Physicist Claims To Have Solved the Mystery of Consciousness

and your claim 'that I dont know Gods word'
is not because you know what it says ,
but your parrotting mainstream evangelism
-- which desnt understand it neither

i m saying the sweetest things
about Eden
and how she fell
and how we came to live in this f*n prison

but , nooo , you have to lecture
the false evangelistic version here

and you do it under the pretense of wanting to be "scientific"

if you would only know WHAT JOKE that is

instigated to fool you and your ilk

wanting to sound wise

then you come to ATS to delude other souls

a reply to: lonerpt

I don't want to turn it into anything. This thread is about a scientific theory.

TheRedneck

there is no such thing as 'modern science'
its all a joke
invented by - you guessed it - the evil realm : to delude you

'modern science' -- also called Sorcery --
is the servant of the evil realm

and you want to link that to 'Gods word'
which you dont even understand ?

you cant have both --
it is hurting me beyond belief

i have tried to tell you about the gorgious other reality
yet you insist keeping us imprisoned with your dam*d 'science'

OK back to OP's original post, let me dive into this philosopher's take on neuroscience. He and I must both be self-procliamed amateur neuroscientists.

“Think about it this way,” says Dr. Zakaria Neemeh, a philosopher from the University of Memphis, “when I feel happiness, my brain will create a distinctive pattern of complex neural activity. This neural pattern will perfectly correlate with my conscious feeling of happiness, but it is not my actual feeling. It is just a neural pattern that represents my happiness. That’s why a scientist looking at my brain and seeing this pattern should ask me what I feel, because the pattern is not the feeling itself, just a representation of it.” Because of this, we can’t reduce the conscious experience of what we sense, feel, and think to any brain activity. We can only find correlations to these experiences.

After more than 100 years of neuroscience, we have very strong evidence that the brain is responsible for the creation of our conscious abilities. So how is it possible that these conscious experiences can’t be found anywhere in the brain (or in the body) and can’t be reduced to any neural complex activity?

In neuroscience, experiences and memory are indeed reduced to chemicals and electrical activity then 'saved', is this consciousness or physiological brain function, or both? Now they are edging closer to mind uploading, but I think that won't be consciousness uploading - it will be whatever 'saved' chemicals/electrical transmitters exist may be transferred elsewhere, but to me that is not one's consciousness. It's something more yet part of brain function too, we are both of this world and the otherworld.

As for the thread title, there seems to be no physicist chiming in, just a philosopher and psychologist who are trying to explain consciousness within a neuroscience framework, but they both are not neuroscientists nor physicists.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Annee

I never mentioned the bible or religion. I was stating Google isn’t the best reference for research as it’s search results are generated based on ad revenue. Scripture refers to any sacred text, similar to how you treat Google. You did say “Google religion and the brain” after-all. Then the next post gave your opinion on the bible.

Your beliefs based on any evidence? I’m not discounting them btw. I actually gave you a star in this thread and agreed with an earlier post. There’s a first time for everything.

Thank you for the star.

I am well aware of discernment.

I read several articles -- then choose the one that makes the most logical sense to me.

"Google" is like "Kleenex" -- it doesn't specifically mean only use Google. And I am aware many think Google leans Left.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: lonerpt

I don't want to turn it into anything. This thread is about a scientific theory.

TheRedneck

no it is not .

the title says that ""some guy"" had ""some idea"" about consciousness .

if that is "" scientific"" , i m a monkey .

a reply to: Phage

Tell me, if you knew "the answer" how would it affect your life?

I do have to respect someone like George Soros. I don't agree with what is worth winning for, but for a meaning of existence he is a sharp tool in the shed. His meaning has leant towards money, and he has been quite successful at it. His results focused endeviours has worked, despite the lack of moral integrity.

As a war born leader, winning at any cost has been one answer. My answer is not having the highest bank account when I am dead. The only thing can be sure about with this existence is that the repercussions of this life will live on. It is the efforts of thousands of ancestors before us that got us here.

As for what answer you will find, its up to you.

and if you f*n support that [-nonsense]
what does it tell about yourself ?

bringing in and mutilating 'Gods words'
linking it to your held 'science' :
you f*n should be ashamed of yourself .

originally posted by: quintessentone

It's something more yet part of brain function too, we are both of this world and the otherworld.

Yes.

I pulled that off the bottom of your paragraph.

I think it's an important statement and I wanted it to stand on its own.

a reply to: quintessentone

back to OP's original post

Thank you!

Now they are edging closer to mind uploading, but I think that won't be consciousness uploading - it will be whatever 'saved' chemicals/electrical transmitters exist may be transferred elsewhere

The thing is, there is nothing residual to store the memories and thought processes other than the interconnection between neurons. Considering there are a billion or so neurons in the human brain, all wired to multiple other neurons, even cutting edge technology would have a very hard time replicating all of those interconnections. Computers are fast, but not that fast!

