Consciousness question

[SuperCoolGuy]

Outside of our ability to dectect these signals (as of yet), none of what you're saying here is out bounds with what I'm talking about. The brain would pretty much have to function in the same way in order to do what I'm suggesting.

Except that you are suggesting that consciousness is externally generated and channeled into the brain.

I am saying that consciousness is internally generated based on external sources limited to the capabilities of the cerebral cortex (sight, smell, touch, taste, feel).

External signal detection is limited to what the cerebral cortex processing capabilities. Thus, the thalmus can generate a consciousness based ONLY on what the cortex sends to the thalmus.

Can we agree on that, then.

 

[Iacchus]

Consciousness is GENERATED. Don't believe me? Read a neuroscience textbook on the thalmus and cerebral cortex.

Yes, I believe that consciousness is generated, but not within the brain.

If you want to convince me that it is channeled, I'd like to know where the evidence is.

On the other side of matter of course. Take for example our dreams. How do they in any way constitute a material reality? Yet it would seem we are perfectly capable of becoming conscious within the dream landscape as well.

 

[Whydoe]

On the other side of matter of course. Take for example our dreams. How do they in any way constitute a material reality? Yet it would seem we are perfectly capable of becoming conscious within the dream landscape as well.

Wow. This reminds me of my first post about out of body experiences. Just so happened that my brain fell on the floor and walked away. Hate it when that happens.

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

I can guess that you WANT to BELIEVE that the brain is receiving external signals other than what medical science is aware of, and it is those signals which you BELIEVE defines "consciousness".

No dice. Hence you say:

And medical science knows very little if, nothing about spiritual matters.

Tell me how to detect those other signals using a device other than the brain to prove its existence.

Smell is electrochemical. Sight is photoelectrical. Feeling is electrochemical-mechanical. Hearing is acoustic-electrical. Taste is electrochemical. All can be studied/manipulated/tested/imitated.

I say consciousness has its origins in those senses.

Give hard evidence to the contrary or give specific evidence of another "external sense". Otherwise, I'm done.

 

[Iacchus]

Except that you are suggesting that consciousness is externally generated and channeled into the brain.

Well, the brain certainly doesn't maintain consciousness when you die does it? So, where does it go?

I am saying that consciousness is internally generated based on external sources limited to the capabilities of the cerebral cortex (sight, smell, touch, taste, feel).

Yet wouldn't it be so much easier to say that consciousness was a piece of the greater puzzle as a whole? Then there would be no need to add anything, except to say that the brain reproduces/entertains it so to speak.

External signal detection is limited to what the cerebral cortex processing capabilities. Thus, the thalmus can generate a consciousness based ONLY on what the cortex sends to the thalmus.

Can we agree on that, then.

We could be speaking of very subtle frequencies, genereated at the DNA level.

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

Yes, I believe that consciousness is generated, but not within the brain.

On the other side of matter of course. Take for example our dreams. How do they in any way constitute a material reality? Yet it would seem we are perfectly capable of becoming conscious within the dream landscape as well.

Where is the other side of matter. There is no other side of matter.

Dreams are PHYSICALLY site specific neurons firing within your visual cortex and thalmus. You're dreams are materialistically electrons. Being conscious in a dream landscape doesn't it make the dream landscape real. The reality are the chemical-electrical reactions. The dream is a construct based on those firing of the electrons.

Narnia is not real. However, the construct seems real because books and movies are made that depict aspects of it. That construct is built out of videotape, ink, and paper. The videotape, ink and paper are real. Narnia is not.

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

Well, the brain certainly doesn't maintain consciousness when you die does it? So, where does it go?

Ceases to exist.

Yet wouldn't it be so much easier to say that consciousness was a piece of the greater puzzle as a whole?

It'd be nice, whatever, so what?

 

[Whydoe]

If I could interject something. I find it funny, no matter how many forums you go to, there are arguments where someone has a belief that no matter what someone else says, they will still believe.
I believe that if you went to any library and read every book cover to cover you would still be confused about what is true or false. Does anyone get what I'm saying? Unless the last book you read is Curious George - then at least you would be ok.

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

We could be speaking of very subtle frequencies, genereated at the DNA level.

