yet you presumably believe in a fanciful hypothesis that all matter has entered and will exit the cosmos from a single point.



0 Replies
 
Jasper10
 
  -2  
Fri 4 Aug, 2023 12:47 am
@mmarco,
You need to be more open minded to new ideas mmacro.Your philosophy and science has gone stale.



Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Fri 4 Aug, 2023 02:24 am
@mmarco,
mmarco wrote:


You are totally wrong.


No, I am not.


Quote:
In the first place, science, in the modern sense of the term, began with the experimental method introduced by Galileo, which is based on empirical evidence. The formidable scientific progress of the last centuries is based on this method.


"Science"...in whatever terms, began when the first person questioned anything and sought to find an answer.

Quote:
My thread title indicates that I am discussing a scientific argument; I am not interested in debating a fanciful hypothesis in total disagreement with our scientific and empirical evidence. It would be like discussing magic or other kinds of superstitions.


I am interested in debating whatever comes up for debate...and here I am.

Although you are saying you are not interested in debating what you claim my comments are...here you are also.

Hummm!

izzythepush
 
  3  
Fri 4 Aug, 2023 02:45 am
@Frank Apisa,
It's more and more Fanny Adams dressed up.

And now the most clueless dolt on A2K has shown up to give the OP a masterclass in mindless inanity.
mmarco
 
  -1  
Fri 4 Aug, 2023 03:09 am
@Frank Apisa,
You wrote: ""Science"...in whatever terms, began when the first person questioned anything and sought to find an answer."

No, this is not science. Ancient myths were also conceived to answer questions, but nobody considers them science.
Look in a dictionary and you may find a definition of "science" like this: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world acquired through observation and experimentation.

On the other hand, if you compare the very little scientific progress of the thousands of years before Galileo and the enormous scientific progress of the last few centuries after Galileo, you should understand the importance of the experimental method.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 05:19:26