Consciousness question [Archive]

GaryLifo

2nd February 2006, 12:29 PM

Hi, this is my first ever post on these boards.

I cannot seem to post in the 'introduce yourself' thread for some reason, so very briefly about me and then onto my question.

I am 30 years old male 2nd year psychology undergraduate living in the south of England in the UK. I was formerly an electronics engineer for nearly ten years before deciding to change my career, and now I am planning to go into forensic psychology when I graduate.

Right, on to my question.

Seeing as psychics and believers in many of the theistic religions believe in a separation of mind and body, (dualism), how do they account for this when we are under the influence of some kind of anaesthetic during surgery.

I am assuming that the drugs that put us into a state of unconsciousness could not work if the mind and body were separate. Surely, if we had a separate soul, we would discover this very quickly during drug induced unconsciousness?

From personal experience, I have had several surgeries and not once was I conscious in any way during any of them.

Piscivore

2nd February 2006, 12:47 PM

Welcome, Gary!

It seems to me that each believer has a different idea to account for the cherished idea of "separation of mind and body." Whatever you do, don't ask Iacchus about it, trust me.

Personally, I think one of those entities is fictional.

rharbers

2nd February 2006, 12:58 PM

Welcome, Gary!

Whatever you do, don't ask Iacchus about it, trust me.

Why mention that guy?

Marquis de Carabas

2nd February 2006, 01:00 PM

I believe the soul nips out for a fag during such circumstances.

GaryLifo

2nd February 2006, 01:07 PM

I believe the soul nips out for a fag during such circumstances.

and for us non-smoking people? ;)

KingMerv00

2nd February 2006, 01:08 PM

I believe the soul nips out for a fag during such circumstances.

This post is so much funnier in America.

Welcome Gary.

GaryLifo

2nd February 2006, 01:11 PM

This post is so much funnier in America.

Welcome Gary.

Yes, I did consider the alternative American interpretation of the word 'fag' as I responded using the English one.

Thanks for the welcome by the way. :)

Marquis de Carabas

2nd February 2006, 01:13 PM

and for us non-smoking people? ;)
I'm an American.

GaryLifo

2nd February 2006, 01:16 PM

I'm an American.

in which case, I must ask you a question as to your use of the word 'for'

do you mean it as 'on behalf of'

or 'to obtain or use'

;)

and another thing... what about my question? surely this point has been raised before?

Piscivore

2nd February 2006, 01:18 PM

Why mention that guy?

Just a friendly heads-up. Gary seems cool, no use having him crack his skull on that brick wall right off.

GaryLifo

2nd February 2006, 01:21 PM

Just a friendly heads-up. Gary seems cool, no use having him crack his skull on that brick wall right off.

I'm guessing this guy Iacchus excels in making circular arguments?

Marquis de Carabas

2nd February 2006, 01:27 PM

in which case, I must ask you a question as to your use of the word 'for'

do you mean it as 'on behalf of'

or 'to obtain or use'
That depends entirely on the soul.

and another thing... what about my question? surely this point has been raised before?
Your original question, you mean? I've seen similar questions raised, and seen numerous drivel-laden responses to it, none of which I care to remember nor repeat. :p

Marquis de Carabas

2nd February 2006, 01:29 PM

I'm guessing this guy Iacchus excels in making circular arguments?
You underestimate Iacchus. Circles are but two-dimensional. His nonsense has been known to range into 11 dimensions or more.

Iacchus

2nd February 2006, 01:32 PM

I'm guessing this guy Iacchus excels in making circular arguments?It all comes from the same place.

GaryLifo

2nd February 2006, 01:33 PM

You underestimate Iacchus. Circles are but two-dimensional. His nonsense has been known to range into 11 dimensions or more.

Sounds like a fun character!

I shall consider myself forewarned.

Ryokan

2nd February 2006, 01:38 PM

You ask an interesting question, GaryLifo.

To answer it, we must first define consciousness.

GaryLifo

2nd February 2006, 01:54 PM

You ask an interesting question, GaryLifo.

To answer it, we must first define consciousness.

ok, I will define it only in the context of which I ask this question.

The state where I am able to think in a way where I can attempt to interpret whichever environment I am and make continuous legible thoughts about that environment.

Let us say the state of mind I would be in were I sat in a chair in a room and was awake and free to think as I wish.

If the conscious is truly separate from the body, I should be able to continue my awareness of what is around me regardless of whether my body has been made medically unconscious.

Iacchus

2nd February 2006, 02:01 PM

You ask an interesting question, GaryLifo.

To answer it, we must first define consciousness.Yes, exactly, how does consciousness define itself? Are you sure that it isn't consciousness that defines us, as well as everything we observe by means of it? Look at how life has evolved on this planet. Isn't it pretty much defined by its relationship with the sun? How should this vary from consciousness, and the creatures which rise from the id? Indeed, how do we in fact know that consciousness isn't the greater sphere, by which time and space and the temporal world we live in is the lessor sphere? It would be if, in fact there was a conscious Creator who created it all, don't you think? ;)

GaryLifo

2nd February 2006, 02:02 PM

Yes, exactly, how does consciousness define itself? Are you sure that it isn't consciousness that defines us, as well as everything we observe by means of it? Look at how life has evolved on this planet. Isn't it pretty much defined by its relationship with the sun? How should this vary from consciousness, and the creatures which rise from the id? Indeed, how do we in fact know that consciousness isn't the greater sphere, by which time and space and the temporal world we live is the lessor sphere? It would be if, in fact there was a conscious Creator who created it all, don't you think? ;)

no. ;)

Ryokan

2nd February 2006, 02:03 PM

Look at how life has evolved on this planet.

WE'VE MADE A BREAKTHROUGH!

Marquis de Carabas

2nd February 2006, 02:04 PM

WE'VE MADE A BREAKTHROUGH!
Getting your hopes up is the first sign of madness.

Tricky

2nd February 2006, 02:14 PM

ok, I will define it only in the context of which I ask this question.

The state where I am able to think in a way where I can attempt to interpret whichever environment I am and make continuous legible thoughts about that environment.

Let us say the state of mind I would be in were I sat in a chair in a room and was awake and free to think as I wish.

If the conscious is truly separate from the body, I should be able to continue my awareness of what is around me regardless of whether my body has been made medically unconscious.
Well gosh, you don't have to go to surgery to satisfy that example. You become unconscious (by that definition) practically every night. During REM sleep, you may skirt consciousness what with dreams and such, but for most of the night you do not have continuous, (legible?) thoughts about your environment.

Idealists/dualists have never been able to give a reasonable answer to that question either.

Complexity

2nd February 2006, 02:23 PM

Welcome. If you see someone named "Interesting" Ian lurking, just start whistling and walk quickly.

Iacchus

2nd February 2006, 02:32 PM

WE'VE MADE A BREAKTHROUGH!How so? That God is progressive, as opposed to static which, is what the YEC's would have us believe? Of course the theory of evolution still doesn't explain how God puts His spirit into everything. Perhaps the Book of Genesis is right, about the later acclimation of man? And of course if man were in effect a fallen angel, a thoughtful and progressive God would have provided a place for this to happen, by means of time and space that is.

Iacchus

2nd February 2006, 02:40 PM

Ryokan

2nd February 2006, 02:42 PM

Iacchus

2nd February 2006, 02:55 PM

Disregard my previous exclamation, we're back to square one.

Sorry for messing up your thread, GaryLifo.Oh I see, there's no need to discuss souls and spirits then? Fine. Just remember, I'm not the one who started the thread. Nor was it me who invoked my name. Perhaps you folks should be a little bit more careful in this regard?

Marquis de Carabas

2nd February 2006, 02:58 PM

So Iacchus is like Hastur, then?

Piscivore

2nd February 2006, 02:58 PM

Oh I see, there's no need to discuss souls and spirits then? Fine. Just remember, I'm not the one who started the thread. Nor was it me who invoked my name. Perhaps you folks should be a little bit more careful in this regard?

A warning is not an invitation.

We'll get to souls and spirits after we've discussed minds, leprechauns, the IPU and other made up things.

Piscivore

2nd February 2006, 03:00 PM

So Iacchus is like Hastur, then?

I only said his name once.

Iacchus

2nd February 2006, 03:00 PM

A warning is not an invitation.

We'll get to souls and spirits after we've discussed minds, leprechauns, the IPU and other made up things.Whatever, you folks can return to your regular scheduled programming now. ;)

Piscivore

2nd February 2006, 03:02 PM

Thanks, ever so much. :oldroll:

Iacchus

2nd February 2006, 05:23 PM

So, how would one know the truth is "out there" if, the truth wasn't inside of you, telling you about the truth that is out there? How would we in fact know anything if, it wasn't for consciousness telling us that "things are so?"

