The most important question I can ask.

Originally posted by Mike_A
You’re still coming from the perspective that I am saying, in absolute terms that the brain produces consciousness, but I am saying that the evidence only (strongly) suggests that it does.

What evidence?

I am STILL waiting.

From the first link, which you claim I didn’t read.

“ Visual consciousness has been studied in depth and it is well established that visual features are identified in the ventral stream of posterior cortex. There, feature-sensitive cells support visual experiences of light, color, contrast, motion, retinal size, location and object identity; small lesions can selectively abolish those conscious properties”

This is no different than your original argument that brain damage affects human perception of consciousness therefore the brain must make consciousness. I have repeatedly explained, so that you should be completely aware by now, that this does NOT exclude my own position, which is that the brain is a biological receptor for consciousness. So no, this is NOT evidence against what I am saying.

Your whole argument consists of being extremely simplistic in your reasoning and completely ignoring my own argument as if it's contradicted by what you say, when it is not.

As for the information you posted, again it had nothing to do with consciousness as far as I can tell.

It had plenty to do with your assertion that consciousness arises solely from the brain and various other statements you were making. If you want to respond specifically to those posts, I'm still waiting for that, too. Dismissing it out of hand is too easy, especially when the information references scientific studies by credible people which you completely ignore (ie the Stanford professor Dr. Tiller whose career has become investigating consciousness).

[edit on 28-1-2010 by bsbray11]

Regardless of what every one else may say, there is only one truth and when you find it you will know what it is. You will feel it and it will permeate every atom in your existance , you will have no choice only the choice to accept or decline. That being said in your heart you will already know the truth. Take 5 and refresh your memory... its not in your head in case your wondering...

Hope this helps.

Tacos remember ... remember...???

Mike_A, it's good that you keep open minded scepticism for this topic related to consciousness as there is a lot of fairy tail fluff out there which is misleading. That said, I do what to share with you some anecdotal pieces on youtube which are very compelling and point strongly in the argument that the body is merely a vessel of consciousness and entirely the creator of consciousness.

Here is a compelling video regarding Pam Reynolds who had a very rare operation using a new technique that allowed her body to be physically dead for about 1 hour; she woke up with memories and observations of the surgery being preformed on her during a time that the body has zero brain function.



Here is a link to medical citation regarding NDE:
www.near-death.com...

It may be quite some time before this becomes more understood and accepted as you have to appreciate due to the long history of frauds; deception and quackery, the paranormal sciences has been bumped off of the serious consideration chart and tossed into fanciful rubbish not worth my time for today's stout academic materialistic sciences. However this evidence is extremely compelling and should be reviewed.

Case in point: A boy recalls a past life, haunts his child hood and parents finally get him psychiatric help which leads to an investigation and validation of nearly 90% of what he remembers.


The 10% of what he remembers doesn't necessarily discredit the vast volume of accurate memories; rather our understanding of what we think “reality” is as opposed to what it really is creates a bias based on lack-of-knowledge.

There is no way I am going to convince you that consciousness exists outside of brain function; For the most part, this relationship while we are awake and alive is as it appears. Like this boy, I too remember existing in a former life, I have ample pre-life memory and all of these experiences and memories happened from as long as I can remember. Aged 2 – 5 I had to endure dealing with the trauma of dying in a last life, the fear, the horror and the shock that came with it. Not to mention the fact I was forced to come back and live again. A proposition I strongly argued against, and in my personal view of this experience, I feel is what created the strong emotional charge that some how allowed me to drag some (not all) of this non-localized memory into this life.

For me, all I can do is question the how and why of my own personal experiences regarding this; however history shows and the vast cases of reincarnation claims at least makes me feel that there is a lot of misunderstanding in our western sciences, but ancient religions and history proves that this was more accepted and known.

I haven't had a NDE yet, but I have had other very compelling experiences which demand my own rational and critical thinking as to how such experiences can happen.

Déjà vu, (Already Seen) which academically is linked to TLE or temporal lobe epilepsy is something even you must have at one point experienced because the Déjà vu experience is common in most people. Please let me know if you have had at least one strange feeling of familiarity in a setting/environment/place where you never been before; or with a person you have just met for the first time; or even a new event pattern that seems strangely familiar.

We can take Dr. Vernon Neppe's old research into this and say, it's a mental disorder linked to TLE, but clearly if all my friends/family and our forum readers have Déjà vu, they cannot all be epileptic. There is obviously a problem with the TLE argument. It is flawed when people are not TLE sufferers but still have Déjà vu.