Are you speaking about phonons within the molecules? Plasmons through pi bonds between molecules?

What "frequencies" are you refering to, and please provide a source.

 

[Iacchus]

I say consciousness has its origins in those senses.

If you understood that the matrix of reality was defined by a conscious mind, you would be correct.

Give hard evidence to the contrary or give specific evidence of another "external sense".

I'm wondering how atoms get their "cue," when it comes to their atomic weight. Does it have anything to do with matter?

Otherwise, I'm done.

Frankly, I think you were done, before you got started.

 

[Iacchus]

Are you speaking about phonons within the molecules? Plasmons through pi bonds between molecules?

What "frequencies" are you refering to, and please provide a source.

No, I don't claim to have all the details here. But I'm thinking more along the lines of a cable box on TV. Where each of these can be programmed specifically with its own address, and block out all the other signals it was not intended to receive. This way, each of us would be able to maintain our own identity (and/or soul) with our respective bodies.

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

I'm wondering how atoms get their "cue," when it comes to their atomic weight. Does it have anything to do with matter?

I asked for evidence of other external sources. Instead, you give me that statement above.

Wow.

Between your "subtle DNA frequencies" and belief that "atoms need a "cue" to define atomic weight" is a glaring fact, here:

You have no freaking clue what the heck you're talking about.

Good night and good luck. Holy crap.

Wow.

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

No, I don't claim to have all the details here.

Then don't ridicule medical science, or science in general for that matter, just because it doesn't support your BELIEFS.

Done.

 

[Iacchus]

Then don't ridicule medical science, or science in general for that matter, just because it doesn't support your BELIEFS.

Done.

As I said, medical science knows little or nothing about spiritual matters.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Wow.

Between your "subtle DNA frequencies" and belief that "atoms need a "cue" to define atomic weight" is a glaring fact, here:

You have no freaking clue what the heck you're talking about.

Good night and good luck. Holy crap.

Wow.

Exactly. WOW. I read him just to try to understand how on earth can someone be so stubborn. The "believe system" seems to be runing in circles in some guys, they simply cant see the facts from a different perspective. I bet this is the same mechanism that "protects" religious nuts, everything has an "explanation" inside their heads. It is astonishing.

 

[Mercutio]

As I said, medical science knows little or nothing about spiritual matters.

You know little or nothing about medical science, and can communicate little or nothing about spiritual matters. This is amply demonstrated in your posting here. You claim that you "don't claim to have all the details"; in truth, you do not have any of the details, nor any of the big picture.

I'd ask you to produce even one peer-reviewed scientific article that agrees with your view, but you and I both know that none exist.

If you stuck to "spiritual matters", you could make all the silly claims you like and no one would care, but you continue to make empirical claims which are quite simply wrong.

"very subtle frequencies, genereated at the DNA level"...absolutely hilarious.

 

[Tricky]

As I said, medical science knows little or nothing about spiritual matters.

Though Merc addressed this, I can't resist chiming in too.

You know, that's okay. Science doesn't know and doesn't address spiritual matters. It is a pity that spiritual people like yourself cannot grant the same favor to science. Instead, many make statements about science like;

We could be speaking of very subtle frequencies, genereated at the DNA level.

This is, scientifically, a nonsense statement by a person who knows little or nothing about science. So if you want to prattle away about your imaginary world, that's fine. If you make statements about the real world, you will be contradicted by those who actually have some knowledge of such things.

 

[Iacchus]

Does anyone understand what it means to build a bridge? I can assure you, I have no problem understanding what side of the chasm I stand on.

 

[Tricky]

Does anyone understand what it means to build a bridge?

It's one thing you can do to prove if someone is a witch.

I can assure you.

Out of wood or stone?

I have no problem understanding what side of the chasm I stand on.

What is your favorite color?

 

[Mercutio]

Does anyone understand what it means to build a bridge? I can assure you, I have no problem understanding what side of the chasm I stand on.

Interesting...Blackmore uses the "bridge across the chasm" metaphor in her talk. Does this mean you are actually watching it? Do you understand why she dismisses the chasm as illusory? Do you understand the evidence that leads her to this conclusion?

Do you weigh the same as a duck?