Genesius

2nd February 2006, 06:06 PM

. . . Nor was it me who invoked my name. Perhaps you folks should be a little bit more careful in this regard?

Beetlejuice!

Beetlejuice!!

BEETLEJUICE!!!

:p

cyborg

2nd February 2006, 06:14 PM

Of course the theory of evolution still doesn't explain how God puts His spirit into everything.

Don't need to explain things that didn't happen.

ruach1

2nd February 2006, 06:51 PM

Well gosh, you don't have to go to surgery to satisfy that example. You become unconscious (by that definition) practically every night. During REM sleep, you may skirt consciousness what with dreams and such, but for most of the night you do not have continuous, (legible?) thoughts about your environment.

Idealists/dualists have never been able to give a reasonable answer to that question either.
According to the Jungian model of human consciousness (see sig), ego consciousness is not the entirety of human consciousness. According to the Jungian model, human consciousness looks something like this:

Ego: waking thoughts; what most consider the "I" of the self

Personal unconscious: what you are not thinking of but can easily pull up into memory

Individual unconscious: personal repressed memories and forgotten memories which can't be brought "up" into ego consciousness

Collective unconscious: the "hard wiring" of all human consciousness; where cross cultural myths find their origin

Superconscious: The "transcendental" monad imminent in human consciousness
http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/jung.html

Though we are asleep, drugged, comatose, or even dead, doesn't necessarily mean that, according to the Jungian model, we are ever separate from consciousness being that consciousness, in its totality and to which we are all attached, exists independent of ego/brain consciousness of the individual.

Tricky

2nd February 2006, 09:06 PM

According to the Jungian model of human consciousness (see sig), ego consciousness is not the entirety of human consciousness. According to the Jungian model, human consciousness looks something like this:

Ego: waking thoughts; what most consider the "I" of the self

Personal unconscious: what you are not thinking of but can easily pull up into memory

Individual unconscious: personal repressed memories and forgotten memories which can't be brought "up" into ego consciousness

Collective unconscious: the "hard wiring" of all human consciousness; where cross cultural myths find their origin

Superconscious: The "transcendental" monad imminent in human consciousness
http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/jung.html
I was responding to the definition GaryLifo gave. What you have described are five completely separate things which are somewhat loosely related. And this is always the problem when discussing consciousness. We all have several usages for the word which are quite different in their application. That's why it is imperative when discussing consciousness to know what definition you are using, and to not change the model of consciousness without indicating you are doing so.

Though we are asleep, drugged, comatose, or even dead, doesn't necessarily mean that, according to the Jungian model, we are ever separate from consciousness being that consciousness, in its totality and to which we are all attached, exists independent of ego/brain consciousness of the individual.
I strongly disagree with Jung. It seems obvious to me that consciousness is generated by the brain, and even then only when the brain is in certain states that we might call "full capacity". When the brain is not working, consciousness disappears, even though it can be regained once the brain starts working at full capacity again. These are generaliztions of course, because consciousness is not an "on/off" switch. It is a continuum ranging from hyperalert to brain-dead.

As for myself, I am only pretending to be conscious.

PixyMisa

2nd February 2006, 09:42 PM

Though we are asleep, drugged, comatose, or even dead, doesn't necessarily mean that, according to the Jungian model, we are ever separate from consciousness being that consciousness, in its totality and to which we are all attached, exists independent of ego/brain consciousness of the individual.
Except that in fact we are, so Jung was wrong. Inasmuch as he was even coherent in the first place. Jung was a woo of the Sheldrake school - or rather, vice versa.

Piscivore

2nd February 2006, 10:12 PM

I also find fault with Jung, for the reasons Tricky illustrates. But props to ruach- at least he's obviously studied the man's works.

Pauliesonne

2nd February 2006, 10:56 PM

It all comes from the same place.

duh, me Iacchus, and me poo-poo head, me also have no genitalia because me lost it...

me, Iacchus, need help with direction to me genitalia...

me, Iacchus, lost like show with same name ( me like rhyme ) on shiny picture box....

ddddddddduuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!! !!!!!

NeilC

3rd February 2006, 02:01 AM

Kiless

3rd February 2006, 03:47 AM

Seeing as you cannot define what the actually soul is, you cannot really use what you think it's supposed behaviour is to disprove it. It's sort of a strawman argument.

The whole idea of the soul is that it is supernatural, god given etc. So it might run to a totally different set of rules. You will have as much luck disproving the soul as you will the existence of god. You can't do it.

I'm tending towards what Splossy and Tricky is saying.

Seeing as psychics and believers in many of the theistic religions believe in a separation of mind and body, (dualism), how do they account for this when we are under the influence of some kind of anaesthetic during surgery.

I'd say that the chemical effects of anaestheic just shut down brain processing - therefore the notion of mind being separate is rather odd; rather like your statement about:

I am assuming that the drugs that put us into a state of unconsciousness could not work if the mind and body were separate. Surely, if we had a separate soul, we would discover this very quickly during drug induced unconsciousness?

Increasingly I'm questioning the notion of mind being separate from body and these forums (I admit!) tend to make me move that way - although perhaps it is semantics that I'm getting tangled up in at times.

Nancarrow

3rd February 2006, 05:49 AM

Bodhi Dharma Zen

3rd February 2006, 07:28 AM

Yes and then Ian will say that you are only "disrrupting" the connection between brain and consciousness. When you want to believe, you will be able. Human wonder.

10001

3rd February 2006, 09:23 AM

Belz...

3rd February 2006, 09:29 AM

It all comes from the same place.

Damn. This guy is everywhere.

Belz...

3rd February 2006, 09:31 AM

So Iacchus is like Hastur, then?

Let's try something:

NYARLATHOTEP!

Belz...

3rd February 2006, 09:33 AM

ruach1

3rd February 2006, 09:57 AM

I strongly disagree with Jung. It seems obvious to me that consciousness is generated by the brain, and even then only when the brain is in certain states that we might call "full capacity". When the brain is not working, consciousness disappears, even though it can be regained once the brain starts working at full capacity again. These are generaliztions of course, because consciousness is not an "on/off" switch. It is a continuum ranging from hyperalert to brain-dead.

As for myself, I am only pretending to be conscious.
Yes, yes, yes---this is the $64,000 question isn't it? According to the "brain is consciousness only" model, then the bolded would be true.

However, according to the Jungian model of consciousness (post 36), we are all "attached" to a collective consciousness which is largely unconscious to ego consciousness (see signature). The cessation of brain consciousness, by this model, in no way shape or form effects a "disapearance" of consciousness et al because the collective unconscious is not dependent on individual consciousness for its existence.

So, does ego consciousness "disapear" into the collective consciousness and/or superconscious as an individual entity when the brain stops functioning?

Or does the cessation of brain consciousness mean the end of the line for ego consciousness no matter what ideas depth psychologists and theists propose?

There's that $64,000 question again...

Iacchus

3rd February 2006, 10:56 AM

Superconscious: The "transcendental" monad imminent in human consciousness
http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/jung.html

Though we are asleep, drugged, comatose, or even dead, doesn't necessarily mean that, according to the Jungian model, we are ever separate from consciousness being that consciousness, in its totality and to which we are all attached, exists independent of ego/brain consciousness of the individual.So, did Jung in fact believe in the soul and a greater spiritual reality?

As per the link (http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/jung.html) above ...

Anyone who wants to know the human psyche will learn next to nothing from experimental psychology. He would be better advised to abandon exact science, put away his scholar's gown, bid farewell to his study, and wander with human heart throught the world. There in the horrors of prisons, lunatic asylums and hospitals, in drab suburban pubs, in brothels and gambling-hells, in the salons of the elegant, the Stock Exchanges, socialist meetings, churches, revivalist gatherings and ecstatic sects, through love and hate, through the experience of passion in every form in his own body, he would reap richer stores of knowledge than text-books a foot thick could give him, and he will know how to doctor the sick with a real knowledge of the human soul. -- Carl Jung

rharbers

3rd February 2006, 11:11 AM

Damn. This guy is everywhere.

Everyone has been warned.

Tricky

3rd February 2006, 12:07 PM

Yes, yes, yes---this is the $64,000 question isn't it? According to the "brain is consciousness only" model, then the bolded would be true.

However, according to the Jungian model of consciousness (post 36), we are all "attached" to a collective consciousness which is largely unconscious to ego consciousness (see signature). The cessation of brain consciousness, by this model, in no way shape or form effects a "disapearance" of consciousness et al because the collective unconscious is not dependent on individual consciousness for its existence.
Sounds as if Jung is saying, "when the brain dies, I switch the meaning of the word 'consciousness' to something else." If this collective consciouness/unconsciousness exists, it is nothing like ego consciousness, so unless he's proposing a method for converting one to the other, then he's just talking out of his hat.

