Atlas
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2004
- Messages
- 2,223
Bodhi Dharma Zen
Advaitin
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2004
- Messages
- 3,926
Curious. It is amazing the amount of nonsense that can acumulate in a thread like this. Zaayrdragon, dont quit on Ian, he is obtuse as humanly possible, that is correct, yet, it is good to read your arguments, like everybody else's, and then see how he, or his "twin brother" Lifegazer, try to twist things around in order for their beliefs to remain intact, ignoring every bit of evidence and logical reasons.
Its quite a show, if you ask me. Like a good soap opera. -How far would this two individuals will twist logic today? keep tuned!
Its quite a show, if you ask me. Like a good soap opera. -How far would this two individuals will twist logic today? keep tuned!
Piscivore
Smelling fishy
Interesting Ian said:
That wasn't rude, that was an expression of minor annoyance. When I ask what someone thinks I don't expect the answer to be what that person thinks someone else thinks.
Sorry if you took offence.
Interesting Ian said:
Why do you feel this "metaphysic," or any "philosophical" conjecture, woud take precedence over observable evidence?
Experiences not being felt
Not quite, People with sectionated corpus callosum, can perceive things as two different persons, the frontal lobe, has the task of maintining the "illusion" of individuality, (you can always research on lessons of this lobe it is very insightful).
When the operation for epilepsy is performed, a connection named Anterior Commisure, which is right behind the optic quiasma, so the front lobe can still exchange information, also the basal ganglia has interconnections between the hemispheres which may account still for the remainance of managing being "one person" (also it serves to exemplify an evolutionary matter, ahaha since the connections in lower parts of the encephalus are older in evolutionary scale, and before all surviving is the principal purpose of any living organism, which is why it seems likely that the older and lower connections between hemispheres can "hold up together" the entire organism.)
But i was going to talk about the sensation not perceived by one.
On this kind of patients rare experiments occur, for instance, if a patient is shown to his right field a word, let us say cat, he won't be able to read it, but if we pass him a pen he can write it with his left hand.
There are numerous research about this kind of "experiences" not perceived by the "conciousness" of the patient, even cases involving dressing 1 side and letting the other half of the body naked. big conflicts of decisition.. and well... i think there are far better information and research about this around...
I recommend "dragons from Eden" from Carl Sagan, for some people not familiarized with neuroanatomy and neurophisiology.
lifegazer said:
Not quite, People with sectionated corpus callosum, can perceive things as two different persons, the frontal lobe, has the task of maintining the "illusion" of individuality, (you can always research on lessons of this lobe it is very insightful).
When the operation for epilepsy is performed, a connection named Anterior Commisure, which is right behind the optic quiasma, so the front lobe can still exchange information, also the basal ganglia has interconnections between the hemispheres which may account still for the remainance of managing being "one person" (also it serves to exemplify an evolutionary matter, ahaha since the connections in lower parts of the encephalus are older in evolutionary scale, and before all surviving is the principal purpose of any living organism, which is why it seems likely that the older and lower connections between hemispheres can "hold up together" the entire organism.)
But i was going to talk about the sensation not perceived by one.
On this kind of patients rare experiments occur, for instance, if a patient is shown to his right field a word, let us say cat, he won't be able to read it, but if we pass him a pen he can write it with his left hand.
There are numerous research about this kind of "experiences" not perceived by the "conciousness" of the patient, even cases involving dressing 1 side and letting the other half of the body naked. big conflicts of decisition.. and well... i think there are far better information and research about this around...
I recommend "dragons from Eden" from Carl Sagan, for some people not familiarized with neuroanatomy and neurophisiology.
Interesting Ian said:
Not at all, a lot of exchange of information is performed by lower sections of the encephalus, for instance the visual way of nervous impulses has a backup system that runs to the posterior cuadragemic tubercule, and from there it crosses fibers from one hemisphere to other whitoutusing corpum callosum.
The truth is that cutting all the fibers of the corpum callosum as impresive it may sound, can be performed wihtout very serious consecuences, because the conections that control ivolve some very specific ways of processing information. This means that the brain is not split in 2, just a part of it, which is not in direct control over critical activities
If the Neurosurgeons were able of separating all the fibers of the brain (which would be REALLY) splitting the brain in two, very serious consecuences will be from that.