And that's not even getting into the spiritual intelligence where the true personality base lies. How can we even begin to understand that when we can't understand the relatively simple Pavlovian intelligence yet? That is grounded in physical processes; we don't know what kind of processes constitute imagination, expectation, forethought, inspiration.

I don't think you have much to worry about when it comes to technology "reading one's mind."

TheRedneck

i have , my friend Redneck , nothing against you
i ve read all your posts

but you cannot kill us no longer

"consciousness" is the very thing that will get us OUT OF HERE

namely accepting that we are imprisoned

if you talk about mainstream evangelism in which you believe in ,
that 'God made this body' etc
YOU keep US imprisoned

do you understand this please ?

a reply to: TheRedneck

I agree so I think the priority is not to spend too much effort and time trying to find the meaning of life, in general, but rather finding the meaning of your life, in specifics, which a lifetime is too short - the universe is in us and outside us.

... He wants you to get out
to stand up
to stop believing in your own prison
by words He never said

yes this thread is about consciousness

but you friends do not wake up

originally posted by: lonerpt
... He wants you to get out
to stand up
to stop believing in your own prison
by words He never said

yes this thread is about consciousness

but you friends do not wake up

We may very well end up being a floating mass of energy transversing space and time and never wake up, but that won't keep me from pursuing what I feel, want and need for me right now, right here, or maybe I'm doing it now and God won't let me wake up because we really aren't suppose to have knowledge, now are we?

Considering OP's post source was from a philosopher and psychologist, I don't see how we can steer clear of religious and/or metaphysical consciousness in this thread. It is an intellectual search for meaning after all and some of us fit into many boxes.

Something tells me the depth of the answer to the question what consciousness is, would bring so much turmoil that it's one of these answers we will never get an answer from the establishment.
It's also telling that the last 5 pages are clogged with religious tread drift, as if pondering the question is very uncomfortable to them. The answer might as well show a very reasonable explanation to religions in general, which certainly isn't in their interest.

Consciousness...
It's something very abstract for me, and it seems to be layered, very similar to how Compendium described.

I imagine it has something to do with being able to perceive reality in a detached way.
It seems to me like a barrier that inhibits my being from being all.
Something that puts all experiences into a reference frame that rely to me.
I found it can be tricked, but it is a PITA to live with knowledge to which you have no frame of reference, it's utterly useless.
Consciousness is a cool thing because I think the alternative lacks everything that makes this live worth living.

a reply to: quintessentone

I think the priority is not to spend too much effort and time trying to find the meaning of life, in general, but rather finding the meaning of your life, in specifics

I will agree with that wholeheartedly.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Terpene

I imagine it has something to do with being able to perceive reality in a detached way.

I relate to that thought.

a reply to: Terpene

It's also telling that the last 5 pages are clogged with religious tread drift, as if pondering the question is very uncomfortable to them. The answer might as well show a very reasonable explanation to religions in general, which certainly isn't in their interest.

I have noticed that there is a consistent theme throughout history, wherein people of all beliefs (including atheism) tend to become defensive any time they think science questions their beliefs. In reality, science never questions the core beliefs. Science is the search for knowledge; religion is the search for wisdom. Knowledge is not wisdom and wisdom is not knowledge.

I have followed science all my life, not as a spectator but as an active participant. I am also a Christian. I have yet to find a contradiction between the two (indeed, science usually confirms my faith in a God so awesome to create such a marvelous universe). Science may explain the "how" behind something, but religion explains the "why."

Leonardo DaVinci was persecuted over his science because it threatened the church. In reality, nothing DaVinci did or said threatened religion itself; it threatened the dogma that man had built up around the religion. Galileo Galilei also went against the religious dogma of his day by suggesting the heliocentric model of the solar system. The Church at the time adhered to the geocentric theory. The Bible does not address either, but Galileo still was called a "heretic" by the church.

Nostradamus, perhaps the most accurate seer since the time of the Bible, is notoriously undecipherable and cannot be relied upon prophetically... not because he was inaccurate, but because he disguised his prophecies so well that they are all but impossible to follow, all to avoid persecution by the Church. In truth, Michel de Nostradame was a devout Christian.

Now, even today, as can be seen in this very thread, the idea that someone might understand how the brain operates causes a fear among the populace. The religious fear that God will somehow be reduced to numbers in an equation, while the non-religious fear that God's presence will be exposed as a reality. The truth is that God either exists or He does not, and any actual science will still likely be unable to verify His presence. if He exists (and I know He does), then He is great enough to handle Himself against anything our feeble minds can imagine.

All of the objections and attempts to shift the focus in this thread are due to people who are so lacking in faith in their own belief that they fear any revelation will show them to be wrong. That is how it has always been.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Terpene

It's also telling that the last 5 pages are clogged with religious tread drift, as if pondering the question is very uncomfortable to them. The answer might as well show a very reasonable explanation to religions in general, which certainly isn't in their interest.

. . . while the non-religious fear that God's presence will be exposed as a reality.

NO

Like "God in a foxhole" -- that thinking does not come from the non-religious.

That thinking comes from believers.