What you seem to be talking about are "memes", or essentially "ideas". These are shared among members of the population by communication. Obviously, if a person contributes a great idea the population (like, say, Einstein), then that idea survives the person. It may become part of the individual consciousness of any number of members of that population. But unless you are drastically altering the meaning of consciousness, it is not Einstein's consciousness that is surviving, it is his idea. To call it "consciousness" simply leads to misunderstanding by everyone except philosophy majors.

So, does ego consciousness "disapear" into the collective consciousness and/or superconscious as an individual entity when the brain stops functioning?
Why would it have to wait until the brain stopped functioning to do so? These things you are calling collective and/or superconsciousness do not seem to require that the person be alive. I can't see how they would require that he be dead (or unconscious) either. This seems no more that a poorly rationalized attempt at inferring life-after-death.

Many, perhaps most of us wish to be remembered after we die. I wouldn't mind it myself. But I am not kidding myself into thinking that any part of my consciousness is going to.

Or does the cessation of brain consciousness mean the end of the line for ego consciousness no matter what ideas depth psychologists and theists propose?

There's that $64,000 question again...
I'd say yes, it's the end of the line, based on the fact that I have never been able to have two-way communication with any entity for which ego consciousness has ceased.

ruach1

3rd February 2006, 06:15 PM

Iacchus
So, did Jung in fact believe in the soul and a greater spiritual reality?

From Jung and Christianity: The Challenge of Reconciliation by Wallace B. Clift, page 3, Crossroaod Publishing, NY:

Did he or didn't he--believe in God--is the first question asked about Jung by people who feel they know you well enough (and think you might know)... In an excellent filmed interview, Face to Face (in which the interviewer asks all the questions you want to ask), done by the BBC about two years before Jung's death, John Freeman asked Jung the question--did he believe in God? Jung asked, "Now?" (having recounted earlier his Christian upbring as the son of a Swiss Reform pastor). When Freeman indicated his question referred to present beliefs, Jung replied, "Difficult to answer (pause): I don't need to believe, I know."

Does this answer your question?

Iacchus

4th February 2006, 12:58 AM

Does this answer your question?Of course we all know that Jung was just a dreamer now, don't we? ;)

GaryLifo

7th February 2006, 11:38 AM

discover what?
i dont understand what you are not discovering...
do you expect your soul to FEEL? what your body feels?

when you answer above questions. rethink it.
a train of thought can have many paths...

I am of the opinion that when the human mind shuts down, so does consciousness. Therefore I am rejecting the idea of dualism. My personal evidence for this is that during several general anaesthetics I was never once conscious.

I would have thought that were it possible to be conscious when the brain is 'knocked out' I would have DISCOVERED this during my experiences under anaesthesia. That I did not discover this offers some opposition to dualism.

However, this being the philosophy forum I was interested in the philosophical arguments that might account for dualism still being possible despite the example of anaethesia.

I am also aware that I can only have knowledge of my own 'unconscious' experiences and that this cannot be generalised to anyone else.

articulett

8th February 2006, 06:15 AM

I am of the opinion that when the human mind shuts down, so does consciousness. Therefore I am rejecting the idea of dualism. My personal evidence for this is that during several general anaesthetics I was never once conscious.

I would have thought that were it possible to be conscious when the brain is 'knocked out' I would have DISCOVERED this during my experiences under anaesthesia. That I did not discover this offers some opposition to dualism.

However, this being the philosophy forum I was interested in the philosophical arguments that might account for dualism still being possible despite the example of anaethesia.

I am also aware that I can only have knowledge of my own 'unconscious' experiences and that this cannot be generalised to anyone else.

Agreed. Plus there is so much recent study in the area. People can have a certain part of their brain damaged and suddenly their mother seems like an imposter; there's this guy, Clive Wearing, who had encephalitis, so he can't for any new memories--he's in a constant twilight zone...always feeling like he just woke up after a long coma (he's been ill over 20 years now--he always greets his wife as though he hasn't see her in eons...and as soon as she leaves his hospital, he calls her on the phone and tells her he just finally woke up and she must come to see him right away...) Brain damage changes personalities...beliefs. You can cause religious visions my stimulating the temporal lobe of the brain and religious "visionaries" are often shown to have seizures in the same area. In probing a brain prior to brain surgery, they can invoke all sorts of memories and sensations...and it's the brain that feels pain in a limb that has been amputated. There is no consciousness outside the brain...when John Edwards "channels" the dead, he never says anything concrete--like what the person's social security number is. There is nothing measurably alive about a person after they die. You can see a brain "lying" and you can see "grief" and "pain"...more and more you can see which areas of the brain light up for different experiences--and we see that brain dead people like Terry Schiavo have no activity in their brain--no response to their environment--not even the most primitive instincts like swallowing. If you've ever seen anyone suffering from dementia, you see them fading before your eyes....theres no magic invisible part of themselves that's going to go off to happyland or hell (which don't exist in on any measureable realm)....you are your brain. As self aggrandizing as it is to think that you are so much more--there just is not a scintilla of evidence to say this is so. It's just a feeling. And feelings are not good ways to find facts.

Bodhi Dharma Zen

8th February 2006, 06:54 AM

What I dont understand is what is so scary about being a brain-body and not a "soul"?

Iacchus

8th February 2006, 01:25 PM

Brain damage changes personalities...beliefs.This argument can of course be falsified ... if we were to look at the brain as a means of channeling consciousness.

Mercutio

8th February 2006, 02:20 PM

This argument can of course be falsified ... if we were to look at the brain as a means of channeling consciousness.
Careful how you use words, Iacchus. Yes, that statement can be (potentially) falsified. Not by looking at the brain as a means of channeling consciousness, though. That, in and of itself, does not falsify anything.

How would you set up an experiment to potentially falsify the statement you claim can be falsified? How would you set up an experiment to test your own assertion that the brain "channels consciousness"?

These are not rhetorical questions: I really would like to see how you, yourself, would go about trying to falsify these claims.

Iacchus

8th February 2006, 02:29 PM

Careful how you use words, Iacchus. Yes, that statement can be (potentially) falsified. Not by looking at the brain as a means of channeling consciousness, though. That, in and of itself, does not falsify anything.

How would you set up an experiment to potentially falsify the statement you claim can be falsified? How would you set up an experiment to test your own assertion that the brain "channels consciousness"?

These are not rhetorical questions: I really would like to see how you, yourself, would go about trying to falsify these claims.All it requires is a device capable of picking an external signal, to show that the signal is capable of being degraded after it has been received.

Mercutio

8th February 2006, 02:34 PM

All it requires is a device capable of picking an external signal, to show that the signal is capable of being degraded after it has been received.
If you can show a device capable of picking up a "consciousness signal" at all, you would be well on your way. Thus far, of course, no such device exists, nor is there any expectation one ever will. Do you have any practical means of testing these claims?

Iacchus

8th February 2006, 02:41 PM

If you can show a device capable of picking up a "consciousness signal" at all, you would be well on your way. Thus far, of course, no such device exists, nor is there any expectation one ever will. Do you have any practical means of testing these claims?Are you suggesting that the brain has no inputs, and receives no signals (the transfer of sensory data) from external sources?

articulett

8th February 2006, 02:50 PM

How so? That God is progressive, as opposed to static which, is what the YEC's would have us believe? Of course the theory of evolution still doesn't explain how God puts His spirit into everything. Perhaps the Book of Genesis is right, about the later acclimation of man? And of course if man were in effect a fallen angel, a thoughtful and progressive God would have provided a place for this to happen, by means of time and space that is.