Just to tell you somepoints of crossing:
Mesenchephalus, around Silvium Aqueduct, Westphal nucleus, locus niger, pontum, cerebellum... etc etc...
Z
Variable Constant
Nice to have someone on here who actually KNOWS what all these neuro-terms are...
And here I thought the Silvium Aquaduct was somewhere in Italy...
And here I thought the Silvium Aquaduct was somewhere in Italy...
Jeff Corey
New York Skeptic
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2001
- Messages
- 13,714
And locus niger was on a river in africa.
Jeff Corey
New York Skeptic
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2001
- Messages
- 13,714
One problem with the paper you quoted - it was by a biology undergraduate and contains some errors. For example, the left hemishere does not "see with the right eye".Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Nap, interrupted.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 19,141
Wouldn't it be cool if the left hemisphere saw with the right eye and vice versa? Think how easy it would be to run bizarre experiments on yourself.
As it is, you have to do weird things with masking tape or z-lenses.
~~ Paul
As it is, you have to do weird things with masking tape or z-lenses.
~~ Paul
The perception of all things (including brains), is via sensation (primarily that of the sensation of light). When we 'see a brain', for instance, we are actually seeing the sensation of light organised to give the impression of a brain. Likewise for any 'thing' we see.
Therefore, the only established truth here is that there is a link between sensation [of a brain], thought & feeling.
What seems to be happening in this convo is that a number of people are arguing the case between the link that exists between real brains and thought & feeling.
But the important point to regard here is that scientists can only study the sensations that give the impression of our world/brain. Hence, the only truth science establishes is that which I mentioned at the end of the previous paragraph.
This is very important. What we see here is that science does nought but establish a link (order) between sensations thoughts & feelings. Science does not and cannot establish a link between real brains and thoughts/feelings, because science cannot study real brains.
So we see that this long discussion about split-brains has been a complete waste of everyone's time, because the most that anyone can prove here - even if we (Ian and myself) believe everything you tell us - is this:
Within the awareness of an observing individual, it appears as though there might be evidence that supports the notion that there is a link between each half of a sensed-brain and thought/feeling. So:
(1) "We SENSE Paul (the subject of the initial claim by Bod). Note that the sense-of-Paul within the observer's awareness, is not the reality of Paul. This applies to any 'thing' sensed.
(2) We SENSE sense-of-Paul's brain.
(3) We note that each half of this sensed-brain is possibly linked to separate thoughts/feelings.
... From the above observations/sensations, we cannot even be sure that Paul exists, least of all his brain. Therefore, if we cannot even prove the reality of one [external] individual from our studies, we certainly have no evidence for the existence of two separate individuals.
The only truth that anybody can establish, is that of Individual awareness; of 'things' sensed therein and of a set of thoughts & feelings experienced by that individual.
We're back to page 1. An argument that has been completely overlooked and by-passed for 6 pages of completely irrelevant material.
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
There's not a single scientific fact in any science book in the world which lends merit to the philosophy of materialism/realism (whatever you wanna call it).
Thankyou.
Therefore, the only established truth here is that there is a link between sensation [of a brain], thought & feeling.
What seems to be happening in this convo is that a number of people are arguing the case between the link that exists between real brains and thought & feeling.
But the important point to regard here is that scientists can only study the sensations that give the impression of our world/brain. Hence, the only truth science establishes is that which I mentioned at the end of the previous paragraph.
This is very important. What we see here is that science does nought but establish a link (order) between sensations thoughts & feelings. Science does not and cannot establish a link between real brains and thoughts/feelings, because science cannot study real brains.
So we see that this long discussion about split-brains has been a complete waste of everyone's time, because the most that anyone can prove here - even if we (Ian and myself) believe everything you tell us - is this:
Within the awareness of an observing individual, it appears as though there might be evidence that supports the notion that there is a link between each half of a sensed-brain and thought/feeling. So:
(1) "We SENSE Paul (the subject of the initial claim by Bod). Note that the sense-of-Paul within the observer's awareness, is not the reality of Paul. This applies to any 'thing' sensed.
(2) We SENSE sense-of-Paul's brain.
(3) We note that each half of this sensed-brain is possibly linked to separate thoughts/feelings.
... From the above observations/sensations, we cannot even be sure that Paul exists, least of all his brain. Therefore, if we cannot even prove the reality of one [external] individual from our studies, we certainly have no evidence for the existence of two separate individuals.
The only truth that anybody can establish, is that of Individual awareness; of 'things' sensed therein and of a set of thoughts & feelings experienced by that individual.
We're back to page 1. An argument that has been completely overlooked and by-passed for 6 pages of completely irrelevant material.
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
There's not a single scientific fact in any science book in the world which lends merit to the philosophy of materialism/realism (whatever you wanna call it).
Thankyou.
Yes, I agree with you. If you start from the premise that the universe is an illusion (or a god-dream), and that the observations made in it correspond exactly with a material universe, then there is no evidence that can refute your position. From my POV what you did in this thread was, when confronted with the patients with split-brain syndrome and faced with arguments you couldn't refute, you withdrew back into your philosophy where, by definition, everything is explained and works just as you say it does.lifegazer said:
Z
Variable Constant
lifegazer said:
While this is true, it basically means that, without assumptions, nothing certain can be known. Even your so-called 'truth' relies on base assumptions, as demonstrated previously.
One key assumption which must be decided is whether or not the sensations that the individual has in any way relate to real things. For the purposes of survival, the apparent answer is that they do; therefore, it is reasonable to assume that sensations are reflections of real things.
However, we are free to reject this assumption; which leaves us with the concept that our sensations are either an inaccurate reflection of a real world; an illusion which disguises the real world from us; or pure illusions founded on nothing. If the first were true, then we might be able to discern clues that tell us the true nature of the world, and how our illusions are different from what is real. This, in fact, is much more accurate as a description of our world, as there is much that our senses cannot tell us, much that we must infer from what we can detect with our senses.
The second case is the classic 'Matrix' scenario, which of course can have numerable variations; but the key problem with this case, as illustrated in those films, is if this IS some illusion disguising a real world, then the possibility must exist to transcend the illusion of reality and sense the real world. And, once you do that, you're left once again with the same choices all over again. Anyone here seen eXistenZ?
The third case - which is what lifegazer tries to postulate as 'Truth' - leaves us unable to learn anything from our sensations, whatsoever. We are then forced to either obey the illusion, or attempt to resist it; obviously, no one so far has been able to resist the illusion and survive. Further, if there is nothing we can learn through our senses, then there is nothing we can learn, period. Without sensations, we have nothing; even 'thought' and 'reason' become empty and meaningless if we have no sensory data, stored or otherwise, to work with. We see examples of this problem in almost every lifegazer thread, where he attempts to employ some sensed-phenomenon as support for his theories; which, of course, is an absurd course of action.
In any of the four cases, however, there is the practicality issue. Which of the four cases results in the greatest practical benefits? In any of the four, can we defy the observed laws of physics, sustain ourselves without observed food or water, etc? Apparently not. In every case, food, water, shelter, etc. are vital requirements. And in every case, obtaining these basic needs requires us to behave as if sensed-information is fairly accurate.
Unless Darren or other acosmists can demonstrate either the ability to transcend laws of physics, or survival without normal means of obtaining food, drink, shelter, etc... then their theories are irrelevant.
Back to his title thread - Do brains really exist?
Within our sensed reality, brains really exist. There is no means of detecting any other form of reality, so the answer, simply, is 'yes'.
Thank you.
Thankyou.zaayrdragon said:
Within sensed-reality, sensed-brains exist. Not real brains.
Note also that a sensed-entity is not the cause of anything else within/upon awareness. Nay, the cause of anything within/upon awareness must be the owner of that awareness - or, something external to that owner. But I won't get into that right now. All I'll say right now is that no 'thing' studied within awareness is the cause of anything else observed within awareness. Conclusion:
Sensed-brains (which is what scientists actually study) are not the cause of any thoughts or feelings that exist within awareness.