However, there is more to the Déjà genome then the already seen part, and that is Déjà Rêvé (Already Dreamed). What this implies is you have a dream, and one day it comes true bringing about all the feelings and aura that comes with Déjà vu. Because you have the cognitive memory to link back to the dream, it is not Déjà vu, rather it is Déjà Rêvé and self-evident of a dream that has come true.

You may already have some personal experiences with this; and may have dismissed them as fanciful or improbable due to your current belief system. These experiences are something all to familiar to my own personal life; and are far more significant then reincarnation and NDE with regards to what “reality” actually is, as opposed to what we believe it is.

There are two books that flirt with the concept that I am gravitating towards which more evolved then even a holographic theory about the origin of the Universe, and that is “Virtual Reality”. Brian Whitworth is the short-hand version, but Tom's version far exceeds this theory with further explination.

Mathematician: Brian Whitworth: "The Physical World as a Virtual Reality"
arxiv.org...

Physicist: Thomas Campbell: “My Big Toe”
books.google.com...

I hope some of this helps you in some why achieve further insights into a much greater reality model then the current model you believe to be true.

Do not disregard the concept that you already are everything, in that time is perception and life is nothing more than a learning experience. Great philosophers have spent more time than I am willing to ponder these thoughts and in this world on earth, doing is living and being, there is plenty of time to think and be at one with the scheme once the physical as returned back to dust.

In case anyone may have missed the point, dust is where our biological entity will return, unless we transcend, which the current economic climate seems to be hindering, and lets face it, a camel has a better chance of transcending because a camlal does not think to much about being camel....

reply to post by bsbray11


I have not said that this is evidence against what you are saying; I am saying that it is evidence for what I am saying.

I have clarified this before;

“ I'm not saying that your theory is contradicted by this, I'm saying that this fact strongly suggests that consciousness is a product of the brain.

I am saying that your theory that consciousness is localized in other parts of the body is contradicted by this coupled with the fact that only brain damage results in a change in consciousness.

I am open to the possibility of what you are saying but it still has no evidence to support it, it is redundant and is not consistent with what is observed.”

My position on your theory is that it is not required given what is observed; it is possible but it is up to you to provide the evidence or at least a reasoned argument as to why it is necessary.

As an illustration;

Let’s say you see person A fall over, you could say he tripped, passed out, or any number of things. However you are then able to example CCTV footage that shows the events from a different angle, in which you can see person B apply force to person A with their hand. If then asked what caused person A to fall what would your answer be? I’d be very surprised if anyone did not say that person B pushing person A was the cause. That answer is sufficient to most immediately explain what produced the observed phenomenon. You could go beyond this and claim that a demon was moving person B’s limbs and the observed evidence would not contradict this but to go this extra step is unnecessary and counterproductive because almost anything could be posited as a legitimate explanation. In practical terms, if you wanted to stop person A falling you could either distract person B (acting on the belief that he causes the fall) or you can hold an exorcism (acting on the belief that it was a demon); I can’t imagine many people doing the latter.

Now transposing this onto the issue of consciousness, we observe and experience consciousness (person A falling), we are then able to use imaging techniques (the CCTV) to get a different perspective. From this we can see neurons firing when, and only when, consciousness is experience. Thus, as above, it is sufficient to say that consciousness is caused by those neurons firing.

If there is evidence to suggest this is wrong or if there are observations that this does not explain then you can suggest the antenna theory or whatever but in the absence of evidence or reasoning then it’s just another unfalsifiable hypothesis.

It had plenty to do with your assertion that consciousness arises solely from the brain

I’ve read it and I can’t find this. Can you repost and say exactly what it does to contradict what I have said on the subject of consciousness or what it does to support your views on consciousness.

reply to post by YouAreDreaming


Anecdotes are all very interesting but they’re not the most reliable in establishing the scientific validity of a phenomena. There’s too little control, there’s no accounting for bias, bad methodology, or just out and out fraud. For example in the past life video I just can’t know whether he’s being fed this information, whether they’ve all colluded to hoax a TV show or whatnot.

As far as I know there has not been any study of NDE or passed lives that have passed peer review by a non partisan body (i.e. it can’t be validated by a group that exists to prove NDE’s).

On the subject of Déjà vu, one explanation is source confusion; while encoding memory something occasionally goes wrong and you associate an experience with the wrong time period, so you see a cat and as it’s being encoded you associate it with a time period before the point of perception and so you think “this has happened before”. I don’t know about TLE but it would make sense as the temporal lobes are involved in memory encoding. Déjà vu is very common and not necessarily related to a pathological condition.

