|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
18th November 2015, 06:42 AM | #681 |
Mistral, mistral wind...
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Embedded and embattled, reporting from Mississippi
Posts: 5,203
|
|
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV; I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems Deep Purple- "The Aviator" Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King |
|
18th November 2015, 07:02 AM | #682 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 7,259
|
|
__________________
Steen -- Jack of all trades - master of none! |
|
18th November 2015, 07:13 AM | #683 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 7,175
|
|
__________________
'Of course it can be OK to mistreat people.'- shuttlt Bring Back the Yak! P.J. Denyer |
|
18th November 2015, 07:31 AM | #684 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
|
18th November 2015, 07:35 AM | #685 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,758
|
Getting old? It got; got shot; rebooted; booted; rose; axe to nose; came back.
It's the zombie of fallacies. |
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett "If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans "I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat |
|
18th November 2015, 07:41 AM | #686 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
It's getting even older these days because Maartenn100 and Jodie have both relied heavily upon it to promote their various brands of woo lately.
|
18th November 2015, 09:10 AM | #687 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,146
|
Where is the proof for the idea that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain?
Some scientists say that consciousness is an illusion. It's also probable that the smaller the animal (like flies or bees or butterflies f.e.) the richer their subjective experiences. A less complex brain has an enhanced awareness. |
__________________
'Where' is the image in the mind? What 'space' is the image in your mind in? Where is the dream? Where is your inner voice? It's not the same spacetime then where the electrical and chemical pulses are in the brain, causing this image or the dream. The image you see in your mind's eye is in a completely different dimension than where the chemistry in the brain is. (Maarten Vergucht) |
|
18th November 2015, 09:15 AM | #688 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
|
18th November 2015, 09:18 AM | #689 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,146
|
JayUtah, why are people like you (sceptics on this forum) always asking for a breakthrough in science on a forum? Can't we discuss without you forcing me to meet the standard for a new theory in science?
Can't we just have a good philosophical discussion without the expectation that I come up with an argument to win the nobelprize? You can't meet these standards, so don't ask such standards in a discussion from other people! Read this: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ighlight=nobel |
__________________
'Where' is the image in the mind? What 'space' is the image in your mind in? Where is the dream? Where is your inner voice? It's not the same spacetime then where the electrical and chemical pulses are in the brain, causing this image or the dream. The image you see in your mind's eye is in a completely different dimension than where the chemistry in the brain is. (Maarten Vergucht) |
|
18th November 2015, 09:25 AM | #690 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
|
|
__________________
|
|
18th November 2015, 09:28 AM | #691 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
|
|
__________________
|
|
18th November 2015, 09:33 AM | #692 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,146
|
Again, where is the evidence that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain?
That's also an assumption. We can only have assumptions when we talk about consciousness. Because the scientific method is limited to the physical reality of the brain. Phenomena like 'enhanced awareness' and near death experiences can never be subject to scientific investigation, because science is limited to what's measurable. |
__________________
'Where' is the image in the mind? What 'space' is the image in your mind in? Where is the dream? Where is your inner voice? It's not the same spacetime then where the electrical and chemical pulses are in the brain, causing this image or the dream. The image you see in your mind's eye is in a completely different dimension than where the chemistry in the brain is. (Maarten Vergucht) |
|
18th November 2015, 09:37 AM | #693 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
|
|
__________________
|
|
18th November 2015, 09:39 AM | #694 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
|
|
__________________
Last edited by Daylightstar; 18th November 2015 at 11:23 AM. Reason: "s" at end of "measurements" removed. |
|
18th November 2015, 09:41 AM | #695 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,146
|
Where is the evidence to proof that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain?
That's an assumption without evidence. |
__________________
'Where' is the image in the mind? What 'space' is the image in your mind in? Where is the dream? Where is your inner voice? It's not the same spacetime then where the electrical and chemical pulses are in the brain, causing this image or the dream. The image you see in your mind's eye is in a completely different dimension than where the chemistry in the brain is. (Maarten Vergucht) |
|
18th November 2015, 09:43 AM | #696 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
Why are fringe theorists always begging for science to water itself down to the point where their claims become acceptable? If your claims can't pass scientific muster, you don't get to claim there's science behind it. Incessant whining is a poor substitute.
