Do brains really exist?

[lifegazer]

How is the inability to ever express remorse, or have any empathy at all, a higher form of thought? If you ask me, such thought is in fact less than human, as it encompasses fewer emotions than a health human mind, and is therefore a lower level...

I expressed remorse for You, but not for P.S.A (since I don't think you are P.S.A.).
If you eventually see this response and want to seriously discuss it, I will. But not in this thread.
No more games for me with you. We ignore each other or we talk like adults. Your choice.

 

[Z]

I expressed remorse for You, but not for P.S.A (since I don't think you are P.S.A.).
If you eventually see this response and want to seriously discuss it, I will. But not in this thread.
No more games for me with you. We ignore each other or we talk like adults. Your choice.

Quoted for P.S.A.'s benefit.

Though I have a sinking sensation in me gutz that I know what the response will be...

 

[lifegazer]

Though I have a sinking sensation in me gutz that I know what the response will be...

Yep, me too. But note here who holds-out the olive branch. And please quote this for his convenience also.

 

[Z]

Sorry, Darren, that would be 'stirring the cauldron'. He can read it if he takes you off of 'ignore'. Besides - it's a very arrogant comment.

I take it you are just a naturally arrogant person, aren't you?

 

[Atlas]

Lg,

I liked that big toe - little toe thing. But aren't you the big toe? Why are you even talking to us? You can't even be aware of us.

And that ~Something~ thing you're talking about. You're mixed up. It's having the experience of the universe. It's a freakin singularity buddy.

You've analyzed it and resynthesized it and it remains Lg centric.

I think you should be ready for some mates, but as usual you's jus lyin.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Lifegazer said:
Also, to my mind, it is ludicrous to believe that a divided entity (an entity composed of numerous parts, all separated and oblivious to one another), can "achieve" individual experience.

It's got a heck of a better chance at achieving some sort of experience than something with only one part would. How could a thing with only one part do anything?

~~ Paul

 

[Piscivore]

Rubbish. If you were the same size as a molecule of air, a 'gust of wind' could be equated to the movement of a molecule.

A gust of wind is just air molecules moving around, at any scale. Individually, they are moving all the time, but as they do not always move in concert, they do not always make wind. A single molecule cannot, by itself, say, move a newspaper down the street.

The comparison is nonsensical...
The fact is that the totality of the different experiences of human INDIVIDUALITY is a singular experience!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [emphasis justified!!!!!!!!!!!!!]

No, it isn't. A "human" doesn't remember every bit of stimulii it "experiences." And even if an individual's memory were perfect, its perception is limited- it isn't aware of every event that impacts it. While there are "experiences" of "experiences," these are not qualitatively different from the original experiences.

"The fact is" that every "human" is inseperarable part of its environment, and it cannot be removed from some sort of context.

... Now, given the fact that you believe the brain to be a real entity composed of many parts - all oblivious to one another -
how do you explain the advent of a singular experience??????!!!

I do not believe this. First off, still have no idea whatsoever what you mean by "real." Second, the brain is not an "entity". Third, the parts, as I've said, are not "oblivious to one another"- they interact. Fourth, there is no "singular experience" to explain.

Hold on: this thread is addressed to those that believe that 'the [real] brain' is the seat of all experience. [Meaning that the 'bricks' DO have an experience]
... If you believe that 'experience' emanates from 'God' or 'nothing' or ~something~ hitherto undeclared, then you shouldn't even be attempting to negate my OP - since my OP has not addressed those concepts.

Nope, don't believe any of that either. "For one thing, "experiences" are not entities that can "emanate" from anything. They are events that occur between particles.

You're just parroting crap.

Tu quoque.

Experience is singular. Deal with it.

No it isn't. Just by "your" reading this post there are several "experiences" occuring that "you" aren't probably aware of.

... Having done so, think about how/why an entity composed of numerous parts - all oblivious to one another and all ACTING DIFFERENTLY - can have a singular experience. Then we'll be in the same field-of-play.

What field? Fairyland park? If you want to talk about an imaginary place, fine, but that's not the universe we have, or the one I'm talking about.

The parts are not "oblivious" to one another. They interact.
The parts do not all "act differently"- they all follow the same amazingly small set of "rules."
There are no "singular experiences" to have.