Similarly with dreams coming true, memory isn’t really that good; it involves a lot of reconstruction. So if you dream of a bus and then witness a bus crash you may think “I dreamt this!” when in fact you didn’t. Of course this can also be caused by the same processes as in déjà vu.

I have a very interesting paper written by Elizabeth Loftus that details her experiments in creating false memories. It’s not directly related but it does demonstrate just how susceptible we are to false memories; it’s entitled “Creating False Memories” and was published Sept 1997 in “Scientific American”. Well worth a read.




[edit on 28-1-2010 by Mike_A]

Originally posted by Mike_A
I have not said that this is evidence against what you are saying; I am saying that it is evidence for what I am saying.

Then it is equally evidence for what I am saying. So again you have proved nothing.

I am saying that your theory that consciousness is localized in other parts of the body is contradicted by this

No, it isn't. Once again, you can't compare the consciousness you experience inside your head to the consciousness in your heart or any other part of your body. They are different organs and give rise to different sensations by different means, though they are all inter-related to create the whole human being. If you remember when I post this stuff for the first, second, third, and fourth times, you won't make me have to keep repeating it endlessly. I shouldn't even be still responding to you based on what I said earlier, and this is exactly why.

I am open to the possibility of what you are saying

You are not open to anything I have said.

You have proven to me again and again that you don't even comprehend what I post, or else your memory lasts about 10 minutes.

but it still has no evidence to support it

Neither does what you are saying so I guess that makes you a biased hypocrite. Again you are not demonstrating an openness to these ideas if you are going to be a hypocrite towards them.

It had plenty to do with your assertion that consciousness arises solely from the brain

I’ve read it and I can’t find this. Can you repost and say exactly what it does to contradict what I have said on the subject of consciousness or what it does to support your views on consciousness.

Go re-read your own arguments and find my responses and your question will be answered. You are selectively quoting my post now. I said it had plenty to do with your assertion that consciousness arises solely from the brain AND various other statements you made along those lines (but you cut the 2nd part of the sentence out, I wonder why). That consciousness is not made by the brain is the over-all theme, and all the minor points you made that I was responded to specifically are explicitly quoted and responded to, every single statement you made in the posts previous to them, in the posts you never responded to in detail. Instead of me posting them in their entirety again you can just respond to them as they were posted, since you still haven't done that.

reply to post by YouAreDreaming

 

Anecdotes are all very interesting but they’re not the most reliable in establishing the scientific validity of a phenomena.

Neither is faith but that's not stopping you now is it? Considering you still haven't posted any evidence at all, that is not also evidence for what I have said and YouAreDreaming and others here are saying.

I'll give you a tip. You aren't going to find ANY papers proving that the brain makes consciousness. If such a thing were ever proven it would be a major scientific breakthrough, because consciousness itself is still a total mystery to materialistic sciences. And it will remain a mystery for as long as you are trying to locate it only within the brain and nowhere else. It is symbolic of overly-analytical western bias (as opposed to holism) that some (but certainly not all) scientists tend to think without evidence the brain is the end-all to our experience of existence.

There’s too little control, there’s no accounting for bias, bad methodology, or just out and out fraud.

I suppose this is what your response would be to the academic papers the HeartMath website refers to as well. If nothing else, you can always just call it biased or flat out fraudulent.

Remind me to just cut to the chase and resort to the same next time you try to find papers supporting your theory that the brain makes consciousness. It will definitely make quick work of this discussion for both of us, huh?

[edit on 28-1-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by bsbray11

 

Anecdotes are all very interesting but they’re not the most reliable in establishing the scientific validity of a phenomena. There’s too little control, there’s no accounting for bias, bad methodology, or just out and out fraud. For example in the past life video I just can’t know whether he’s being fed this information, whether they’ve all colluded to hoax a TV show or whatnot.

I agree, there is certainly charlatans out there trying to financially capitalize on gullibility. Despite these types of people, the historical evidence and current evidence which is more compelling as we have such as this case, and many more recorded examples of reincarnation several emerging bodies of anecdotal evidence with compelling verification that gives weight to the reality of it. The time for scientific evidence of this may not be today, but it may be hundreds of years before it finally surfaces as true due to the difficult circumstances by which this enigma manifests itself within the human psyche.

The subjective nature of our memories, our existence as a whole is grounds for unrepresentative information. In my personal view, I have a clear window to pre-life reality but the odds of proving it and giving it any credit outside my own personal overview of existence to another is really just a tenuous argument that we could both have. Suffice to say, I know but it's meaningless knowledge to others due to the paradoxal nature of subjective experience; and the lack of technology by which to extract subjective memory into a viewable model. However, we are progressing towards mind reading technology that might be able to extract human thoughts into a view that we can see. It could start the path towards your peer review revelations.

