• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

brain/mind

Don't we all love smartasses who try to post clever retorts only to have to go back and edit them four minutes later? What an ultramaroon!:jaw-dropp

Not you, Jeff. The one who's making up rules for the crazed!
 
Last edited:
Slimething said:
Don't we all love smartasses who try to post clever retorts only to have to go back and edit them four minutes later? What an ultramaroon!:jaw-droppNot you, Jeff. The one who's making up rules for the crazed!
Click to expand...
This is the sradnatd stie sangil taht you hvae lsot the polt.
 
maatorc said:
1... Our personal consciousness IS a function of the integrated interaction of mind and brain.
2... Our personal consciousness is an unseparated segment of universal mind.
3... Our personal consciousness will change as the nature and functioning of the brain changes.
Click to expand...

There is no separation of mind and brain.

No universal mind.

But yes, our personal consciousness will change with changes in our own brains due to aging or injury. But nothing more.
 
Causality said:
There is no separation of mind and brain. No universal mind. But yes, our personal consciousness will change with changes in our own brains due to aging or injury. But nothing more.
Click to expand...
That is what this thread is all about. As you know, I disagree with you. So we agree on one thing.
 
cyborg said:
Energy isn't a force.

Before you continue I suggest you start getting real precise with your terminology real quick.
Click to expand...

If this is the same maatorc from the Skeptics forum, he once said, "energy is all is god" and then babbled on with some new age extrapolation on quantum mechanics while insulting everyone who called him on it. It was really funny. It was like he was this high priest sent to enlighten the skeptics. He was like "Interesting Ian" only less coherent and verbose. I guess he thinks it's his calling to browbeat skeptics with his "truth". Like creationists, he misquotes scientists or takes them out of context, and people promptly hand him his crap on a platter for him to indulge in--which makes him all the more pompous and inane.
 
maatorc said:
Is memory a conscious state? If not, what is it?
Click to expand...

It is a conscious state, and it requires a hippocampus--no hippocampus...no new memories--the individual perceives himself as continually waking up from a coma. No new memories, no learning--very primitive thinking based on stored emotional memories.

So whatever it is you are suggesting about memory, it cannot exist absent a working brain. How do we know? Because of a man named Clive Wearing--and others who have experienced similar brain damage in the hippocampus. And it is the memory area of the brain that generates new neurons in adulthood. So whatever memory is, neurons sure seem to be a necessary part of the process. How you can imagine any form of consciousness without memory (which we know for certain requires specific brain "pieces") is beyond me.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
I believe that is why Yahzi said that we exist 40 ms. in the past.

~~ Paul
Click to expand...

Yes, there are a lot of studies showing just that. We recognize patterns before we have a conscious awareness that we've recognized the pattern--that is, our brain shows "recognition" before we realize we recognize something.

Sometimes when I go to sleep, I have a myoclonic jerking of the legs...and it always seems like I was dreaming, and in the dream I was about to trip...and then my leg jerks...but I can't tell if I really have the dream before the leg jerk or if I "invent" it after--nor can I tell if my brain knows the jerk is coming and therefore invents a dream where I'm going down stairs or whatever...

The brain is interesting--but philosophy, religion, and mysticism are useless in regards to understanding more about it. (But I suppose it can be amusing when one is high...or too daft to understand the facts.)
 
Last edited:
Slimething said:
maatorc, you have to honor the physics lexicon to get anywhere with this. Energy, work, force, etc have strictly defined meanings. You must use better terminology to express your thoughts or most of us won't understand.
Click to expand...


No he doesn't. He fancies himself a mystic who has come to this forum to enlighten the closed minded skeptics who don't understand the "higher truth".

Be obedient and grateful for his wisdom or suffer his childish word tantrums peppered with mystical mumbo jumbo.
 
maatorc said:
1... Physics is existential, dealing with phenomena, and not ontological.
2... Energy, also, is existential, dealing with phenomena, and not ontological.
3... What ontology, exactly, have I put forward? If you can identify the alleged ontology, explain in what manner it does not have any merit.
Click to expand...


Oh my...you are even doing the pendantical elipses coupled with bizarre numbering that means nothing to anyone but you--just like you did at the Skeptics forum.