You use the term Id ina prior post...that's a metaphor, you know--for primal or "instinctive" feelings that humans consider base--

So god injected his spirit in everything--nice poetic thought, but there isn't an iota of evidence to detail the injection of a spirit. Twins, who are clones and test tube babies made by man--all have the same consciousness as those conceived in "sin". Moreover, the latter is conceived immaculately. Do tasmanian devils have god's spirit? What about Osama? How about sharks? How about the bears that ate that Grizzley Man (Timothy Treadwell)--did they eat up his spirt. That egyptian lady who gave birth to a two headed girl--did both heads have a "spirit"--even the parasitic twin with no body? The spirit thing is an illusion--granted a sweet one--but an illusion nevertheless--just because you don't understand something doesn't mean that "god did it".

articulett

8th February 2006, 02:56 PM

As everyone including the OP has said or implied, the phenomenon of sleep, and the effects of anaesthetics (or indeed booze) on consciousness, strongly suggest that what we call 'consciousness' or 'the mind' is directly affected by what goes on in our physical brains. I have nothing to add except that, if those examples are not clear enough, I recommend eating three or four grams of dried magic mushrooms. Now *that's* a link between brain chemistry and consciousness! :jaw-dropp

Read about Clive Wearing the guy who is always "just waking up"-- read about the guy who had brain damage that made him feel he was in a constant state of de je vu? There is a great documentary about LSD--it even has 9 year old kids on it talking about how LSD made them see god in a new way. Read some of Oliver Sacks--(e.g. The Man Who Mistook his Wife for a Hat and Awakenings...) Read some V.S. Ramachandran. Consciousness is a wacky thing. And it takes place in the BRAIN. Religous feelings of ecstacy can be induced via brain stimulation and/or drugs and in some people--this helmet called the Persinger Helmet will do it--

There is no such thing as a soul...it's an illusion.

Iacchus

8th February 2006, 02:57 PM

So, if one were to pluck out one's eye, does that alter the light at its source or, just the ability to see that light?

articulett

8th February 2006, 03:01 PM

This argument can of course be falsified ... if we were to look at the brain as a means of channeling consciousness.

I don't think you even know what you mean by channeling consciousness. The brain interprets the environment--it interprets it in ways that aid in survival and reproduction. You can describe beautiful feelings and so forth however you like--but they all occur in the brain--and are subject to influence by actual physical matter acting on the brain (hormones, drugs, gases (methane, nitrous oxide, oxygen), electricity, head injuries--

Without a brain, there is no consciousness. With a brain, consciousness is possible...although it can be demented.

articulett

8th February 2006, 03:05 PM

So, if one were to pluck out one's eye, does that alter the light at its source or, just the ability to see that light?

If you pluck out both eyes, light would exist, but you would not be conscious of it. Without an eye, there is no light for you. Without a brain, there is no thought occurring to you...no feeling...your consciousness dies with your brain...just like light disappears for you when you have no eyes--(no one can blind you eternally by flashing a light in your eyes). Yes, truth exists...even if there is no awareness of it. But for consciousness to exist (the feeling that one is alive and separate from others)--that takes a brain. Just ask your nearest parsely sprig.

Piscivore

8th February 2006, 03:10 PM

Read ...read ...Read ...Read ...

This concept is anathema to our Mr. Iacchus.

articulett

8th February 2006, 03:12 PM

Are you suggesting that the brain has no inputs, and receives no signals (the transfer of sensory data) from external sources?

No...he/she appears to be saying that you need a brain to interpret sensory data. Without a digestive system, you can't process nutrients...without a brain, you can't process sensory input.

The stuff you say sounds like this to me: "well, how can you say there is no pixie dust on the planet...we've never tried to measure it...surely you don't think that everything just happened...clearly pixie dust is entailed...even if you can't measure it--heck you can't even access it unless you believe in it..." (Insert soul or "consciousness" or god in place of pixie dust.)

You just sound so young, so unschooled in the sciences...so hungry for esoteric ideas...you sound like you think you have deep wisdom, but to many of us you sound like our 6th grade selves. Do you wear a mood ring by chance? Check your horoscope daily? Wear a pyramid and/or crystals for energy? Rebuke scary things in the name of Jesus Christ? Avoid black cats?

Complexity

8th February 2006, 04:56 PM

What I dont understand is what is so scary about being a brain-body and not a "soul"?

Many silly people are afraid of death and ending (e.g. Ian).

Also, many silly people need to believe that we are different from [the rest of] the animals and use the idea of a 'soul' as the primary difference between 'us' and 'them'.

Silly people.

I'm a beastie - gonna die.

Mercutio

8th February 2006, 05:24 PM

Are you suggesting that the brain has no inputs, and receives no signals (the transfer of sensory data) from external sources?
You said "a device" (dictionary.com: "A contrivance or an invention serving a particular purpose, especially a machine used to perform one or more relatively simple tasks."). The claim you are testing involves the brain; it would be assuming your conclusion to assert that the brain is such a "device", and I know you would not want to be accused of circularly assuming your conclusion.

The brain receives all sorts of data; none of it that we have ever measured thus far, in over a century, could be considered "consciousness signals". Your attempt to move your goalposts is noted, but not allowed.

Do you need me to repeat the question, or can you try again on your own?

Iacchus

8th February 2006, 06:20 PM

You said "a device" (dictionary.com: "A contrivance or an invention serving a particular purpose, especially a machine used to perform one or more relatively simple tasks."). The claim you are testing involves the brain; it would be assuming your conclusion to assert that the brain is such a "device", and I know you would not want to be accused of circularly assuming your conclusion.

The brain receives all sorts of data; none of it that we have ever measured thus far, in over a century, could be considered "consciousness signals". Your attempt to move your goalposts is noted, but not allowed.

Do you need me to repeat the question, or can you try again on your own?Yes, a radio is such a device (not unlike an eyeball in that respect, actually) where, when you damage the radio, the "external signal" which the radio receives, remains intact. So, when someone tells us that consciousness is affected when the brain is damaged, so what? This does not prove that consciousness arises from within the brain.

Mercutio

8th February 2006, 06:56 PM

Iacchus

8th February 2006, 08:46 PM

No...he/she appears to be saying that you need a brain to interpret sensory data. Without a digestive system, you can't process nutrients...without a brain, you can't process sensory input.So, how does this sensory data get mixed with and, so becomes a part of our conscious awareness? At what point does it lose the properties of the data which must be there? Indeed, at what point does the symphony lose the properties of the data necessary (once it's recorded) in order to play it back on a CD player? The thing is, it doesn't.

Mercutio

9th February 2006, 04:13 AM

So, how does this sensory data get mixed with and, so becomes a part of our conscious awareness? At what point does it lose the properties of the data which must be there? Indeed, at what point does the symphony lose the properties of the data necessary (once it's recorded) in order to play it back on a CD player? The thing is, it doesn't.
Did you take a look at those videos? You ask the questions, but you never appear to look for the answers...

Tricky

9th February 2006, 05:20 AM

Yes, a radio is such a device (not unlike an eyeball in that respect, actually) where, when you damage the radio, the "external signal" which the radio receives, remains intact. So, when someone tells us that consciousness is affected when the brain is damaged, so what? This does not prove that consciousness arises from within the brain.
Again with the radio, Iacchus? Don't you ever get tired of that same old badly flawed metaphor? You've tried it here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=404290&highlight=radio#post404290)
and here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=407993&highlight=radio#post407993)
and here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=412777&highlight=radio#post412777)
and here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=429268&highlight=radio#post429268)
and here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=442882&highlight=radio#post442882)
and here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=457719&highlight=radio#post457719)
and here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=458472&highlight=radio#post458472)
and here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=461893&highlight=radio#post461893)
and here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=528934&highlight=radio#post528934)
and here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=20676&highlight=radio)
and here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=626087&highlight=radio#post626087)
and here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=626087&highlight=radio#post626087)
and here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=692142&highlight=radio#post692142)
and here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=736954&highlight=radio#post736954)
and here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=791684&highlight=radio#post791684)
and here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=913902&highlight=radio#post913902)
and here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1049273&highlight=radio#post1049273)

(There's lots more, but I'm getting tired of pasting)
Almost every time you have been shown why your analogy is incorrect, just as you are again here. Your brain is not a radio, Iacchus. Frankly your brain is more like a phonograph album with a skip.

Try to have an original thought once and again, Iacchus. It only hurts the first time.

Bodhi Dharma Zen

9th February 2006, 06:34 AM

How exactly this idea about consciousness being tuned by the brain arises? Which are the foundations? Which are the questions that it answers? Any experimental data showing that signal (consciousness)? any evidence demonstrating that the brain is a receptor?

Because Iacchus, if you dont have answers for all these questions, you have nothing at all.

Mercutio

9th February 2006, 06:45 AM

I'll try my answers first, and we can see how they match up with Iacchus's.
How exactly this idea about consciousness being tuned by the brain arises?Someone literally dreamed it up.
Which are the foundations? Ignorance of the dream process.
Which are the questions that it answers?None.
Any experimental data showing that signal (consciousness)?No.
any evidence demonstrating that the brain is a receptor?No, unless you count the retina and olfactory bulb as parts of the brain, which some do, in which case it receives EMR and chemical information in a well-understood process.

Because Iacchus, if you dont have answers for all these questions, you have nothing at all.Got it in one.