This article proves with technological advances we may enter this once forbidden realm of subjective perception and generate an actual image in the mind based on neural activity. This will change everything once it evolves:

www.newscientist.com...

“Yukiyasu Kamitani at ATR Computational Neuroscience Laboratories in Kyoto, Japan has gone a step further: his team has used an image of brain activity taken in a functional MRI scanner to recreate a black-and-white image from scratch.

"By analysing the brain signals when someone is seeing an image, we can reconstruct that image," says Kamitani.”

Originally posted by Mike_A
As far as I know there has not been any study of NDE or passed lives that have passed peer review by a non partisan body (i.e. it can’t be validated by a group that exists to prove NDE’s).

That too is starting to change. We are seeing newer medical procedures which are presenting a longer survivability during death from what used to be minutes to what is now hours. And in these newer procedures such as the Pam Reynold's case; there is compelling evidence emerging. No question this will still be difficult to substantiate with our current mind reading technology but I'm hopefully that more evidence will emerge to satisfy the peer review needed to advance our knowledge further.

Originally posted by Mike_A
On the subject of Déjà vu this is generally put down to source confusion; while encoding memory something occasionally goes wrong and you associate an experience with the wrong time period, so you see a cat and as it’s being encoded you associate it with a time period before the point of perception and so you think “this has happened before”. I don’t know about TLE but it would make sense as the temporal lobes are involved in memory encoding. Déjà vu is very common and not necessarily related to a pathological condition.

I agree, and we really talk out of our theories rather then known facts as to why it happens. Again, something that future technology may help in progressing the knowledge of this experience further then just an easy argument away form what it actually is, case in point: TLE as the source is not entirely factual.

Originally posted by Mike_A
Similarly with dreams coming true, memory isn’t really that good; it involves a lot of reconstruction. So if you dream of a bus and then witness a bus crash you may think “I dreamt this!” when in fact you didn’t. Of course this can also be caused by the same processes as in déjà vu.

Yet, you can write your dreams down and have ample personal anecdotal evidence of this in written time dated text to help verify the reality of the experience. I have done so, and so has J. W. Dunne who wrote a long essay on this called, “An Experiment with Time” were he used journalism to help assist the personal evidence to satisfy his knowing that it is in fact, a dream coming true.

Even Aristotle wrote a book called, “On Prophesying by Dreams” where he argued for and against this phenomena as it was widely experienced through out our recorded history. Many religious texts cite this phenomena and it has a very long history.

Our argument today, is no different then the arguments of 350BC on the reality of precognition. However, we have more research and evidence that weighs in favor of this, and in time may have the golden egg that cracks this enigma too full disclosure.

The long study of this is still on going and there have been several papers from researchers in the field of precognition that have delivered many case examples of dreams coming true; however the problem again is a paradoxal limitation on subjective perception and a need to get technology that can record the actual dream. Perhaps the above link to the neuron scanner may provide a future where this is scientific fact and the evidence will become apparent with the aid of technology.

Right now, I can argue that it's true. But it's not beneficial to you because it doesn't satisfy anything other then one man's personal experience with something many claim to also have had. The anecdotal evidence, even parapsychology evidence is very overwhelming in favour of a reality where dreams do indeed come true.

Originally posted by Mike_A
I have a very interesting paper written by Elizabeth Loftus that details her experiments in creating false memories. It’s not directly related but it does demonstrate just how susceptible we are to false memories; it’s entitled “Creating False Memories” and was published Sept 1997 in “Scientific American”. Well worth a read.

I am very familiar with false memory and many other psychological disorders. They really don't hold true in my personal experience with these phenomena, and with the volume of historic and modern data in regards to “anecdotal” evidence, it's likely that we will have science bridge the subjective barrier enough to validate the truth. My curiosity and need to know has been fully satisfied but again it's meaningless short of an argument in favour rather then against the current topics at hand.

My argument isn't about claiming I am right; I just acknowledge personal experience which opened my awareness to these discussed topics; it's more about how our current understanding of things is still very new in progressing into these realms that were nearly impossible to access with technology years ago. This new movement of thought reading, mind scanning and turning a person's thoughts into pictures is exciting as it may tear a rift between the paradox of subjectivity and make it objective.

