Fore Will (origin at its finest)

reply to post by Jezus

Any linguistic brain damage study will help in comprehending this concept because it involves the relationship between the physical storage of information within the brain and our mind’s response to the manipulation of this message; meaning is fundamentally a feeling.

Can you please cite some specific studies that you are referring to? Psychologists as far back as William James have been trying to show the existence of a mind separate from the brain and have failed. Starting with EEGs and microelectrodes and going all the way up to fMRIs and PET scans, every behavior has been linked to biological functions of the brain. This would seemingly indicate that even if there were a separate mind, its existence would not change what we know of the brain. We know what chemicals produce what results in the body and we know how to alter our reality by altering these chemicals. While there are researchers out there who speculate that quantum physics may allow for the existence of a mind separate from the brain, there is no scientific proof. I have been on both sides of this argument and currently the theory that consciousness is produced by the brain is by far the strongest theory we have.

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by dzonatas

This is because Golden Boy literally has patent nonsense, like a patent on nonsense, yet this isn't revealed by his 'randini' hints.

Well in his defense he isn't discussing nonsense. Biological chemistry and physiological psychology are very useful and obviously connected to consciousness. Unfortunately is just mistaking the message (the transfer of information) for that which perceives the message and responds to the information.

You have yet to prove that this thing exists.

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller


a star for you matrix T, for cutting straight to the chase amidst the encircling gloom. would that mankind would put their AWARENESS on their discriminating faculty.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Jezus

 

Can you please cite some specific studies that you are referring to? Psychologists as far back as William James have been trying to show the existence of a mind separate from the brain and have failed. Starting with EEGs and microelectrodes and going all the way up to fMRIs and PET scans, every behavior has been linked to biological functions of the brain. This would seemingly indicate that even if there were a separate mind, its existence would not change what we know of the brain. We know what chemicals produce what results in the body and we know how to alter our reality by altering these chemicals. While there are researchers out there who speculate that quantum physics may allow for the existence of a mind separate from the brain, there is no scientific proof. I have been on both sides of this argument and currently the theory that consciousness is produced by the brain is by far the strongest theory we have.

you'll not find the mind with physical instruments because it resides in the subtle (astral) body and interpenetrates the brain.

it can be found in ancient sanscrit writings dealing with astral anatomy.

Originally posted by Golden Boy

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by dzonatas

This is because Golden Boy literally has patent nonsense, like a patent on nonsense, yet this isn't revealed by his 'randini' hints.

Well in his defense he isn't discussing nonsense. Biological chemistry and physiological psychology are very useful and obviously connected to consciousness. Unfortunately is just mistaking the message (the transfer of information) for that which perceives the message and responds to the information.

You have yet to prove that this thing exists.

That thing does not exist.

This thing exists.

reply to post by orangutang


What is the point of the mind if everything can be explained physically? As technology gets better we also get closer to what aspect of cognition causes consciousness. So, in that case we end up with an epiphenomenal universe, which I never saw the point of. What is the point of distinguishing the brain and the mind if the mind cannot affect the physical world?

Originally posted by orangutang

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Jezus

 

Can you please cite some specific studies that you are referring to? Psychologists as far back as William James have been trying to show the existence of a mind separate from the brain and have failed. Starting with EEGs and microelectrodes and going all the way up to fMRIs and PET scans, every behavior has been linked to biological functions of the brain. This would seemingly indicate that even if there were a separate mind, its existence would not change what we know of the brain. We know what chemicals produce what results in the body and we know how to alter our reality by altering these chemicals. While there are researchers out there who speculate that quantum physics may allow for the existence of a mind separate from the brain, there is no scientific proof. I have been on both sides of this argument and currently the theory that consciousness is produced by the brain is by far the strongest theory we have.

you'll not find the mind with physical instruments because it resides in the subtle (astral) body and interpenetrates the brain.

it can be found in ancient sanscrit writings dealing with astral anatomy.

And the evidence for this is...?

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by Golden Boy

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by dzonatas

This is because Golden Boy literally has patent nonsense, like a patent on nonsense, yet this isn't revealed by his 'randini' hints.

Well in his defense he isn't discussing nonsense. Biological chemistry and physiological psychology are very useful and obviously connected to consciousness. Unfortunately is just mistaking the message (the transfer of information) for that which perceives the message and responds to the information.

You have yet to prove that this thing exists.

That thing does not exist.

This thing exists.