*Laugh*

Indeed.

... Think of another mechanism: a 'car', for example:-
No parts of the car are aware of themselves (likewise, as I explained earlier, no parts of the brain can be aware of themselves - since this negates the possibility of singular experience).

Heh, and yet you don't see the error...

So, no parts of the car can experience themselves nor each other.

Hmm. Brake pedal pushed, slave cylinder compresses, hydraulic fluid transmits force of compression to master cylinder, master cylinder compressses, more hydraulic fluid transmitts that force to the calipers, the calipers move the brake pads, the brake pads contact the rotor, the friction converts the rotational momentum of the wheels into heat, and the tires rotate slower.

What was that you were saying about the parts of the car not being able to experience each other?

Yet, the majority of the people here believe that the separate parts of ~a car~ (better known as 'the brain') can experience 'Everything' as One.

No one said that. There is no "One."

This is profound. Really. Why? Because having realised that individual awareness cannot be achieved by entities either oblivious to one another or by entities with individual awarenesses of their own,

But nobody said that it could. I said many things very different from this. Up the grade, illiterate.

the conclusion is that individual awareness emanates from an entity that is absolutely singular in itself.

*Sigh* No. "Awareness" isn't a "thing" that can "emanate" from anything. Your conclusion is, as always, just your initial, persistant desire repeated ad nauseum.

Let me know if you have the intellectual courage to address what I've actually posted, will you?

 

[lifegazer]

Sorry, Darren, that would be 'stirring the cauldron'. He can read it if he takes you off of 'ignore'. Besides - it's a very arrogant comment.

I take it you are just a naturally arrogant person, aren't you?

No. I'm naturally shy & quiet and retiring.

 

[Piscivore]

No. I'm naturally shy & quiet and retiring.

Why does that exclude arrogant?

 

[Z]

No. I'm naturally shy & quiet and retiring.

And they told me you had no sense of humour! he he he

... though it would explain much...

I'm arrogant, egotistical, self-centered, and lazy. And inordinately proud of it. I even have a separate room just to store my ego in, where I feed it live virgins thrice daily. But it's starting to out-grow the auditorium...

 

[lifegazer]

And they told me you had no sense of humour! he he he

I was being serious. But I do have a sense of humour, nevertheless.

I'm arrogant, egotistical, self-centered, and lazy. And inordinately proud of it.

I already know that, since you've volunteered so much information about yourself.

 

[P.S.A.]

Quoted for P.S.A.'s benefit.

Though I have a sinking sensation in me gutz that I know what the response will be...

I'm sorry Lifegazer, I don't wish to directly see, let alone debate someone as disgustingly dishonest as you are. You NOWHERE in the thread in question, nor in the weeks afterward it, expressed any remorse for suffering at all. Not one bit. You went on and on quoting the passage from Matthew you claimed proved we should hate our parents instead.

But I tell you what, I'll be fair to you. I know it's 1:21 am here in the UK, and as it's a Tuesday you have perhaps another hour and a half in this posting session, I'll give you the opportunity to prove your overall worth:

I'll bet you that for every quote expressing your so called remorse that you can give us, from that thread until the present, that the other posters here who don't have you on ignore can find at least THREE different comments where you act like an insensitive asshat.

I won't bet anything on that though, as you don't, as I've already shown, have the "Balls" to back up your madness. And as I've already proven how utterly predictable you are in almost every other way too, you have nothing new to tell me at all anyway, you lunatic.

But if you really feel like proving your decency, of which I say you have none at all, why not post your first quotation where you claim you are being sensitive, hmm? Go ahead. Show us the depths of God's compassion. And everyone here can measure it against the times God showed temper, insensitivity, rage, bitterness, and appalling prejudice and spite beyond any rational reason.

I won't bother encrypting the following prediction; I simply don't have the time nor patience for this lunacy... but suffice to say, Lifegazer will simply assert again he's already shown remorse, and he'll bluster some more about refusing to debate someone who doesn't take him seriously. And he's right, I don't. I think he's a pyschotic and distasteful individual. And that's why he's staying on ignore. I find it a public service however to remind any passers by who find these lifegazer threads of just how distasteful he can be: The thead in question can be seen
here lurkers, and you may of course count for yourself how many times Lifegazer expresses remorse... and how many times he acts appallingly.