You may have your peer review one day. The volume of evidence is still growing and at this rate, perhaps it's just around the corner; or will it be 2350 more years into the future and we still debate the same age old arguments that Plato and Democritus argued in 350bc.

Don't get me wrong, I could care less if you agree or disagree and vice versa; as it's not about me or you when it comes to the truth. I respect that you too are a truth seeker and want factual knowledge. We share that same enthusiasm.

reply to post by bsbray11

Then it is equally evidence for what I am saying.

In what way is it evidence for what you are saying? It doesn’t have any impact on what you are saying except that it provides a more logical explanation that negates the need for yours.

No, it isn't. Once again, you can't compare the consciousness you experience inside your head to the consciousness in your heart or any other part of your body.

I’ve asked before what you mean by consciousness inside your heart, what does this consist of, what are its features, how would you determine that something is or contributes to consciousness?

They are different organs and give rise to different sensations by different means

But we aren’t talking about sensations we are talking about being aware of those sensations (and a lot more).

Neither does what you are saying so I guess that makes you a biased hypocrite.

So what do you have to say of the illustration I gave of the person being pushed?

Do you deny that we observe a cause and effect relationship between activity in the brain and consciousness?

You are selectively quoting my post now. I said it had plenty to do with your assertion that consciousness arises solely from the brain AND various other statements you made along those lines.

And I asked what in your posts showed evidence for what you are saying on consciousness or contradicted what I have said on consciousness; I asked this because we are discussing consciousness and nothing else.

Now I have been through everything that you have posted and cannot find evidence to support your assertions on consciousness, I am at a complete loss to see what you are referring to if you claim that you have posted anything that does. You asked me to elucidate what in those links support my claims and I did so, now I ask you to do the same.

Please just post the evidence for and reasoning behind any of the following claims that you have made;

1) Consciousness in inherent in everything
2) A rock is conscious
3) One’s consciousness can reside in the heart

If you’re not willing to do that then you are not contributing anything, you just keep popping up to tell me I’m wrong and insult me. I’ve given you my opinion and the evidence that I believe supports it, the least you could do is do the same.

reply to post by YouAreDreaming

Despite these types of people, the historical evidence and current evidence which is more compelling as we have such as this case, and many more recorded examples of reincarnation several emerging bodies of anecdotal evidence with compelling verification that gives weight to the reality of it.

The problem is that we have a lot this kind of evidence for many things; for example if you surveyed people who used homeopathic remedies I’m confident most would have anecdotal evidence that it worked. Despite this rigorous double blind trials do not support its claims.

Sorry I’m not replying to your whole post, though I have read it, I don’t really have the time to invest in this new aspect of the thread. Hope you don’t mind, suffice to say I can’t say that what you have claimed is not true but that doesn’t really say anything of its validity either. Time will tell.

reply to post by Mike_A


Mike_A,

There is no real need to progress into the direction I present. Your long standing argument with bsbray11 is entertaining for me as it represents a long standing argument between idealists and materialists since ancient Greece. I see your passion for the argument, and I do not want to endure arguments with you because we cannot benefit each other to higher understanding by tit-for-tat hearsay.

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by bsbray11

 

Hope you don’t mind, suffice to say I can’t say that what you have claimed is not true but that doesn’t really say anything of its validity either. Time will tell.

I think you already know I understand where your stance will be in regards to my truisms. The time will tell clause is certainly my perspective in regards to your epiphany and if it will happen in this life.

My interest in the arguments standing in this thread is vested in “forum” leisure. I would love to be able to elevate your knowledge into the realms of which I have experienced my epiphany but sadly this will always be my enigma as the current subjective paradox prevents such a transfer to anyone as it comes from self-realization.

We can only persevere to seek and know the truth, and some times that road demands that we seek it out from within our self. There is a greater reality then the one we believe; it's not going anywhere any time soon. Rather, it is always constant amidst our arguments and beliefs in regards to what it is; and isn't. Time will reveal all; but we may be long gone before such time comes.

For what vast potential knowledge there is; we have a fraction of what is really known within the realms of our modern science.

Originally posted by Mike_A

Then it is equally evidence for what I am saying.

In what way is it evidence for what you are saying? It doesn’t have any impact on what you are saying except that it provides a more logical explanation that negates the need for yours.

I have come to the realization that you cannot think logically. No offense, but logic DOES have a method to it and you don't seem to be aware of it at all.

This is the breakdown.

Fact: brain damage affects the human experience of consciousness.

Two theories that explain this equally well: (A) the brain is a biological receptor for consciousness; (B) the brain makes consciousness.