Try actually saying something if you want to be taken seriously.

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Try actually saying something if you want to be taken seriously.

Evidently, minute amounts of quantum insaneness is not insanity due to misuse of infinite tense. This suggestions that quantum strange divides further into two more quantum levels.

There is some similarities of this quantum strange divide within this other thread about the KGB and Tomb of the Visitor. There is quite a paper trail either of the research or of the cover-up. Noticed the architectural design and history that surrounds the Joint Interagency Coordination Group. Discoveries of loot... go go gadget.

Obviously, now made insecure.

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Try actually saying something if you want to be taken seriously.

Evidently, minute amounts of quantum insaneness is not insanity due to misuse of infinite tense. This suggestions that quantum strange divides further into two more quantum levels.

There is some similarities of this quantum strange divide within this other thread about the KGB and Tomb of the Visitor. There is quite a paper trail either of the research or of the cover-up. Noticed the architectural design and history that surrounds the Joint Interagency Coordination Group. Discoveries of loot... go go gadget.

Obviously, now made insecure.

And this means... what, exactly? You seem to have trouble grasping the fact that we cannot read your mind. Your constant walls of gibberish and irrelevant tangents may seem perfectly logically to you, but they don't to anyone else.

Originally posted by Golden Boy
And this means... what, exactly? You seem to have trouble grasping the fact that we cannot read your mind. Your constant walls of gibberish and irrelevant tangents may seem perfectly logically to you, but they don't to anyone else.

Whenever god is the only collective thought then there is always nothing divine.

Indestructible walls very well may be simply called natal, so said the tin man.

A broken heart is never understood until the other half matches.

We hold the arrows, too.

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by Golden Boy
And this means... what, exactly? You seem to have trouble grasping the fact that we cannot read your mind. Your constant walls of gibberish and irrelevant tangents may seem perfectly logically to you, but they don't to anyone else.

Whenever god is the only collective thought then there is always nothing divine.

Indestructible walls very well may be simply called natal, so said the tin man.

A broken heart is never understood until the other half matches.

We hold the arrows, too.

I've suspected for a long time now that you're simply yanking my chain. Now I'm certain.

Goodbye.

Originally posted by Golden Boy

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by dzonatas

This is because Golden Boy literally has patent nonsense, like a patent on nonsense, yet this isn't revealed by his 'randini' hints.

Well in his defense he isn't discussing nonsense. Biological chemistry and physiological psychology are very useful and obviously connected to consciousness. Unfortunately is just mistaking the message (the transfer of information) for that which perceives the message and responds to the information.

You have yet to prove that this thing exists.

I can only point at the equation. If you won't do the math I can't help you.

Maybe the consciousnesses we experience are not as similar as I would assume.

Maybe you ARE a biological robot as you claim.

Originally posted by Jezus
Ironically I can't prove the evidence is directly observable to you because I can't prove that you actually have consciousness; I can't prove that you feel. But if you do have consciousness, the evidence is directly observable to you, it is just a matter of comprehending the fundamental difference between the physical pieces you observe and the consciousness you experience.

reply to post by Jezus

Any linguistic brain damage study will help in comprehending this concept.

You're bluffing. You don't know any brain damage studies that support your argument. That is why you have not produced even one, despite repeated requests to do so from at least three participants in this thread.

I can only point at the equation. If you won't do the math I can't help you.

You have pointed us at nothing. Of course we all feel we have minds, of course we all feel we are conscious--but (for the umpteenth time) a feeling is evidence of nothing. I could snort a couple of lines of coc aine and feel like Einstein on a good day. Is that evidence that I am?

* * *

I think the time has come to talk turkey to you, Jezus. You have been given ample opportunity to prove your case, to cite evidence for your convictions, to expose any fallacy in the physicalist arguments presented here. You have done none of that; you have simply gone on repeating 'I feel, therefore I am!' over and over again, giving the impression of having your eyes screwed tightly shut and your fingers planted in your ears.

That's all over now, I'm afraid. You've fluffed your chance and time's up. Unless a new and more potent contender steps into the ring, the score on this thread is Materialists 1, Mystics 0.

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by Golden Boy

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by dzonatas

This is because Golden Boy literally has patent nonsense, like a patent on nonsense, yet this isn't revealed by his 'randini' hints.

Well in his defense he isn't discussing nonsense. Biological chemistry and physiological psychology are very useful and obviously connected to consciousness. Unfortunately is just mistaking the message (the transfer of information) for that which perceives the message and responds to the information.

