0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: dlorde on 26/11/2014 22:46:02Once more - how does your non-material consciousness hypothesis account for brain damage causing changes to personality, character, emotion, attention, recognition, understanding, sense of self, focus, and awareness, unless those features are actually all functions of the brain? What is left for this proposed non-material consciousness to do?Excellent point dlorde,.....If consciousness is somehow extra-dependent from the material character of the brain as Don would have us believe, why would material damage to the physical brain cause relative changes to said consciousness? Either consciousness is connected directly to the material function of the electro-chemical processes within the physical brain or it is not. You can't have it both ways Don.The reason I use the term: "extra-dependent" is because none of us believes that consciousness is completely "independent" from the physical brain. However, considering how Don's logic works, he might even believe that.
Once more - how does your non-material consciousness hypothesis account for brain damage causing changes to personality, character, emotion, attention, recognition, understanding, sense of self, focus, and awareness, unless those features are actually all functions of the brain? What is left for this proposed non-material consciousness to do?
Similarly , go tell physicists to explain to you why they don't understand QM while using it so successfully .The fact that we don't know how the non-physical consciousness interacts mutually with its brain is no reason to dismiss the non-physical nature of consciousness : similarly, nobody understands QM : is that a reason enough to reject it ?
Cheryl : Thanks for your posts , appreciate indeed .Unfortunately enough , no time left to respond to that : duty calls ,sorry.I have in a way already responded to your posts through those of dlorde and Ethos here above .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 28/11/2014 18:14:52Similarly , go tell physicists to explain to you why they don't understand QM while using it so successfully .The fact that we don't know how the non-physical consciousness interacts mutually with its brain is no reason to dismiss the non-physical nature of consciousness : similarly, nobody understands QM : is that a reason enough to reject it ? The critical difference would be that QM has predictive ability, but your theory has none.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 28/11/2014 20:09:24Cheryl : Thanks for your posts , appreciate indeed .Unfortunately enough , no time left to respond to that : duty calls ,sorry.I have in a way already responded to your posts through those of dlorde and Ethos here above .No, not really. They were pretty simple questions about a theory you've been promoting for quite sometime.
We should all start from what we know , not otherwise : we know that consciousness is not a product of the brain (how can it be ? )
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 28/11/2014 18:14:52We should all start from what we know , not otherwise : we know that consciousness is not a product of the brain (how can it be ? )The only thing we know is what our observations reveal. The observations (including those given above) are entirely consistent with, and support the hypothesis that consciousness is a product of brain activity. Any competing hypothesis must also at least be consistent with and account for what we observe. Your introduction of a non-material consciousness appears entirely redundant given the observations above, and you seem incapable of providing any plausible explanation or reason why it is necessary - just the unsupported assertion that something indescribable, unknown, inexplicable, and undetectable must nevertheless interact with our brains in some unknown and inexplicable way that is indistinguishable from no interaction at all. It's so far beyond useless it's 'not even wrong'. Hitchen's Razor is appropriate: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
Bullshit , sorry .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 28/11/2014 21:45:39Bullshit , sorry . LOL! [)]Nice argument []
alancalverd : What do you think about the following ? :Nassim Haramein's unified theory enters mainstream science!
Here's a simple question for anyone interested. Setting the "complete" or all inclusive consciousness enchilada aside for a moment, do you consider the sensory processes - seeing, hearing, smelling and tasting, touching, and orientation in space - to be material processes? Do they have any immaterial component?A slightly different take on things:http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/feeling-our-way/201401/consciousness-explained
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 28/11/2014 20:08:25alancalverd : What do you think about the following ? :Nassim Haramein's unified theory enters mainstream science!I'll look at the theory when you have produced some experimental evidence. This is a science chatroom.
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg445474#msg445474 date=1417217389]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 28/11/2014 21:45:39Bullshit , sorry . LOL! [)]Nice argument []
On the other hand , there is plenty of indirect empirical evidence that has been supporting the hypothesis of the non-physical and non-local nature of consciousness .......
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 29/11/2014 18:34:14On the other hand , there is plenty of indirect empirical evidence that has been supporting the hypothesis of the non-physical and non-local nature of consciousness .......Great! - so with that evidence you should be able to tell me what this non-physical and non-local consciousness is doing that the brain doesn't do anyway (as evinced by the brain damage examples I provided earlier).We now know the brain generates personality, character, emotion, attention, recognition, understanding, sense of self, focus, and awareness - because we know the structures and pathways involved, we know that interfering with them in specific ways and at various scales causes correspondingly specific changes in the generated characteristics. So once again, I ask you: What else is there for your non-physical, non-local consciousness to do? what do you think it does that the brain isn't demonstrably doing itself?If you can't answer that, why on Earth do you think it's necessary?