(Really folks--this dude (as you've readily surmised) is like a slightly dumber and more egotistical version of Interesting Ian (if you can imagine such a thing.) I wonder if he ever gets any converts?)
 
Slimething said:
Yo, maatorc, I'm back at your kind invitation! I really couldn't leave after finding you so wisely using physics terms incorrectly while pulling their meanings out of Uranus.



I wish I'd know that before I read this!! :p



Energy an abstraction? To some? Who? You? Like I told you before, you're n-1 with you being the -1. Better than being a zero, I guess, maybe.

So, what do we do with special relativity now? Discard it because it contradicts you?



Take your Jargon Generator back to the Dollar Store. It's not working right.
Click to expand...

:D

This thread is a pleasure to read. I love when the clever give the arrogant woo their comeuppance--and maatorc is one very arrogant and ignorant woo.

You skeptics are such funny, smart, and sexy folks--my heroes! As you were--
 
articulett said:
If this is the same maatorc from the Skeptics forum, he once said, "energy is all is god" and then babbled on with some new age extrapolation on quantum mechanics while insulting everyone who called him on it. It was really funny. It was like he was this high priest sent to enlighten the skeptics. He was like "Interesting Ian" only less coherent and verbose. I guess he thinks it's his calling to browbeat skeptics with his "truth". Like creationists, he misquotes scientists or takes them out of context, and people promptly hand him his crap on a platter for him to indulge in--which makes him all the more pompous and inane.
Click to expand...
For the information of people here, in-Articulett has the habit of describing herself through her constant attacks on anyone who happens to disagree with anything she says. It is all a little trick: If you agree with her she says something ingratiating to you, and if you have the temerity to question anything she rabbits on about she comes out with the kind of rubbish you see above. Do not let her deceptive rhetoric trap you. She needs to attack you, and ascribe to you all her hangups on a wide range of topics. What really disconcerts her is that she does not really have the foggiest clue where I am coming from, and this infuriates her. And notice how she, as is her habit, has flooded the thread with six consecutive posts: Be warned!
 
Last edited:
Just to keep things in perspective, amidst the deep and meaningfull waffle that passes for wisdom here:

Generic Drugs

All drugs have two names, a trade name and a generic name. For example, the trade name of Tylenol also has a generic name of Acetaminophen. Aleve is also Naproxen. Amoxil is also called Amoxicillin and Advil is also called Ibuprofen.

The American FDA has been looking for a generic name for Viagra. After careful consideration by a team of government experts, it recently announced that it has settled on the generic name of Mycoxaflopin, Dixafix, and of course, Ibepokin.

Pfizer Corp. announced today that Viagra will soon be available in liquid form, and will be marketed by Pepsi Cola as a power beverage suitable for use as a mixer. It will now be possible for a man to literally pour himself a stiff one. Obviously we can no longer call this a soft drink, and it gives new meaning to the names "cocktails", "highballs" and just a good old-fashioned "stiff drink".

Pepsi will market the new concoction by the name of: MOUNT & DO.

Thought for the day: There is more money being spent on breast implants and Viagra today than on Alzheimer's research. This means that by 2040, there should be a large elderly population with perky boobs and huge erections and absolutely no recollection of what to do with them.
 
cyborg said:
All minds require a brain
Click to expand...

That seems like dualistic language. A mind does not "require" a brain, it is constructed from certain physical processes that are a part of a larger set of physical processes we call the brain. If you describe all the physical processes going on that completely entail what the mind is, then there is no need to introduce the idea of the brain as a "substrate" for the mind. It just confuses things IMO.

As an aside, this thread is titled "brain/mind", and it should be noted that, these days, "mind" is usually acknowledged as physically defined even by those who say that non-physical aspects of consciousness exist.
 
Maatorc said:
1... Our personal consciousness IS a function of the integrated interaction of mind and brain.
2... Our personal consciousness is an unseparated segment of universal mind.
3... Our personal consciousness will change as the nature and functioning of the brain changes.
Click to expand...
So why do we need the idea of a universal mind at all? And why doesn't it show up outside of our brains? Somewhere, anywhere. Not even in the math.

~~ Paul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom