The Case of the Man with No Brain: Where does Consciousness Really Come From?

a reply to: GetHyped

Hint.

IGNORING of evidence available

and

IGNORING of evidence presented

is indeed, very shameful.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Can you post the objective verification for your "verified FACTS", as you state? And for the umpteenth time, a book of fanciful, unverifiable anecdotes does not cut the mustard for any reasonable, rational person.

a reply to: GetHyped

Glib trashing of a book you haven't read, and probably haven't even glanced at,

is underwhelming

AT BEST.

a reply to: GetHyped

BTW, Many of the assertions in the book are quite verifiable at the hospital he was treated at.

IIRC, it was the same hospital he was a surgeon at.

Hey FamCore: What a great topic.
I have to say, though, it's already personally occurred to me that I had no mind of my own, either by testing or puppetry. LOL, but not really funny when you think about it.

I think medically, neurosurgeons would currently say that the culmination of mind's memories resides in the hippocampus. But that's just scientific tracing effect of residual electricity and reactions being traced, really. In other words, I doubt we still have any real clue.

Then, that begs another question: Even if that were where the bulk of memory and electrical stimulus and resultant associations were stored, does that mean the "sum of soul?"

Long ago, on a long proved bogus website, they had an article about something called a "soul chip." It was a microchip that when installed in the hippocampus and neighboring areas of the brain, could record memory and physical stimulation that copies emotion, resulting in a "perfect copy" of what one has lived through.....

Does that even encompass the "soul?"
I highly doubt it, frankly. However, I realize that most would accept it as such.

For me to accept what you've provided us with in your OP, I would have to trust medical technicians and media that brought us that review, which I simply don't.....

Not to mention, where does the spark that starts and keeps our heart beating come from? You can look at computerized images of the brain all day long, but what does that really tell you. Am I really here, or am I not.
There is good and bad associated with any answer to that question, so it's a very complicated quandary, for sure....and our lives, freedom and minds, perhaps, rely on the answers, so it's penultimately important, what we arrive at for answers to it.....

But you've started the dialogue, and kudos to you for that.....my friend.
tetra

a reply to: FamCore

Found this story
Not sure if it's the same one but it is very similar in regard to him not exhibiting any symptoms of having virtually no brain but still having a high enough IQ to achieve a degree in mathematics plus living a quite normal life until a scan revealed his condition.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: GetHyped

BTW, Many of the assertions in the book are quite verifiable at the hospital he was treated at.

IIRC, it was the same hospital he was a surgeon at.

Oh really? You expect me to track down his hospital to verify the claims you have made? Don't be so ridiculous.

Funny how the "verifiable FACTS" are always conveniently out of reach.

a reply to: GetHyped

Wrong again.

I posted sufficiently from the book to back up the claims for any reasonable, logical, fair-minded person.

You obviously haven't read diddly of the book.

Your position is the one lacking any hint of a shred of a gnat's fart's worth of a foundation whatsoever.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: GetHyped

Wrong again.

I posted sufficiently from the book to back up the claims for any reasonable, logical, fair-minded person.

Begging the Question / Circular Reasoning
Explanation
An argument is circular if its conclusion is among its premises, if it assumes (either explicitly or not) what it is trying to prove. Such arguments are said to beg the question. A circular argument fails as a proof because it will only be judged to be sound by those who already accept its conclusion.
Anyone who rejects the argument’s conclusion should also reject at least one of its premises (the one that is the same as its conclusion), and so should reject the argument as a whole. Anyone who accepts all of the argument’s premises already accepts the argument’s conclusion, so can’t be said to have been persuaded by the argument. In neither case, then, will the argument be successful.
Example
(1) The Bible affirms that it is inerrant.
(2) Whatever the Bible says is true.
Therefore:
(3) The Bible is inerrant.
This argument is circular because its conclusion—The Bible is inerrant—is the same as its second premise—Whatever the Bible says is true. Anyone who would reject the argument’s conclusion should also reject its second premise, and, along with it, the argument as a whole.

End of discussion.

a reply to: GetHyped

You obviously still have not read diddly of the book.

Your biases are still showing rather extremely.

The data in the book is well able to stand on its own.

The affirmation of the colleague I cited above over his own name is a true and worthy affirmation of the facts re Dr Alexander.

Ignoring the facts; pretending that the facts aren't facts

does NOT change THE FACTS.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: BO XIAN

It's not a fact, you're using an appeal to authority and jibberish.

If it is true that he is a neuroscientist, then it wouldn't be a fallacious appeal to authority, as a neuroscientist is the proper authority on matters of understanding the brain. The book sounds interesting.

Of course, the claim that his experiences are real because he is a neuroscientist would be fallacious reasoning.

a reply to: LordSatan

It is not that his experiences are real because he's a neuroscientist.

It IS the case that AS a neuroscientist

he's the perfect phenomenological observer, analyst, interpreter of what he experienced--what was possible, what was not possible--both as the person involved and as a neuroscientist.

OF COURSE he did all that in consult with his colleagues who treated him and who were all exceedingly shocked that he survived at all; that he survived with ANY brain functioning in those critical regions and that he survived fully recovered. Each of those levels of recovery were considered SCIENTIFICALLY AND MEDICALLY

AS TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

I was reading this thread the other day and i had to use search to find it today and i was a bit surprised because isn't this the kind of thread that makes everyone go Hmmm, did he ever get headache,would he be high on a joint or drunk.
And a million more questions.
IMO it should have been a link in forum for timeless threads like this because it is outstanding good platform for a lot of discussions where time and science is shedding more & more light on the case.

a reply to: Norge

Quite fascinating... us humans think we have it all figured out but we haven't even scratched the surface! I have a feeling that there will be some huge medical discoveries in the next decade+

Time will tell