This of course means that sense-of-Paul's sensed-brain is not the cause of any of sense-of-Paul's apparent thoughts/feelings.
Furthermore, my previous post negated the fact that any scientific knowledge provided evidence for the existence of ANY individual existing beyond awareness, least of all 2 (or more).
So all in all, I reckon it's time for these discussions about split-brains to cease altogether so that the discussion can progress to a higher and more meaningful level with regards the title of this thread.
Yours hopefully,
Me.
Piscivore
Smelling fishy
LG, none of that is meaningful without you telling us what your definition of "real" is.
ETA: What is the difference between a " sensed-brain" and a "real brain"?
ETA: What is the difference between a " sensed-brain" and a "real brain"?
The post you are agreeing with is sound. Scientific observation is of sensations within/upon awareness, that give the impression/appearance of the world.Donks said:
No thing you have ever experienced (sensed) is real in itself.
That is a telling statement.
No, what I did in this thread was fall asleep to the fact that scientific knowledge carries zero weight with regards proving the existence of a real world (real brains).
Due to this lapse on my part, 6 pages of irrelevant and unnecessary discussion followed.
I now apologise for falling asleep and allowing this to happen. Tonight, I seek to make amends and raise the discussion to a higher level. For in case you didn't understand the message in my previous posts, tonight, no scientific-knowledge presented within that discussion has proved the existence of anything - least of all the reality of brains or the reality of ANY individual (never mind 2 or more!).
The bold-type was necessary. We need to move on. And moving-on has been justified.
Z
Variable Constant
Piscavore hit it again.
Darren, read what I said.
Now, let me break this down for you:
We know that there is a 'sensed-reality'. You even agree to this.
Do we know of any other reality? No.
Hence, we can dispense with the 'sensed' portion - it is unnecessary to differentiate it since we have no other models of reality to compare it to - and state, simply, that brains exist within reality.
Actually, there is some confusion in your statement here.
Clearly, the sensations I have of a light bulb do not, themselves, generate light. But the bulb which my sensations tell me is there, generates light which I then sense. In this aspect, you have made a semi-correct statement: the cause of that which we sense is external to the owner of those sensations.
Now, you completely muff it after that - We do not study things within awareness. We study the sensations of things - as you, yourself admit - and relationships between those sensations. If, as illustrated above, we accept some relationship between sensations and real things causing those sensations, then clearly the things we study can be causes of other things - or, to clarify, the things which we observe can cause other things which we observe. The observations do not cause the other observations, but rather the things which generate those observations do.
If, however, we reject our sensations as representative of what is 'real', then we can know nothing. There are no causes, no effects, and no things. We can then know absolutely nothing, and have no means for interacting with reality, whatsoever.
It really is very simple - for those with brains.
Darren, read what I said.
Now, let me break this down for you:
We know that there is a 'sensed-reality'. You even agree to this.
Do we know of any other reality? No.
Hence, we can dispense with the 'sensed' portion - it is unnecessary to differentiate it since we have no other models of reality to compare it to - and state, simply, that brains exist within reality.
Actually, there is some confusion in your statement here.
Clearly, the sensations I have of a light bulb do not, themselves, generate light. But the bulb which my sensations tell me is there, generates light which I then sense. In this aspect, you have made a semi-correct statement: the cause of that which we sense is external to the owner of those sensations.
Now, you completely muff it after that - We do not study things within awareness. We study the sensations of things - as you, yourself admit - and relationships between those sensations. If, as illustrated above, we accept some relationship between sensations and real things causing those sensations, then clearly the things we study can be causes of other things - or, to clarify, the things which we observe can cause other things which we observe. The observations do not cause the other observations, but rather the things which generate those observations do.
If, however, we reject our sensations as representative of what is 'real', then we can know nothing. There are no causes, no effects, and no things. We can then know absolutely nothing, and have no means for interacting with reality, whatsoever.
It really is very simple - for those with brains.
No 'thing' (sensed object) within awareness is the cause of anything else within awareness.
I stand by this statement and will present a short analysis of 'The Sun' (as I've done before), for your contemplation:
'The Sun' is an object that we see because of the sensation of yellow [light], within/upon awareness.