Bodhi Dharma Zen

9th February 2006, 06:46 AM

Exactly what I believed. Thanks. ;)

Mercutio

9th February 2006, 08:18 AM

Exactly what I believed. Thanks. ;)
Hey, I could be wrong. (I'm not, but I could be.) All it takes is somebody bringing evidence, and we can change my answers.

Iacchus

9th February 2006, 12:24 PM

Did you take a look at those videos? You ask the questions, but you never appear to look for the answers...So, where does the life of you go when the brain ceases to function? It's obviously not bound up in the brain or, any other part of the physical body. Could it be that it originated from some place else? How much do we really know about EMF and the atomic grid by which everything is laid out? Could it be that something exists on the other side of matter that tells it how to structure itself?

Mercutio

9th February 2006, 12:45 PM

You did not answer my question.

Iacchus

9th February 2006, 12:59 PM

If the body draws everything else in from outside of itself, why not consciousness? This would not be out of accord with materialism would it? ... Albeit it would seem to imply the existence of something even more subtle than matter.

Mercutio

9th February 2006, 02:12 PM

again, you did not answer my question. It was a very simple question.

Mercutio

9th February 2006, 05:26 PM

If the body draws everything else in from outside of itself, why not consciousness?Are you exothermic?
This would not be out of accord with materialism would it?Not necessarily. All it requires is evidence that it occurs. Of that there is none.
... Albeit it would seem to imply the existence of something even more subtle than matter.Please do not use words you do not understand.
So, where does the life of you go when the brain ceases to function? Worms eat it. Read a biology book. Pay attention to the parts about cellular metabolism.
It's obviously not bound up in the brain or, any other part of the physical body.As obvious as that the earth is flat, and that the sun circles us each day.
Could it be that it originated from some place else? Could it be? Yes. Got any evidence at all? Any? Any at all?
How much do we really know about EMF and the atomic grid by which everything is laid out? If by "we" you mean you, we know nothing. If by "we" you mean the physicists who study such things, perhaps you should read what they write. We know quite an amazing amount of truly fascinating stuff. The things for which there is good, solid evidence far surpass the fevered dreams of Swedenborg or Iacchus. You don't know what you are missing.
Could it be that something exists on the other side of matter that tells it how to structure itself?Please don't use words you do not understand.

Tricky

10th February 2006, 08:40 AM

Imaginative

10th February 2006, 09:15 AM

So, where does the life of you go when the brain ceases to function?

A Theist and an Atheist die and when they get to the other side :

Thiest: I thought it would be a bit more glittery and shiny, more Angels blowing welcoming horns, how disapointing.

Athiest: Wow! this was totally unexpected, who knew eh?

One thing is for sure, we are all destined for the same fate, what happens or doesn't happen after that is irrelevant for now, make the most of this life and stop worrying about what might come next. There's no point in trying to convince us that there might be something else. If you are convinced yourself, then be content with that. It sounds more like your not sure yourself and are looking to others to bolster your own doubtful convictions. Its nice to be part of like minded people, that's why people go to church, I just don't think you'll find that kind of support here.

Regards

articulett

10th February 2006, 09:22 AM

So, where does the life of you go when the brain ceases to function? It's obviously not bound up in the brain or, any other part of the physical body. Could it be that it originated from some place else? How much do we really know about EMF and the atomic grid by which everything is laid out? Could it be that something exists on the other side of matter that tells it how to structure itself?

Where does the consciousness of a roach go when it dies? How about a mule? Why are you so conviced that you go somewhere special?

And science knows quite a bit...you can learn it too--but quit reading sci-fi and pseudoscientific philosophies--get your science from scientist. Yes it could all be magic...but, when something exists it has properties one can measure in some fashion...when something doesn't exist, we call it "imaginary". We don't make up gods, when natures laws explain phenomena just fine. And if we don't understand something, we keep approaching it and challenging it--we don't apply some "mystical" band-aid "answer" that involves "magic" and other untestable woo woo stuff.

I think Iacchus hangs out here trying to convince himself.
Really, Iacchus...there are tons of websites where people like you can blather on and on encouraging whatever delusion you all agree upon. You can take their anecdotes as evidence and reaffirm your divine natures ad nauseum. Pick a cult... There are so many...and you have loads of blind faith--just what they need. Scientology has openings...and it looks like they have just the "scientific" type explanations for things you gravitate towards. Coincidence? (I'm channeling a higher power that told me to give deliver this message to you.)

You're a wee bit better than the million dollar challenge lady--but not a lot. Did you read her stuff?

WanderinWTF

10th February 2006, 10:59 AM

i have been put down on drugs still with my brain going and i woke up in the middle of a surgery

Tricky

10th February 2006, 11:08 AM

Really, Iacchus...there are tons of websites where people like you can blather on and on encouraging whatever delusion you all agree upon. You can take their anecdotes as evidence and reaffirm your divine natures ad nauseum. Pick a cult... There are so many...and you have loads of blind faith--just what they need.
Actually, that's not completely true. Delusional people are very specific about the kinds of delusions they will tolerate. As I recall, Iacchus has been banned from a few theistic forums because his own particular flavor of dementia is not in line with theirs. So he started his own forum (see his sig) but nobody goes there. It's kind of ironic that one of the few places he can rant and be heard is at a skeptic website. We seem to be more tolerant (which does not mean accepting) of varied viewpoints than religious forums. Perhaps that's because we aren't threatened by competing imaginary friends.

Iacchus

10th February 2006, 11:32 AM

Dang it! Once again Merc beats me to the answers. :mad:

Of course, it's easy to hit the softballs that Iacchus is pitching, especially when he has made the same pitch so many times.

Come on, Iacchus. Treat us to an original thought once and a while.What, do you mean like 1 + 1 = 2? Well, I suppose we could try 2 - 1 = 1. But then again, it still pretty much amounts to the same thing.

WanderinWTF

10th February 2006, 11:37 AM

i have done research on this and done it

Iacchus

10th February 2006, 11:38 AM

Not necessarily. All it requires is evidence that it occurs. Of that there is none.There's plenty of evidence. It's just that it's not conclusive ... to you.

WanderinWTF

10th February 2006, 11:40 AM

i have messed with the crossroads if you do 2 things like on 2 roads at the same time you can go there not for long in our time but yuo can go there

Genesius

10th February 2006, 11:43 AM

i have messed with the crossroads if you do 2 things like on 2 roads at the same time you can go there not for long in our time but yuo can go there

I'm not sure what kind of mind-altering substances you're on, but you might want to go sleep it off before you try to post. . .

Bodhi Dharma Zen

10th February 2006, 11:45 AM

Going in circles, as always.

"No, Iacchus (or Interesting Ian, or insert your favorite character here) that is illogical, and besides, there is no evidence to support it".

"Oh yes, there are lots of evidence, but you can't understand it"

It is really interesting to see that some people will simply persist, no matter what, in their beliefs.

Iacchus

10th February 2006, 11:53 AM

I recall, Iacchus has been banned from a few theistic forums because his own particular flavor of dementia is not in line with theirs.Just another wild hunch on your part, Tricky? There's only one forum I've been banned from, and it was not a theistic site. In fact they banned me because they thought I was a bit too theistic ... not to mention confrontational of course.

Iacchus

10th February 2006, 12:05 PM

Iacchus

10th February 2006, 12:10 PM

We seem to be more tolerant (which does not mean accepting) of varied viewpoints than religious forums.Or beligerent perhaps? Obviously this site has set itself up to argue against such things. And what would be the point, if nobody came to argue?

Mercutio

10th February 2006, 12:16 PM

There's plenty of evidence. It's just that it's not conclusive ... to you.
Ok, so I'm a lost cause. For the sake of the others reading this thread, then, please post the evidence. If there is plenty of it, I will look all the more a fool.

You do know what evidence is, don't you? Or is that another word you use only the Iacchian definition for?

Mercutio

10th February 2006, 12:19 PM

Or beligerent perhaps? Obviously this site has set itself up to argue against such things. And what would be the point, if nobody came to argue?
No. This site is not set up to argue against anything at all that has evidence to support it. Scientific progress is made when we bring evidence to bear and change the views we formerly had. We only argue against things that there is evidence against. Like, say, your notions of the brain as receiver. Or your notion of dreams as taking place in another dimension. Or your idea that humans are not the result of natural selection. Or your fantasies about what you know about what happened before the big bang.

When you bring evidence, just watch and see how differently you are treated.

Iacchus

10th February 2006, 12:30 PM

No. This site is not set up to argue against anything at all that has evidence to support it. Scientific progress is made when we bring evidence to bear and change the views we formerly had. We only argue against things that there is evidence against. Like, say, your notions of the brain as receiver. Or your notion of dreams as taking place in another dimension. Or your idea that humans are not the result of natural selection. Or your fantasies about what you know about what happened before the big bang.