Here you're simply being asked to prove your claims. Above, you make claims that "scientists" have said a certain thing. I asked merely for substantiation. You claim birds and bees have a "richer" consciousness. I asked merely for substantiation. If you can't even meet that absurdly low burden of production, you're in the wrong place.
Quote:
Quote:
|
18th November 2015, 09:54 AM | #697 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
|
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze |
|
18th November 2015, 10:01 AM | #698 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
I don't suppose you have a concrete example of someone doing this
... [quote=Maartenn100;10985192]JCan't we discuss without you forcing me to meet the standard for a new theory in science? I don't suppose you have a concrete example of someone doing this ... I don't suppose you have a concrete example of someone doing this ... |
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze |
|
18th November 2015, 10:32 AM | #699 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,438
|
Maarten: if you want to know the current status of neuroscience, I suggest that you consider either taking some courses, or at least read some of the latest pop science on the subject. A couple books immediately leap to my mind: Sam Kean's "The Tale of Duelling Neurosurgeons" and V.S. Ramachandran's "The Tell-Tale Mind" are both compelling reads and will give you some insight as to where this very young field of science is going.
Ultimately, though: we can reliably alter consciousness in very specific ways, repeatedly, by stimulating or damaging specific areas of the brain. This is the first and most obvious piece of evidence. Try thinking of consciousness as a process that is ongoing (like an engine running) and not as an entity in and of itself. The fact that your consciousness is different now for having read this should give you some understanding that it is an ongoing process, ever changing until it stops. |
18th November 2015, 10:49 AM | #700 |
Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 234
|
I'll delurk here for a comment. As an interested non-scientist, I see the following:
Consciousness is a vague concept because it is poorly understood. It tends to be defined differently within different areas and used for different reasons. So arguing about "consciousness" without further definition is pointless. Please define your terms. Science assumes methodological materialism. That is all phenomenon must be addressed as having material causes. At this point and aside from any actual science in the field, consciousness emerging from the brain is the parsimonious argument. If you think consciousness comes from elsewhere, please state from where it comes and expand on that proposition with material arguments. Otherwise you are not talking about science. This is a skeptics board. Among the things skeptics do is withhold judgement about a proposition and ask for sound reasons to believe a novel proposition is true. Skeptics with knowledge in the field will go further in asking for a detailed explanations of why previous knowledge is incorrect. While the skeptic response is clearly frustrating to you, it should not be unexpected. Did you really come here for an unchallenged discussion of metaphysics or mysticism? |
19th November 2015, 08:26 AM | #701 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 7,259
|
There are many ideas of what consciousness is, and none of them can be proved, but this is the only one that is not in conflict with the laws of physics.
Quote:
Quote:
Many things are possible. It could also be possible that only mid-size animals have rich subjective influences, or that perhaps brains function as brakes on subjective experiences, and that bacteria have even richer subjective experiences, but not, I suspect, as rich as those of bootnails. |
__________________
Steen -- Jack of all trades - master of none! |
|
21st November 2015, 05:38 PM | #702 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,864
|
I suspect that what they mean is that the experience we have of our consciousness as a unified continuous self with agency is illusory; we are conscious, but it is not what it seems to be; it's a construct of many parts.
A simple analogy would be our experience of films, video, and TV - persistence of vision gives successive static images the illusion of continuous motion. We see and enjoy the film or video, but nevertheless, it's an illusion Vision gives an even better example, in that our clear, focused, high-resolution field of view is tiny (the area of your thumb at arms length); the rest is a distorted blur with gaps where the optic nerves enter; and the eyes jump rapidly around in saccades to position the focus of attention; yet the brain reconstructs a clear, steady, focused approximation of the scene that we take to be a direct image - but good though it seems, it's a construct, an illusion. Episodic memory is also an associative reconstruction that we experience as clearer, more consistent and reliable than it really is; an illusion of clarity & reliability. It probably isn't a stretch to say that, in a sense, our consciousness is an illusion built on illusions... |
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice... |
|
22nd November 2015, 12:05 PM | #703 |
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 14,588
|
|
__________________
A man's best friend is his dogma. |
|
22nd November 2015, 12:22 PM | #704 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
|
Really? You can't think of any of the evidence in support of this? Not any of the evidence provided by others in any of the threads you have begun here? Not in any of the websites or scientific reviews/papers you can look up from your computer in a second? Not in any of the books in the library or local bookstore?