There is NOTHING that makes B "more logical" than A based on what you have posted. Saying B negates the need for A is no more or less logical than saying A negates the need for B. It is absolute nonsense to claim this is evidence for one theory but not for the other. Why can't you get such a simple concept straight in your head? Is there some information I've left out here that you haven't posted yet?

No, it isn't. Once again, you can't compare the consciousness you experience inside your head to the consciousness in your heart or any other part of your body.

I’ve asked before what you mean by consciousness inside your heart, what does this consist of, what are its features, how would you determine that something is or contributes to consciousness?

You can't even tell me as much for the brain itself. What does consciousness in your brain consist of, what are its features, and how would you determine that the brain makes it?

I have already offered answers as to how heart consciousness is different from brain consciousness, and gut consciousness as well, but you must be suffering from your 10-minute memory again. I'm just going to tell you to go re-read my posts because I know for a fact that I already answered this and you simply are carelessly gliding over my posts without even comprehending what I am typing.

They are different organs and give rise to different sensations by different means

But we aren’t talking about sensations we are talking about being aware of those sensations (and a lot more).

Same difference. Consciousness itself is the medium upon which the experience of having neurons in the brain or heart or gut unfolds. The sensations are by-products of the organs and nervous system but would not be experienced at all without consciousness.

So what do you have to say of the illustration I gave of the person being pushed?

Do you deny that we observe a cause and effect relationship between activity in the brain and consciousness?

I have already responded to the obvious relationship between experiences that result from the biology of the brain and consciousness itself; it is no different than the asinine brain damage argument that you somehow think provides evidence for your theory but not mine. You have not demonstrated a causal relationship.

And I asked what in your posts showed evidence for what you are saying on consciousness or contradicted what I have said on consciousness; I asked this because we are discussing consciousness and nothing else.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

We are discussing a lot more than just pure consciousness. We are also discussing biology for one thing. Look at the freaking posts and respond to them and their technical references with something other than 'that whole website is looney.'

Now I have been through everything that you have posted and cannot find evidence to support your assertions on consciousness, I am at a complete loss to see what you are referring to if you claim that you have posted anything that does.

I gave up on trying to explain to you what I was talking about earlier. Now I am just playing defense to show you that you don't know what in the hell you are talking about to begin with. Which is why I am asking you to prove that the brain makes consciousness, since you are apparently convinced that this is a scientific position to hold when it is not at all. And this is demonstrated by your complete inability to provide the causal relationship between the brain and consciousness.

You asked me to elucidate what in those links support my claims and I did

No, you didn't. You only attempted to "elucidate" one link and even it didn't demonstrate that your brain makes consciousness. Neither did any of the others you posted and you KNOW it. A couple of them even completely contradicted you by saying the opposite, that they couldn't find a specific location within the brain that is the source of the "observer" phenomena.

Please just post the evidence for and reasoning behind any of the following claims that you have made;

1) Consciousness in inherent in everything
2) A rock is conscious
3) One’s consciousness can reside in the heart

I already have, repeatedly. The explanation is that the inherent energy making up all matter on the quantum level contains that which our bodies experience as consciousness. The evidence for this is in work such as Stanford's scientist Dr. Bill Tiller if you are really interested, but I know that you are only really interested in defending what you already believe. Btw I have never stated that a rock was intelligent or could perceive sensations, which is what you seem to want to imply. All atoms are made of subtler energies and these energies respond directly to human intention, even outside of the body, as demonstrated in the work of Dr. Tiller, which is scientific, repeatable, modern, and related to ongoing research.

If you’re not willing to do that then you are not contributing anything, you just keep popping up to tell me I’m wrong and insult me. I’ve given you my opinion and the evidence that I believe supports it, the least you could do is do the same.

Sorry but posting the logical equivalent of total nonsense and repeatedly telling me that is evidence, is not evidence. I have even explained why your reasoning is fallacious and you continue to make the same fallacies over and over anyway and anyone who comes upon this thread and understands logic will be able to see as much.

(1) You have not demonstrated that the brain makes consciousness.

(2) None of the examples you use as circumstantial evidence exclude my own position. I am completely baffled by the fact that you realize this yet still think it's somehow evidence that supports only YOU, except that you don't understand how to use logic in the first place and you are completely biased.

The way you tell one theory is better than another is by finding a point of fact that one theory explains while the other does not. You have NOT done this. You have offered examples that BOTH theories explain. How in the hell does that debunk me in ANY way, OR provide evidence exclusively for your theory and not mine?


