quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

I really don't want to have a discussion on anti-science propaganda because it's in my opinion the most dishonest swill to have come out of the creationist movement.

I mean pretending that Einstein was a proponent of team irrational is ridiculous and something which he found offensive.
[..snip ..]
So like I said I'm willing to accept the premise that knowledge will always be incomplete for the sake of your argument. Can you make a case that rational still isn't the way to go from there?

quote:

quote:

These findings do seem to present adverse implications for the claim that consciousness is purely a function of the (human) brain, or the more interesting view that it is an ‘emerging property’ of complex brains. It does seem to imply that the key to understanding consciousness may lie, at least in part, outside the (human) brain.

My bias is that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain (human and other vertebrates) for the simple reason that when the brain is damaged consciousness is damaged. Really, I do not see the justification for either of the two implications you drew above. I would be happy to have you sort that for me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle


quote:

quote:

quote:

These findings do seem to present adverse implications for the claim that consciousness is purely a function of the (human) brain, or the more interesting view that it is an ‘emerging property’ of complex brains. It does seem to imply that the key to understanding consciousness may lie, at least in part, outside the (human) brain.

My bias is that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain (human and other vertebrates) for the simple reason that when the brain is damaged consciousness is damaged. Really, I do not see the justification for either of the two implications you drew above. I would be happy to have you sort that for me.

I must apologise for some sloppy editing that made it seem that the findings I was referring to were those of the report on neurobiology, when I was referring to your statement that consciousness/awareness wasn't a human specific phenomenon.

An intriguing line of speculation emerges here. As I understand it, among the properties of the Higgs boson are that it is said to impart materiality to other particles, giving them substance, after which it promptly disappears. Could it be that a some kind of parallel phenomenon exists with consciousness? That some energy or force, as yet unidentified, imparts consciousness when other material factors are arranged in the requisite pattern?

Some Indian sages, who have been contemplating these issues for millenia, propose a (rather romantic) metaphor for this as like the action of light upon a candle flame - the flame is not composed of light, yet the flame 'materialises' as light passes through it instantaneously. Without the intervention of the light, the flame would be forever invisible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle


quote:

quote:

quote:

These findings do seem to present adverse implications for the claim that consciousness is purely a function of the (human) brain, or the more interesting view that it is an ‘emerging property’ of complex brains. It does seem to imply that the key to understanding consciousness may lie, at least in part, outside the (human) brain.

My bias is that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain (human and other vertebrates) for the simple reason that when the brain is damaged consciousness is damaged. Really, I do not see the justification for either of the two implications you drew above. I would be happy to have you sort that for me.

I must apologise for some sloppy editing that made it seem that the findings I was referring to were those of the report on neurobiology, when I was referring to your statement that consciousness/awareness wasn't a human specific phenomenon.

An intriguing line of speculation emerges here. As I understand it, among the properties of the Higgs boson are that it is said to impart materiality to other particles, giving them substance, after which it promptly disappears. Could it be that a some kind of parallel phenomenon exists with consciousness? That some energy or force, as yet unidentified, imparts consciousness when other material factors are arranged in the requisite pattern?

Some Indian sages, who have been contemplating these issues for millenia, propose a (rather romantic) metaphor for this as like the action of light upon a candle flame - the flame is not composed of light, yet the flame 'materialises' as light passes through it instantaneously. Without the intervention of the light, the flame would be forever invisible.

And you wonder why your beliefs are compared to "infantile goobledegook like creationism"?

quote:

If I remember correctly, he defines "clinical" (but not unrecoverable) death as a state of total unresponsiveness caused by insufficient blood supply to the brain culminating in isoelectric EEG and absence of brain-stem reflexes.

quote:

The neurological data linking consciousness to the brain is entirely correlational. Nobody disputes that consciousness and the brain are normally tightly coupled. But that doesn't prove either "causes" the other. In fact, at this point the relationship is known to be interactional with agency on both sides of the equation. And, there is an accumulating body of evidence that in extreme circumstances consciousness can function with accurate perception independently of the physical brain and sense organs (see here).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

But as the article concludes, it is a long way from plant electrical potentials to a plant brain or consciousness. More metaphor than reality.

I find it interesting that you dismiss any connection between electrical activity and consciousness in plants as "more metaphor than reality," while in humans you cite it as solid evidence that consciousness arises from such activity.