What is the point of simply pretending that there is no evidence. You know the evidence, having participated in the many discussions on this Forum alone. Do you want to have it presented all over again, so that you can challenge it again, and have your challenge debunked again? Why don't you skip this silly steps and just start by presenting the novel reasons you don't accept the evidence? There is no reason to assume that repeating yet again the same argument without any new reasoning or information will result in a different outcome. Even if you didn't like the prior outcomes. There is no logic to that. It is only hoping that maybe this time your assertions will not be noticed by those competent to debunk them, and so will stay unopposed in some steal mode. |
29th November 2015, 06:55 PM | #705 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
|
I'm pretty sure I linked this before, maybe it was in a different thread. If this proves to be correct then nothing about our reality is what we think it is including how consciousness might evolve within a brain, a brain that simply isn't there.
http://phys.org/news/2014-08-d-holog...-universe.html Which might include the illusion of consciousness whether it's brain centered or non corporeal consciousness. |
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd |
|
30th November 2015, 02:00 AM | #706 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 7,175
|
I can't find anything in the link that says anything like what you claim it says. Nothing about brains, consciousness (corporeal or non-corporeal, illusory or actual), or indeed the idea that 'nothing about our reality is what we think it is'. Now I confess to being an absolute layman when it comes to these things, so could you please explain to me (and possibly others in similar positions) how the article relates to your claims?
|
__________________
'Of course it can be OK to mistreat people.'- shuttlt Bring Back the Yak! P.J. Denyer |
|
30th November 2015, 09:30 AM | #707 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
|
30th November 2015, 09:33 AM | #708 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
30th November 2015, 05:57 PM | #709 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
|
|
__________________
|
|
30th November 2015, 09:27 PM | #710 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
|
|
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd |
|
30th November 2015, 09:29 PM | #711 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
|
|
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd |
|
30th November 2015, 09:30 PM | #712 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
|
|
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd |
|
30th November 2015, 09:54 PM | #713 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
You could explain it in your own words, using the proper terms from quantum field theory. Don't just rely on the terrible 2-D vs. 3-D analogy. Phys.org is not a bad site, but it's dumbed-down for laymen. Since you are an expert in quantum field theory and all its non-intuitive findings, please lay out a properly-formulated physics treatise explaining the implications of the proposed study for all the rest of us poor, benighted, emotionally-crippled critics.
|
30th November 2015, 09:59 PM | #714 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
Then you paid attention only to the atrociously misapplied television analogy and ignored the actual science explained in the paragraphs that followed. The study is about the orthogonality of the non-spatial dimensions in quantum field theory. It's a degrees-of-freedom problem. If the "jitter" is non-orthogonal then there cannot be additional degrees of freedom among the non-spatial dimensions. The number of degrees of freedom affects how uncertainty bounds the unknowns in a QFT problem, which is what they're trying to explain with the "stores information" approximation.
And mathematically speaking, even though it's entirely irrelevant to the actual study, you can't project two dimensions into three. Please look up what a projection means, in mathematics. |
1st December 2015, 01:51 AM | #715 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
|
annnnoid has posted that story in the "NON PHYSICAL SPACE" thread, perhaps that's what you remember.
(that link has expired so I'm referring to my response which includes a snippet from that page paired with that link). As far as the atrocious analogy is concerned: |
__________________
|
|
1st December 2015, 02:07 AM | #716 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 7,175
|
I fail to see how my guess ("intuit") at the possible consequences of what they might find if it's true ("potential findings") would help me to understand what you meant. What if my guess is different from yours? How would I even know that if I don't know what your guess is?
Is this your idea of science, or is this Speculation 101? |
__________________
'Of course it can be OK to mistreat people.'- shuttlt Bring Back the Yak! P.J. Denyer |
|
1st December 2015, 07:31 PM | #717 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
|
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze |
|
1st December 2015, 07:33 PM | #718 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
|
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze |
|
2nd December 2015, 03:42 PM | #719 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
|
If my link is from a reputable site then I shouldn't need to go above and beyond what anyone else here does when discussing any topic. The article plainly states that their experiment would indicate that we exist in two dimensional space, however, we perceive our existence as three dimensional. That means that anything we perceive here would be an illusion. That includes consciousness, itself, whether you observe it as originating in the brain or if , like me, you believe it's non corporeal. Essentially neither explanation would be correct.
|
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd |
|
2nd December 2015, 03:52 PM | #720 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
|
|
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|