When you bring evidence, just watch and see how differently you are treated.Yes, if what I say is merely evidence of a delusional mind, you would be correct. I have presented plenty of pieces of the puzzle, however. It's just a matter of how you wish to put those pieces together.

Bodhi Dharma Zen

10th February 2006, 12:47 PM

Can you enumerate those pieces, just for the sake of it.

Iacchus

10th February 2006, 01:08 PM

Can you enumerate those pieces, just for the sake of it.We can begin with the brain being a receiver for one thing, because obviously it is ... at least in the sense that it receives external sensory input (signals) from our senses.

Tricky

10th February 2006, 01:14 PM

What, do you mean like 1 + 1 = 2? Well, I suppose we could try 2 - 1 = 1. But then again, it still pretty much amounts to the same thing.
No, that's not new either. The search function won't let me find how many times you have used this like searching for when you used the radio analogy, but those of us who have been here before have seen you regurgitate this many times. Your act is in reruns, Iacchus. We've seen it all before. Maybe you should take up a hobby that will help you stretch your interests. I recommend reading.

Mercutio

10th February 2006, 01:49 PM

We can begin with the brain being a receiver for one thing, because obviously it is ... at least in the sense that it receives external sensory input (signals) from our senses.
...of course, this sense is not at all the meaning you intend when you say it picks up consciousness signals. Refresh my memory; what is the evidence that supports that claim?

Bodhi Dharma Zen

10th February 2006, 01:49 PM

We can begin with the brain being a receiver for one thing, because obviously it is ... at least in the sense that it receives external sensory input (signals) from our senses.

So, the brain does processes sensory input. Now what? Lets follow him dear Mercutio! Well, I know you have, but lets see where he is going again, and slowly.

Iacchus

10th February 2006, 02:01 PM

So, where does the notion of self come from? Is it merely a matter of the brain mixing all the sensory information, and adding an additional ingredient, called "the observer," and voila! we have self-awareness? Or, do you deny that such a thing as an observer exists? If not, then where does it come from? And why does it seem to be so inextricably bound to the other signals which the brain has processed, specifically the external signals from our senses? Could it be that it too is merely a signal which a brain is processing from another source? Would it be wrong to deny that it was on par with the rest of the signals that the brain receives? And what is the brain really, other than an elaborate means of processing information? This is really all it's doing isn't it?

Iacchus

10th February 2006, 02:49 PM

And why does it seem to be so inextricably bound to the other signals which the brain has processed, specifically the external signals from our senses? Could it be that it too is merely a signal which a brain is processing from another source?Evidence of this would occur when we are dreaming, when we find a means to override these "external signals," at least consciously, and enter a different realm entirely. And yet it is possible to become fully conscious in your dreams, and not be the least bit aware of "the body" which lay there in the bed.

SuperCoolGuy

10th February 2006, 03:06 PM

Evidence of this would occur when we are dreaming, when we find a means to override these "external signals," at least consciously, and enter a different realm entirely. And yet it is possible to become fully conscious in your dreams, and not be the least bit aware of "the body" which lay there in the bed.

Not true. Many people, when they are conscious of the fact that they are dreaming, can detect the position of their body and even the movement of their limbs.

When your body enters sleep, your brain systematically shuts off signals to your motor functions.

However, it is possible for you to regain consciousness (fully wake up) and be without motor function. Many times, this phenonmenon is coupled with disembodied voices, strange forms, ringing of the ears, the feeling of pressure on the body.

Also, you can regain motor control and not regain consciousness, like sleep walking.

I once had a dream of myself sleeping in a particular position (on my back with my knees bent a certain way) and facing the closet door with the bathroom light on and a feeling that something bad was going to happen. I realized I was sleeping, forced myself to wake up, and found myself in that position, facing the closet door, but the bathroom light was not on, and the perspective was a little off.

I was dreaming, realized I was dreaming, evaluated my body position, and decided to wake up.

Also, through meditation, it is possible to retain conciousness and lose the feeling of the body. It's also possible to modify your sense of self and feel disembodied, give yourself the impression of levitation, and start hallucinating monsters or people or voices. Buddhist monks have to put up with this all the time.

Confuse your sensory perception and the brain really starts messing with your sense of reality. Just look at poor Emanuel Swedenborg.

Bodhi Dharma Zen

10th February 2006, 03:42 PM

So, where does the notion of self come from?

An illusion based on our use of language.

Is it merely a matter of the brain mixing all the sensory information, and adding an additional ingredient, called "the observer," and voila! we have self-awareness?

Something like that, except that this "observer" is an invention, not an actual entity.

Or, do you deny that such a thing as an observer exists?

More than that, I see it as it is, a mere collection of memories and desires, without any clear or stable ontological status.

If not, then where does it come from? And why does it seem to be so inextricably bound to the other signals which the brain has processed, specifically the external signals from our senses?

Lets see it this way. Suppose that Im an evil scientist and so I invite you to my lab to make some research. I put you to sleep and then I extract your brain from your body. I carefully connect every cell of your brain to transmiters/receivers that are in your body, in order for the senses to still transmit the relevant info to the brain and viceversa. Then I put your body on a train, while you are still sleeping and let you go. When you wake up... where are you?

Could it be that it too is merely a signal which a brain is processing from another source?

No. You have state cero reasons as of why this should be.

Would it be wrong to deny that it was on par with the rest of the signals that the brain receives?

Yes of course, you should demonstrate first that it still exists if I do something to the brain. For example, I can easily demonstrate that the light still exists even if I damage your eyes.

Bodhi Dharma Zen

10th February 2006, 03:45 PM

Mercutio

10th February 2006, 04:57 PM

Iacchus, many of your questions are answered in the videos I have been asking you to watch. Blackmore specifically addresses the idea of "the observer" (the cartesian theatre), for instance.

If you watched them, perhaps you would not have to ask so many questions out of ignorance. You could ask questions that allow you to increase your knowledge, instead. These questions of yours have been answered before, and the answers have been soundly ignored. Why ask the questions, if you intend to ignore the answers?

Iacchus

11th February 2006, 09:51 AM

Not true. Many people, when they are conscious of the fact that they are dreaming, can detect the position of their body and even the movement of their limbs.It's possible, but not required.

When your body enters sleep, your brain systematically shuts off signals to your motor functions.And when I dream, it hardly ever entails any (direct) awareness of my physical surroundings.

However, it is possible for you to regain consciousness (fully wake up) and be without motor function. Many times, this phenonmenon is coupled with disembodied voices, strange forms, ringing of the ears, the feeling of pressure on the body.Yes, and I have experienced similar things myself, where I in effect had to "wrench" myself awake.

Also, you can regain motor control and not regain consciousness, like sleep walking.Yet there must be some rudimentary form of awareness, otherwise what's to keep you from walking into a wall?

I once had a dream of myself sleeping in a particular position (on my back with my knees bent a certain way) and facing the closet door with the bathroom light on and a feeling that something bad was going to happen. I realized I was sleeping, forced myself to wake up, and found myself in that position, facing the closet door, but the bathroom light was not on, and the perspective was a little off.I once had a dream where I was walking down a dirt road with high steep banks. And a coyote approached, saying, "I'm not going to eat you. I'm not going to eat." And I'm thinking, "Oh yeah, we'll see about that," and I mustered all the strength I could in my leg, thinking I would kick him in the head, and bam! I kicked my foot smack into the wall.

I was dreaming, realized I was dreaming, evaluated my body position, and decided to wake up.I have had dreams where I told folks I haven't died yet, so they shouldn't expect me to stick around too long. And they would go, "Huh? What do you mean? We have always been here." And about that time I would wake up and say, "See I told you so," and then do my utmost not to crash their reality, which was usually to no avail. The best thing to do is forget it happen, albeit it doesn't usually happen right away.

Also, through meditation, it is possible to retain conciousness and lose the feeling of the body. It's also possible to modify your sense of self and feel disembodied, give yourself the impression of levitation, and start hallucinating monsters or people or voices. Buddhist monks have to put up with this all the time.Yes, and I am merely asking whether this is internal to the brain or, an external signal that the brain actually receives. Also, remember we must override the sensory signals (which, are no doubt more prominent) before we can begin to detect any of this "other" activity.

Confuse your sensory perception and the brain really starts messing with your sense of reality. Just look at poor Emanuel Swedenborg.Which, is when the brain really starts picking up on weird signals, eh?

Iacchus

11th February 2006, 09:56 AM

An illusion based on our use of language.Then who or, what is it that is doing the articulating?