And now I dash off again. PMs replied to tomorrow, all those who've sent me one.

 

[Z]

I already know that, since you've volunteered so much information about yourself.

Oh, yeah, did I forget to mention that I'm unusually open and honest?

I guess 275-lb ex-soldiers who have never lost fights in their lives and who know how to disarm just about anyone don't worry much about stalkers and madmen, do we? (Bad ego! Back in your chamber!)



Actually, I'm mostly harmless. Guess what my 'sign' is?

(Hint: I actually fit my stereotype rather well, in this case.)

 

[lifegazer]

Why does that exclude arrogant?

I only have confidence in "the truth", but not 'myself' (lifegazer). As such, 'lifegazer' has nothing to be arrogant about, since that truth doesn't do much for 'him'.
Can we move on? Otherwise, start a thread about me so that I can revel in my ego being discussed. Thankyou.

 

[P.S.A.]

And they told me you had no sense of humour! he he he

... though it would explain much...

He is indeed naturally shy... he certainly doesn't have the "Balls" to either submit his ideas to the world of publishing or philosophy, nor even to take his ideas to the street and preach. Shy, that is, until he thinks someone is threatening him, and then he's from a hard northern city, where you wouldn't last five minutes, and he'd love for you to criticise him to his face, because... and let's not forget the hellfire raining down...

See that Lifegazer? Took me only a minute or two to recall your past behaviour, and add another comment before getting ready for bed. That's how much effort it takes to discredit you.

Nighty night, everyone!

 

[lifegazer]

I'm sorry Lifegazer, I don't wish...

This guy has me on ignore. Why? Because I have a pretty bizarre philosophy which states that only God exists.
He thinks I didn't sympathise with him when a relative (who he admitted that he wasn't that bothered about) died, recently. But he's wrong. I do sympathise with him. I just sympathise with him for reasons which are alien to contemporary thought-patterns. Which means that I do not sympathise with him for reasons which are not alien to contemporary thought-patterns.

I offered the olive-branch to this guy and have volunteered to openly discuss this. But he doesn't want to. No wonder, since it's easy to stir-up a frenzy against those that do not conform to contemporary patterns.
... And nobody can 'work' bereavement on me. I've lost everyone.

... So, **** him.
He either grows-up and faces me like a man, or he can you-know-what-off. I dont really give a you-know-what.

 

[Z]

Replace the word 'contemporary' with 'rational', and he'd be closer to the truth.

But let's take a good look at this line:

... And nobody can 'work' bereavement on me. I've lost everyone.

The second half of that statement is missing - "I've lost everyone, and have gained nothing in return."

This is why Gazerism is pointless.

End of lesson.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

This is profound. Really. Why? Because having realised that individual awareness cannot be achieved by entities either oblivious to one another or by entities with individual awarenesses of their own, the conclusion is that individual awareness emanates from an entity that is absolutely singular in itself.

Profound? Well, yes. Profoundly absurd. Im very sorry LG, but the only thing you show is your profound ignorance. I dont like to call you ignorant, because you get upset. On the other hand, it is important to tell it to you, is the only way for you to grow.

Anyway, you showed to all of us that you dont have a clue on why my first answer was relevant. Let me pre digest it for you. The Corpus Callosum is what hold both hemisferes together. It is a band of nerve fibers located deep in the brain that connects the two halves (hemispheres) of the brain. The corpus callosum helps the hemispheres share information.

Why this should be relevant for your hypothesis? (yes LG, its just an hypothesis, nothing more). I suggested you to read also about epilepsy. I hope I dont need to explain what it is.