I really am not responding to this thread anymore. Every time I do I end up repeating myself endlessly and especially trying to explain elementary reasoning repeatedly. If you want to start a new thread on how to read (and remember what you have read) and understand basic logic maybe I will join you there, but I am perfectly content letting this and all my other posts on this thread stand.

[edit on 28-1-2010 by bsbray11]

I can relate to what you're saying, as I'm in the same boat as you and therefore I cannot give you the answer you seek. You're basically asking a question that can't currently be answered by science and because you want definitive proof, then your wasting your time as no one can provide you with the evidence you require. When it comes to the existence of the after life you already have all the tools you need to answer your own question. Using your own mind is the only way there is of proving to yourself whether there's some other higher meaning or purpose in life. Learn to meditate and take it from there and in time you will hopefully find the answer you're looking for.

The man with barely no brain
www.newscientist.com...


[edit on 28-1-2010 by kindred]

reply to post by bsbray11

I really am not responding to this thread anymore. Every time I do I end up repeating myself endlessly and especially trying to explain elementary reasoning repeatedly. If you want to start a new thread on how to read (and remember what you have read) and understand basic logic maybe I will join you there, but I am perfectly content letting this and all my other posts on this thread stand.

Ditto.

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by bsbray11

 

I really am not responding to this thread anymore. Every time I do I end up repeating myself endlessly and especially trying to explain elementary reasoning repeatedly. If you want to start a new thread on how to read (and remember what you have read) and understand basic logic maybe I will join you there, but I am perfectly content letting this and all my other posts on this thread stand.

Ditto.

You mean this many paged argument is finally come to a conclusion? What ever shall I read now? You are ruining my internet leisure

I've enjoyed the argument suffice to say; perhaps it is time to move on.

if you want to know the question to anything you can ever ask learn about
image streaming.

here is the link

learn about image streaming here

Try to learn as much as you can about the mind

the mind and the brain are very different the brain is organic the mind is well lets not bet around the bush its a mystery. there are 5 senses the brain has there is one the brain does not ESP extra sensory perception
You ever familiar with the minds eye not the brains eye your minds eye third eye

image streaming will let you access the mind by accessing the subconscious powers of the mind answer anyway question invent things improve your iq by 20 points your iq will keep improving as you image stream all for free

as far as dying i do not believe in god i am just like you i would live forever if i could i am gonna try to there is nothing more beautiful than life
in science there is a myth of the energy source where all energy comes from in life

but get interested in image streaming improving your intelligence and all its other benefits

check these sites

learn here

learn here its all free

dont be skpetical i didnt and i learned a lot even bougght one of his books
win wenger a genius who invented image streaming is a legend in the field of mind research

image streaming truly works

Personally I have come to the realization that everyone is connected somehow through their conciousness by some kind of unifying force, call it God if you will, time is an illusion as the only reason it is dark right now is because the sun isn't facing me, and the best thing to do when concidering what to believe, anything, is to go with your gut instinct.

reply to post by Mike_A


Mike, you asked me in a U2U if I had reached a conclusion based on the information and ideas given in this thread. I thought it appropriate to reply here on the thread itself.

The short answer is no.

I have seen nothing which proves that the brain actually produces consciousness. That's not to say there isn't evidence which suggests it does, of course there is plenty. My problem is that I see nothing which completely negates the possibility that consciousness is generated elsewhere. There is evidence to suggest this too given that some theories regarding the nature of the universe are along the right lines.

Again, I just want to say thanks again to all who have contributed to this thread so far. To Mike and bsbray, I know you guys have been at odds throughout this thread but it's exactly this which has lead to the well structured and fascinating debate. Kudos to the both of you.

reply to post by Chonx


If I knew a couple of you were actually keeping along with that discussion to whatever extent I would probably have been less of an asshole because I know it's no fun to read through vitriol. I was mainly just trying to get Mike_A to realize that a couple of the points we were debating were not really debatable at all (ie whether or not his links actually proved his assertion -- they didn't), though the main topic of discussion may be.

I'm not used to having to whip out all kinds of sources and scientific justification for whatever discussions on this forum, but if you guys are actually interested in scientific evidence that consciousness energy is both non-local and a defining property of the substructure of the entire universe, then look up Dr. William (Bill) Tiller's work from Stanford. He has done experimental work and published papers based on it (with teams of scientists), during his tenure at Stanford, that most people would probably dismiss outright simply because it completely defies all the assumptions materialist scientists have made about consciousness for the past hundred years at least.



For example, he builds off of the fact (already demonstrated by other scientists) that the body can stimulate the regeneration of cell tissue by generating a small electric current across it.