K.

quote:

An intriguing line of speculation emerges here. As I understand it, among the properties of the Higgs boson are that it is said to impart materiality to other particles, giving them substance, after which it promptly disappears. Could it be that a some kind of parallel phenomenon exists with consciousness? That some energy or force, as yet unidentified, imparts consciousness when other material factors are arranged in the requisite pattern?

quote:

Some Indian sages, who have been contemplating these issues for millenia, propose a (rather romantic) metaphor for this as like the action of light upon a candle flame - the flame is not composed of light, yet the flame 'materialises' as light passes through it instantaneously. Without the intervention of the light, the flame would be forever invisible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Agency on both sides of the equation? What does that mean? What agency is present outside the brain?

The relationship between consciousness and the brain is interactional. Each can affect the other.

I'm not sure if you're disputing that?

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

<more evasion deleted>

[...]

Thank you for not quoting.

You aren't going to get an intellectually honest conversation, I tried for quite some time.

Please for the love of Dog just hit the hide button so that yet another thread doesn't get derailed under a pile of bullshit.

Even since you put me on Hide, I've noticed you enjoying the pleasure of taking a swing at me when you happen to see my name in a post, secure in the knowledge that you've tied my hands so I can't hit back. But I understand, that's just what you are. And I want you to know that I don't hold it against you that your pussified guts lack any evidence of vertebrate descent.

Would someone please quote this so he sees it?

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle


quote:

quote:

quote:

These findings do seem to present adverse implications for the claim that consciousness is purely a function of the (human) brain, or the more interesting view that it is an ‘emerging property’ of complex brains. It does seem to imply that the key to understanding consciousness may lie, at least in part, outside the (human) brain.

My bias is that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain (human and other vertebrates) for the simple reason that when the brain is damaged consciousness is damaged. Really, I do not see the justification for either of the two implications you drew above. I would be happy to have you sort that for me.

I must apologise for some sloppy editing that made it seem that the findings I was referring to were those of the report on neurobiology, when I was referring to your statement that consciousness/awareness wasn't a human specific phenomenon.

An intriguing line of speculation emerges here. As I understand it, among the properties of the Higgs boson are that it is said to impart materiality to other particles, giving them substance, after which it promptly disappears. Could it be that a some kind of parallel phenomenon exists with consciousness? That some energy or force, as yet unidentified, imparts consciousness when other material factors are arranged in the requisite pattern?

Some Indian sages, who have been contemplating these issues for millenia, propose a (rather romantic) metaphor for this as like the action of light upon a candle flame - the flame is not composed of light, yet the flame 'materialises' as light passes through it instantaneously. Without the intervention of the light, the flame would be forever invisible.

And you wonder why your beliefs are compared to "infantile goobledegook like creationism"?

As I haven't stated any beliefs of mine in the above, apart from listing some universally accepted limits on scientific knowledge, my complaint seems a bit more legitimate than it was prior to your unwanted, superfluous and inane intervention. Mind you, I am making the possibly rash judgement that you understand the sentence: " An intriguing line of speculation emerges here". Your post gives no indication you do.

Please rest assured I'm totally uninterested in anything you have to say on any topic and have no wish to receive any communication from you unless it is to apologise for your past repulsive utterly unfounded abuse.

quote:

Please rest assured I'm totally uninterested in anything you have to say on any topic and have no wish to receive any communication from you unless it is to apologise for your past repulsive utterly unfounded abuse.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Which part of:

quote:

Please rest assured I'm totally uninterested in anything you have to say on any topic and have no wish to receive any communication from you unless it is to apologise for your past repulsive utterly unfounded abuse.

is beyond your comprehension?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

An intriguing line of speculation emerges here. As I understand it, among the properties of the Higgs boson are that it is said to impart materiality to other particles, giving them substance, after which it promptly disappears. Could it be that a some kind of parallel phenomenon exists with consciousness? That some energy or force, as yet unidentified, imparts consciousness when other material factors are arranged in the requisite pattern?

It is an intriguing concept and it allows me to introduce a lecture given at the University of Melbourne wherein is demonstrated the temporary appearance and disappearance of collaborative neural networks in the brain during conscious activities.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

And you wonder why your beliefs are compared to "infantile goobledegook like creationism"?

I haven't stated any beliefs...

You didn't write the "infantile goobledegook" bolded above? Who did then?

Focus on the words in the pretty color.

K.

quote:


Especially when we recall that a complete explanation of consciousness will be impossible as long as we remain entirely in the realm of the physical.