You have yet to prove that this thing exists.

I can only point at the equation. If you won't do the math I can't help you.

You've pointed me at nothing. You've made only bare assertions.

Maybe the consciousnesses we experience are not as similar as I would assume.

Maybe you ARE a biological robot as you claim.

Yes, I am, and so are you.

Until you present actual evidence, this discussion is over. You have done nothing but repeat that there must be something non-physical while presenting absolutely no evidence as to why this is true. You have stated that we cannot have feelings if there is no non-physical part to the mind, but presented no evidence that this is true. Your other claims are just as unsupported.
Come back with some evidence.

Originally posted by Golden Boy
I've suspected for a long time now that you're simply yanking my chain. Now I'm certain.

Goodbye.

"Old ball and chain trick."

I won't ask you to provide evidence to what is on the other side of the chain. Thought about it.

It took 0 seconds to know your limits.

Originally posted by Golden Boy

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Try actually saying something if you want to be taken seriously.

And this means... what, exactly? You seem to have trouble grasping the fact that we cannot read your mind. Your constant walls of gibberish and irrelevant tangents may seem perfectly logically to you, but they don't to anyone else.

And therein resides the genius my friend.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Jezus

 

Any linguistic brain damage study will help in comprehending this concept.

You're bluffing. You don't know any brain damage studies that support your argument. That is why you have not produced even one, despite repeated requests to do so from at least three participants in this thread.

I didn't tell you to look into linguistic brain damage studies in order to “win” an argument; remember that consciousness is only a concept on a scientific level.

I told you to look into linguistic brain damage studies in general because it will help in comprehending the fundamental difference between physical moving pieces and the consciousness that FEELS their meaning. It is up to you.

Originally posted by Astyanax

I can only point at the equation. If you won't do the math I can't help you.

You have pointed us at nothing. Of course we all feel we have minds, of course we all feel we are conscious--but (for the umpteenth time) a feeling is evidence of nothing.

If you ignore feeling you ignore consciousness and you are back to biological chemistry and physiological psychology …you need to take it a step further.

Originally posted by Astyanax
I think the time has come to talk turkey to you, Jezus. You have been given ample opportunity to prove your case, to cite evidence for your convictions, to expose any fallacy in the physicalist arguments presented here.

This is a matter of comprehension; you already have all the evidence needed.

The fallacy in that argument is that it does not explain the existence of feeling. A biological robot cannot feel.

Originally posted by Astyanax
That's all over now, I'm afraid. You've fluffed your chance and time's up. Unless a new and more potent contender steps into the ring, the score on this thread is Materialists 1, Mystics 0.

"Mind firmly closed" – I guess this is true…

You never really tried to comprehend this logical issue.

You are trying to "win" an argument instead of trying to understand a concept.

From the "mystic" comment it is easy to see that you made assumptions about my point of view without actually reading my explanations.

The mind is a distinct responder to the information synthesized by the brain, this is an observable fact supported by all our current understanding of the brain as a message sender.

Think about your own consciousness, good luck, maybe you won’t be a robot forever…

Originally posted by Golden Boy

Maybe the consciousnesses we experience are not as similar as I would assume.

Maybe you ARE a biological robot as you claim.

Yes, I am, and so are you.

I know I am not a biological robot because I have consciousness.

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Until you present actual evidence, this discussion is over. You have done nothing but repeat that there must be something non-physical while presenting absolutely no evidence as to why this is true. You have stated that we cannot have feelings if there is no non-physical part to the mind, but presented no evidence that this is true. Your other claims are just as unsupported.

Come back with some evidence.

You have done nothing but repeatedly ignore my explanations.

This is a logical issue of comprehension; you have all the necessary evidence.

I understand that you are a conventionalist and simply want some textbook asserting scientific dominance, but I’m afraid this issue is not that simple.

You are going to have to use you own brain AND mind to comprehend this.

All I can do it point to the equation --> The brain creates the message, something must respond to this mesage.

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by Golden Boy

Maybe the consciousnesses we experience are not as similar as I would assume.

Maybe you ARE a biological robot as you claim.

Yes, I am, and so are you.

I know I am not a biological robot because I have consciousness.

Non sequitur. Possessing consciousness does not mean that you are not a biological robot.

All I can do it point to the equation --> The brain creates the message, something must respond to this mesage.

And I have explained to you, repeatedly, that the brain can respond to this message.