He furthers this research by demonstrating that consciously and intentionally drawing awareness to the specific area of the body can cause this same electric current to develop there.

Still with us? Well Dr. Tiller then makes the obvious connection that your consciousness within your body must interface somehow with electricity in your body, in order that you may be able to consciously direct this energy simply by focusing on a part of your body. He calls this as-yet unquantified conscious energy "subtler" than electricity, as if it is working on a more fundamental and smaller level of reality, because it influences electromagnetism and we can prove this, yet we can't measure the consciousness itself directly.

From there is where he starts going out into what most materialists would consider left field, because his academic work shows that your conscious intention can actually influence EM energy outside of your body just as well as it can EM energy inside your body. Your EM energy from within your body also extends outside of your body, but Dr. Tiller also proves that your consciousness can extend much farther than your EM field and can generate an EM field wherever its destination outside of your body is. And again this is all done with experimental studies that involve people generating currents and changes in heartbeat patterns, etc. in other people that are physically located in other rooms or buildings, and there are all the necessary controls and methods, variables and invariables, as you would expect a Stanford research scientist and materials properties engineer to demonstrate. And he did this with teams of engineers so to just call it fraudulent outright, aside from being extremely small-minded and completely ignorant of the same kinds of controversies in the past, is insinuating that a lot of professionals are committing a conspiracy and collectively lying to everyone else in the scientific world. Which is a big accusation that no one away from the internet has brought to Stanford so far; in fact many people are encouraging more research into this because it goes hand-in-hand with some quantum theories many of us here are already familiar with.

If anybody has money to drop on a book about this stuff, and you really want to see the nitty-gritty that goes with all of this (that gives you excerpts and references to all the relevant scientific literature), try out "Science and Human Transformation: Subtle Energies, Intentionality and Consciousness."

i can not answer your question as to what we are but i can tell you this. once a being has become self aware they can never become "UN SELF AWARE"... bold statement let me explain.

ok so lets assume 2 possibilities one is that after death we cease to exits and the other is we live on in another dimension or state or reality or whatever you want to call it.

Both possibilities result in the same outcome... confused? hang on im getting there.

ask yourself this.. do you remember never existing? of course you dont non existence cannot be comprehended because to comprehend something you have to exist. ok now follow that line. if you were to die and not exits you wouldnt be there to care that you dont exist. and conversely if you did live on in some manner after death you would be too engrossed in the fact that you are now passed on to the other side as it were to care that you had in fact passed on to the other side.

so you see its a win win situation. the only thing you need to understand is that it is not you that dies but your ego. and because you cannon fathom non existence you will never experience it. so no matter what happens remember that as long as you can think you exist and when you cant it wont matter you wont care.. hope that helped

reply to post by bsbray11


I just wanted to note that your side of the argument favors what I already know in that consciousness is received by the brain and attuned to this reality system.

I feel ignoring videos like Pam Reynolds NDE and the evidence it presents, or the UK Boy's nearly full account of his previous life; not to mention *thousands* of other claims that have had merit over the years in this type of research.

The dead argument of contrived false memory or they just fed the kid info argument for fame or what ever is stale milk; objectively looking at all the evidence and the sincerity of people builds out the fact consciousness is more then a physical product.

However, to is more evidence to argue that this reality isn't physical at all then there is to substantiate that it is actually physical.

We can thank and continue to thank quantum mechanics for being the skeptics Achilles heal when it comes to a dead universe vs a living system of interacting systems of consciousness and energy.

The problem in this world is not the amount of evidence; it's the lack of willingness to let go of ego and bias belief. A new world is emerging and it will still be the same old world just better understood.

You ask some good questions.

I don't think anyone can give you a true answer, though many will claim they can. Theres only one way we find out.

As for is it worth living if I'm just an animal - believe me when I tell you it is, the alternative can wait, and life can be richly rewarding in so many ways.

Hanging around on ATS may well make you feel a bit despondent sometimes, because the site is full of stuff most people dont want to contemplate, much like they dont want to think about what comes after, but, hey, theres always been evil, and at least we are aware of it and able to combat it. things do get better.

where would we be if the first fish to drag itself onto land had said, "oh, Im just a fish, why bother?" and thrown itself back into the ocean?

As for a soul, (lets not bandy words). Im not a religious person, actually an atheist I guess, but I do think theres something there beyond what we know. Im not sure everyones got it, maybe its something you have to grow yourself.

Theres as many 'theories' about that as everything else on here. Youll work it out, in the meantime have fun, be cool, and don't take it all too seriously.