In other words, the sensation of [a ball of] 'yellow' [light], is what we call 'The Sun'.
The interesting thing about this is that we've always thought that 'The Sun' (that we experience) was the cause of the light that we actually sense. But we were wrong!!!!!!!!!
The yellow [light] is actually the prior cause of 'The Sun' that we see!!!!!
Amazingly, I've never seen evidence that a single person ever understood this fact before. Certainly, the masses do not. Probably because they have never heard anyone explain it to them.
This fact has alsorts of implications for many things, not least of which is Relativity, since if the objects that we sense are not the source of the light that we observe, some very profound conclusions follow. But I'll say no more about that tonight.
What I will say again, though, is that 'The Sun' that we sense is not the cause of our sensation of it. Neither is it the cause of anything else within/upon awareness.
And of course, the same logic applies to the sense-of-a-brain. No sensed-brain is the cause of any thoughts/feelings.
Yet the amazing thing is, scientists claim to observe that sensed-brains are the cause of all manner of things (that are also perceived within awareness).
Some of this stuff, above, is seriously profound. I mean it. The implications of what I'm writing here have far-reaching effects for science itself, never-mind philosophy.
If you want to take this discussion to a higher level, you have to accept what is being said here and try and let go of your desire (for whatever reason you would have it), that a real world/brains exist.
I'm going to bed shortly. Tomorrow, if I see evidence that people are willing to move on, I might continue. But if I see more crap about split-brains or statements like "we have to assume that a real world exists", then I'm jumping ship.
I stand by this statement and will present a short analysis of 'The Sun' (as I've done before), for your contemplation:
'The Sun' is an object that we see because of the sensation of yellow [light], within/upon awareness.
In other words, the sensation of [a ball of] 'yellow' [light], is what we call 'The Sun'.
The interesting thing about this is that we've always thought that 'The Sun' (that we experience) was the cause of the light that we actually sense. But we were wrong!!!!!!!!!
The yellow [light] is actually the prior cause of 'The Sun' that we see!!!!!
Amazingly, I've never seen evidence that a single person ever understood this fact before. Certainly, the masses do not. Probably because they have never heard anyone explain it to them.
This fact has alsorts of implications for many things, not least of which is Relativity, since if the objects that we sense are not the source of the light that we observe, some very profound conclusions follow. But I'll say no more about that tonight.
What I will say again, though, is that 'The Sun' that we sense is not the cause of our sensation of it. Neither is it the cause of anything else within/upon awareness.
And of course, the same logic applies to the sense-of-a-brain. No sensed-brain is the cause of any thoughts/feelings.
Yet the amazing thing is, scientists claim to observe that sensed-brains are the cause of all manner of things (that are also perceived within awareness).
Some of this stuff, above, is seriously profound. I mean it. The implications of what I'm writing here have far-reaching effects for science itself, never-mind philosophy.
If you want to take this discussion to a higher level, you have to accept what is being said here and try and let go of your desire (for whatever reason you would have it), that a real world/brains exist.
I'm going to bed shortly. Tomorrow, if I see evidence that people are willing to move on, I might continue. But if I see more crap about split-brains or statements like "we have to assume that a real world exists", then I'm jumping ship.
Piscivore
Smelling fishy
lifegazer said:
*Sigh* yes, they did, and they called it SOLIPSISM, you stupid, ignorant, illiterate, arrogant, lying pig-stinky!
ETA:
"Your methods are stupid, your intelligence is stupid, your progress has been STUPID!"
Well somebody forgot to tell Einstein and the rest of the clueless scientific-establishment then. Not to mention the materialists/atheists that hung onto their coat-tails.
Sensed-brains are the cause of NOTHING.
Sensed-Suns are the cause of NOTHING.
Pick up your phone and tell the scientists that are wasting $£$£ and their time trying to prove that sensed-brains & sensed-Suns are the cause of many things to read my posts tonight.
Sensed-brains are the cause of NOTHING.
Sensed-Suns are the cause of NOTHING.
Pick up your phone and tell the scientists that are wasting $£$£ and their time trying to prove that sensed-brains & sensed-Suns are the cause of many things to read my posts tonight.