Anyway, here is the relevancy that you didnt see. I dont like to lecture you, still, it is the only way to show you this. Here are some paragraphs I got from here:

Background
The left and right hemispheres of the brain are connected by a dense bundle of neurons called the corpus callosum. This bundle is primarily responsible for communication of information between the two hemispheres, connecting them with approximately 200 million callosal axons (in humans.) (1) In some cases of multifocal epilepsy, the electrical discharges that cause seizures can start in one hemisphere and spread to the other by way of the corpus callosum, greatly increasing the severity of the fit. Sometimes this condition is unresponsive to medication, at which point the spasms can only be controlled with more drastic measures.(2)

In 1961, Dr. Michael Gazzaniga performed an operation which had been pioneered on animals by Drs. Ronald Meyers and Roger Sperry, but which had never before been tested on human patients. In this procedure, called a commissurotomy, the surgeon opens the skull, lays back the brain coverings with a cerebral retractor, and cuts through the corpus callosum. While this prevents a seizure from spreading, it also prevents information from being passed between hemispheres. Thanks to Dr. P. J. Vogel, we now know that severing the anterior ¾ of the corpus callosum can effectively stop the spread of a seizure, while allowing full communication between the hemispheres to remain. (3) However, the behavior of full-commissurotomy patients has been extensively documented, and provides fascinating insight into the specialization of the hemispheres, the nature of the brain, and the nature of consciousness itself.

Results
To understand these behaviors, one must first remember that neurological wiring of the body is, for the most part, contralateral. Signals travel from the left side of the body to the right hemisphere of the brain and back, and vice versa. For example, the left hemisphere "sees" out of the right eye, and moves the right hand.

Patients who have undergone a commissurotomy, "split brain patients," experience strange, acute post-operational symptoms: many have trouble speaking, or are completely mute; often they experience inter-manual conflict, where their hands cannot cooperate; when speech is possible, many remark that their left hand is behaving in a "foreign," "alien" manner, and they express surprise that it is acting so "purposefully." These symptoms fade over time. The long-term symptoms are much more difficult to distinguish in an everyday setting. Split brain patients function normally in social settings, except for slight memory problems. Pianists can still play the piano, artists can still paint. Once in an experimental setting however, more phenomena can be observed which point to the dramatic impact of full commissurotomy on cerebral function.

In case that you still dont get it. Why is this relevant? Because when this CC is cut, the personality, yes the ego, yes LG, the "thing" that you need to be "absolutely singular" becames divided. You should study about split brain patients.

Try harder my little apprentice.

 

[aggle-rithm]

It's time for a few home-truths squire:

(1) This is a philosophical discussion - not a scientific discussion.

So poor analogies are OK in philosophy?

(2) Science has no proof that anything! - least of all 'a brain' - is real.

Maybe not, in an absolute sense, but science does point the way to things that we can reliably conceptualize as being real.

(3) Science has not reconciled mental-experience to material interaction/motion.

...to your satisfaction.

(4) My question regarding the singularity of experience has not even been addressed by science.

...to your satisfaction.

Forget your science text-books. They cannot answer my questions in the OP.

...to your satisfaction.

And that is a fact.

If science can answer any of my questions, then tell me how 'it' has answered them. Otherwise, open your mind and starting thinking at a higher level.

This "higher level" doesn't involve narcotics, does it?

 

[c4ts]

Most people - here, at least - believe that mental experiences (thoughts; feelings; sensations; etc.) are [by-products of] brain processes. I.e., they believe that the brain really exists.
But how do we reconcile the 'motion of bricks', as it were (that's what it boils down to if we believe that the brain is a finite thing existing in space & time, composed of finite building-blocks), with these actual experiences?
And can somebody please tell me which 'singular brick' is having the singular experience of being a human? And yes, the experience of being a human individual is a singular experience: ~Something~ singular encompasses/embraces the totality of ALL mental experiences... and perceives this totality of experiences As One!!!

I'm ready for conversion. I'm tired of having no mates and am ready to throw God into the garbage can. But I need a little persuasion. But...
To my mind, it is ludicrous to believe that:
motion of bricks = mental experience.

Also, to my mind, it is ludicrous to believe that a divided entity (an entity composed of numerous parts, all separated and oblivious to one another), can "achieve" individual experience.

These are major problems for anyone with an open-mind and a desire to see the sense of something. So let's hear some sense. Does anyone here want to tackle these problems, or is a belief in the reality of the brain akin to a religious belief, as I suspect?

You don't have to believe that your own brain exists. In fact, if you don't think it does anything, perhaps you should have it removed and find out.