11th February 2006, 09:58 AM

So, where does the life of you go when the brain ceases to function? It's obviously not bound up in the brain or, any other part of the physical body.

Bzzzz!!!! WRONG!!! Thanks for playing! The life of you ceases when the brain ceases to function. Why should this be? Because brain function is life.

11th February 2006, 10:02 AM

We can begin with the brain being a receiver for one thing, because obviously it is ... at least in the sense that it receives external sensory input (signals) from our senses.

Actually, the receivers are the sensory organs themselves... the brain is a processor, not a receiver.

Learn a little biology. One day you might need it.

Mercutio

11th February 2006, 10:05 AM

Then who or, what is it that is doing the articulating?
Watch the videos. Particularly Susan Blackmore.

Do you want answers? Or do you just like asking questions in vain?

Iacchus

11th February 2006, 10:06 AM

Bzzzz!!!! WRONG!!! Thanks for playing! The life of you ceases when the brain ceases to function. Why should this be? Because brain function is life.The brain is what channels consciousness ... as pertains to our spirit and/or soul.

Mercutio

11th February 2006, 10:08 AM

The brain is what channels consciousness ... as pertains to our spirit and/or soul.
This baseless assertion of yours has been addressed many times before (see Tricky's collection of your posts). It is quite simply wrong.

Iacchus

11th February 2006, 10:09 AM

Watch the videos. Particularly Susan Blackmore.

Do you want answers? Or do you just like asking questions in vain?The problem is that both you and I draw separate conclusions. I speak from the standpoint of what I have experienced, not what others have concluded. What else would you have me do?

Iacchus

11th February 2006, 10:16 AM

This baseless assertion of yours has been addressed many times before (see Tricky's collection of your posts). It is quite simply wrong.Again, I understand that this is what you (and other folks) have concluded.

Iacchus

11th February 2006, 10:21 AM

Actually, the receivers are the sensory organs themselves... the brain is a processor, not a receiver.

Learn a little biology. One day you might need it.Really? And are you sure that's not altogether different from what I'm saying? Trying reading it again ...

We can begin with the brain being a receiver for one thing, because obviously it is ... at least in the sense that it receives external sensory input (signals) from our senses.Also, what I stated here ...

And what is the brain really, other than an elaborate means of processing information? This is really all it's doing isn't it?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

11th February 2006, 10:23 AM

The problem is that both you and I draw separate conclusions. I speak from the standpoint of what I have experienced, not what others have concluded. What else would you have me do?
Realize that the conclusions you draw from your experiences are often incorrect. Either that or declare yourself infallible and start a religion.

~~ Paul

Mercutio

11th February 2006, 10:25 AM

The problem is that both you and I draw separate conclusions. I speak from the standpoint of what I have experienced, not what others have concluded. What else would you have me do?
Then why do you ask the questions? If, as you imply here, you fully intend to ignore anyone else's contributions, then your participation in this forum is dishonest, to say the least.

Blackmore's presentation, in particular, should be of interest to you. She starts from the standpoint of what she experienced, too. Perhaps you should read her autobiography. It might be a very good test of your ability to ignore relevant information.

Iacchus

11th February 2006, 10:27 AM

Then why do you ask the questions? If, as you imply here, you fully intend to ignore anyone else's contributions, then your participation in this forum is dishonest, to say the least.Either that or I know what I'm talking about.

Iacchus

11th February 2006, 10:31 AM

Realize that the conclusions you draw from your experiences are often incorrect. Either that or declare yourself infallible and start a religion.

~~ PaulNo, I don't declare myself to be infallible. And yes, it was my intent to start a religion. But, up to this point nothing has materialized, neither do I forsee anything happening anytime soon.

11th February 2006, 10:40 AM

The brain has no receptors, other than neurons. Neurons transmit and receive chemoelectrical signals and nothing more. The sensors of your body receive signals of a variety of types - pressure, light, vibration, etc - and translate those into neural signal. If consciousness were something transmitted, there would need to be an organ that translates consciousness into neural signal as well - and there is not.

Second, although correlation does not always equal causation, it is a fact that no consciousness has ever been reliably observed without a functioning brain. It is also a fact that alterations to the brain directly alter consciousness as well. It is also a fact that the brain, even when shielded by all known forms of transmittable energy, continues to generate consciousness.

Iacchus, you have no knowledge - neither real nor esoteric. Your hopes of starting a religion are pathetic, because you have nothing new to say. You may, however, one day start a small personality cult; after all, there's a sucker born every minute, so they say.

Iacchus

11th February 2006, 10:47 AM

Iacchus, you have no knowledge - neither real nor esoteric. Your hopes of starting a religion are pathetic, because you have nothing new to say. You may, however, one day start a small personality cult; after all, there's a sucker born every minute, so they say.You, in fact do not know what you're talking about. All I have attempted to do was make what I know available. This is all it will ever entail. If, in fact a religion should sprout up as a result of this, I will most likely be long gone by then.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

11th February 2006, 10:53 AM

No, I don't declare myself to be infallible. And yes, it was my intent to start a religion. But, up to this point nothing has materialized, neither do I forsee anything happening anytime soon.
I recommend you call it Solipsism. You should get a lot of converts.

~~ Paul

Iacchus

11th February 2006, 10:57 AM

I recommend you call it Solipsism. You should get a lot of converts.

~~ PaulIt is not in my hands to call it anything at this point.

Mercutio

11th February 2006, 10:59 AM

Either that or I know what I'm talking about.
:notm

Too much of what you say is either internally inconsistent or counter to all observed evidence. The only way you can keep the illusion of knowledge is by avoiding the reading or videos we recommend to you.

The one glimmer of hope is that you know this. If you really believed that you knew, you would not be so reluctant to read or view these materials. You would think your view could stand up to such challenges. You, on the other hand, know that your view falls apart like wet cardboard, and so you know you must avoid any information precipitation.

(Both hammegk and Interesting Ian took the time to read things I recommended to them in debates; what is more, both demonstrated that they understood them. In the course of this debate, I learned quite a bit more about their view, as they did of mine; since then I have defended them when it has been appropriate, even though I do not share their view.)

Mercutio

11th February 2006, 11:00 AM

It is not in my hands to call it anything at this point.
I think we can safely call it ignorance.

Iacchus

11th February 2006, 11:05 AM

If you really believed that you knew, you would not be so reluctant to read or view these materials. You would think your view could stand up to such challenges.There's no reluctance there whatsoever. It's more laziness or, shall we say, "Ho hum," than anything else.

Iacchus

11th February 2006, 11:13 AM

Both hammegk and Interesting Ian took the time to read things I recommended to them in debates; what is more, both demonstrated that they understood them. In the course of this debate, I learned quite a bit more about their view, as they did of mine; since then I have defended them when it has been appropriate, even though I do not share their view.So, mine may complete the triune then? It is possible. Hence the fourth aspect would be "delta" ... wherein the mind rests in its doctrine.

Mercutio

11th February 2006, 11:14 AM

There's no reluctance there whatsoever. It's more laziness or, shall we say, "Ho hum," than anything else.
Remarkable how much energy you have for asking the questions and giving your own answers out of ignorance, and how little energy you have for examining anything which might threaten that ignorance.

Mercutio

11th February 2006, 11:17 AM

So, mine may complete the triune then? It is possible.I doubt it.
Hence the fourth aspect would be "delta" ... wherein the mind rests in its doctrine.
If you ever do educate yourself on this topic, you will look back and blush at statements like that.

Iacchus

11th February 2006, 11:17 AM

Remarkable how much energy you have for asking the questions and giving your own answers out of ignorance, and how little energy you have for examining anything which might threaten that ignorance.I am not threatened in the least.

Iacchus

11th February 2006, 11:23 AM

Hence the fourth aspect would be "delta" ... wherein the mind rests in its doctrine.
If you ever do educate yourself on this topic, you will look back and blush at statements like that.No, I'm referring to your ability to understand what I'm talking about here ... for yourself that is.

Mercutio

11th February 2006, 11:43 AM

I am not threatened in the least.
Good. Let us know when you have watched the videos, then. And when you visit the library for those biology and physics introductory texts. If you ever actually do start looking into these things, you will find more beautiful things there than in Swedenborg's dreams. What is more, these beautiful things are backed by evidence, not believed despite evidence.

Bodhi Dharma Zen

11th February 2006, 12:16 PM

Then who or, what is it that is doing the articulating?

Huh, what we call the body. This is self evident. And just a reminder, I responded every point with precise comments and questions. Dont ignore them and answer. Thanks

Iacchus

11th February 2006, 02:34 PM

Huh, what we call the body. This is self evident. And just a reminder, I responded every point with precise comments and questions. Dont ignore them and answer. ThanksI'm referring to the "navigator" dude.

Mercutio

11th February 2006, 02:41 PM

I'm referring to the "navigator" dude.
Blackmore addresses this specifically in her talk.

Dude.

11th February 2006, 03:16 PM

I'm referring to the "navigator" dude.

We call that the brain.

Iacchus

11th February 2006, 03:36 PM

Blackmore addresses this specifically in her talk.

Dude.Yes, and this is the part that "I" take very seriously. How so? ... Because it is "me," dude.

Mercutio

11th February 2006, 04:14 PM

Yes, and this is the part that "I" take very seriously. How so? ... Because it is "me," dude.
You take it so seriously that you have avoided these videos for months. You can claim whatever you like, but your behavior is transparent.

SuperCoolGuy

11th February 2006, 04:18 PM

Which, is when the brain really starts picking up on weird signals, eh?

Detecting or generating. You seem to have a consistent problem making that distinction. Hallucinations are generated within the visual cortex without signals from the eye. The brain is capable of generating a lot on its own.

The brain is what channels consciousness ... as pertains to our spirit and/or soul.

Based on what? How do you know the brain "channels" consciousness as oopose to generates consciousness. If it was a channel, then consciousness comes from some other source than the brain, and should be detectable by means other than a brain outside of the brain.

You are trying to make the brain be a "processor" only, incapable of generating the senses, much less the sense of "self". Hence, the sense of self, in your mind, must come from some other place, just like an image comes from the eyes.

But ask yourself, is a person who is blind their entire lives able to form a mental image even though their eyes have never sent a single image to the brain? The answer is: yes they can, thanks to various parts within the cerebral cortex and the ability to detect external stimuli through hearing and feeling. They can still "see" in their minds, forming maps, mental constructs and models.

The sense of self or consciousness is mostly routed in the thalmus. Damage to the thalmus can create a loss of sense of one's self. Persistent vegitative state studies have shown that enough damage to the thalmus (with even 0% damage to the cerebral cortex) can render a human into a living vegetable, capable of detecting and processing external signals but with no definable conscious.

Consciousness has been shown to require communication between the thalmus and the cerebral cortex. In other words, consciousness requires some information from external senses into order to form a definition of self. The brain (thalmus) defines self based on external/processed signals (cortex).

Consciousness is GENERATED. Don't believe me? Read a neuroscience textbook on the thalmus and cerebral cortex.

If you want to convince me that it is channeled, I'd like to know where the evidence is.

Iacchus

11th February 2006, 04:22 PM

You take it so seriously that you have avoided these videos for months. You can claim whatever you like, but your behavior is transparent.Believe me, it's not that important. I do understand how they are significant to you, however.

Iacchus

11th February 2006, 04:27 PM

You take it so seriously that you have avoided these videos for months. You can claim whatever you like, but your behavior is transparent."I" am more than just a machine. "I" am the machine operator. Don't let it ruffle your feathers, okay?

Mercutio

11th February 2006, 04:52 PM

Take your time, Iacchus--no need to respond twice to one post. Remember, I am not answering you for your benefit, but for lurkers.

Your claim of being the machine operator is addressed in those videos (I have already sent copies to one person--this is how I know of lurkers), and once again you are quite simply wrong, and demonstrably so.

A very interesting type of importance you have here...just enough to keep you asking questions at a ferocious clip, and to fabricate answers that reinforce your dream-world, but not quite important enough to look for the answers that really do exist.

What a fragile belief system you must have.

Iacchus

11th February 2006, 05:04 PM

Take your time, Iacchus--no need to respond twice to one post. Remember, I am not answering you for your benefit, but for lurkers. Of course.

Your claim of being the machine operator is addressed in those videos (I have already sent copies to one person--this is how I know of lurkers), and once again you are quite simply wrong, and demonstrably so. Yes, for any of you lurkers out there.

A very interesting type of importance you have here...just enough to keep you asking questions at a ferocious clip, and to fabricate answers that reinforce your dream-world, but not quite important enough to look for the answers that really do exist. Again, for all you lurkers out there.

What a fragile belief system you must have.To the point that it makes me lazy and I see that it's not going to change the way I look at things? No. If I was that unsure of myself, I would still be looking.

SuperCoolGuy

11th February 2006, 05:04 PM

Iacchus

11th February 2006, 05:09 PM

Do you realize that if I went in and destroyed specific parts of your cortex and/or posterior thalmus, you'd completely lose the ability to dream. Wouldn't change your life one bit.Do you realize that if you didn't have a brain, you would not be here to speak about it?

SuperCoolGuy

11th February 2006, 05:20 PM

Do you realize that if you didn't have a brain, you would not be here to speak about it?

Do you realize your "Socrates" approach is really getting old?

You brought up dreams. I addressed it.

Now you're bringing up my definition of "I". We're talking about consciousness. Stick to the agenda and address the points of my 2 previous posts.

Iacchus

11th February 2006, 05:21 PM

Or generating from itself. The reason you think these signals are so "inextricably" bound is because you don't fully understand what humanity (specifically medical science) understands about the brain.And medical science knows very little if, nothing about spiritual matters.

SuperCoolGuy

11th February 2006, 05:26 PM

And medical science knows very little if, nothing about spiritual matters.

You're talking about consciousness, sense of self, dreams, sensory perception, signal processing, the brain. Medical science knows plenty.

Iacchus

11th February 2006, 05:30 PM

You're talking about consciousness, sense of self, dreams, sensory perception, signal processing, the brain. Medical science knows plenty.I'm sure medical science knows plenty about the brain. An interesting apparatus I might add.

SuperCoolGuy

11th February 2006, 05:33 PM

Detecting or generating. You seem to have a consistent problem making that distinction. Hallucinations are generated within the visual cortex without signals from the eye. The brain is capable of generating a lot on its own.

Based on what? How do you know the brain "channels" consciousness as oopose to generates consciousness. If it was a channel, then consciousness comes from some other source than the brain, and should be detectable by means other than a brain outside of the brain.

You are trying to make the brain be a "processor" only, incapable of generating the senses, much less the sense of "self". Hence, the sense of self, in your mind, must come from some other place, just like an image comes from the eyes.

But ask yourself, is a person who is blind their entire lives able to form a mental image even though their eyes have never sent a single image to the brain? The answer is: yes they can, thanks to various parts within the cerebral cortex and the ability to detect external stimuli through hearing and feeling. They can still "see" in their minds, forming maps, mental constructs and models.

The sense of self or consciousness is mostly routed in the thalmus. Damage to the thalmus can create a loss of sense of one's self. Persistent vegitative state studies have shown that enough damage to the thalmus (with even 0% damage to the cerebral cortex) can render a human into a living vegetable, capable of detecting and processing external signals but with no definable conscious.

Consciousness has been shown to require communication between the thalmus and the cerebral cortex. In other words, consciousness requires some information from external senses into order to form a definition of self. The brain (thalmus) defines self based on external/processed signals (cortex).

Consciousness is GENERATED. Don't believe me? Read a neuroscience textbook on the thalmus and cerebral cortex.

If you want to convince me that it is channeled, I'd like to know where the evidence is.

In case you missed it.

Iacchus

11th February 2006, 05:43 PM

In case you missed it.Outside of our ability to dectect these signals (as of yet), none of what you're saying here is out bounds with what I'm talking about. The brain would pretty much have to function in the same way in order to do what I'm suggesting.

SuperCoolGuy

11th February 2006, 05:48 PM

When you dream, and the signals from the bodily senses are overriden, you are immersed into another realm. This is why we also remain conscious in our dreams ... well, at least in my opinion. ;)

The other realm you speak of is completely brain generated.

You and I should agree on this point then.

SuperCoolGuy

11th February 2006, 05:55 PM

Outside of our ability to dectect these signals (as of yet), none of what you're saying here is out bounds with what I'm talking about. The brain would pretty much have to function in the same way in order to do what I'm suggesting.

Except that you are suggesting that consciousness is externally generated and channeled into the brain.

I am saying that consciousness is internally generated based on external sources limited to the capabilities of the cerebral cortex (sight, smell, touch, taste, feel).

External signal detection is limited to what the cerebral cortex processing capabilities. Thus, the thalmus can generate a consciousness based ONLY on what the cortex sends to the thalmus.

Can we agree on that, then.

Iacchus

11th February 2006, 05:57 PM

Consciousness is GENERATED. Don't believe me? Read a neuroscience textbook on the thalmus and cerebral cortex.Yes, I believe that consciousness is generated, but not within the brain.

If you want to convince me that it is channeled, I'd like to know where the evidence is.On the other side of matter of course. Take for example our dreams. How do they in any way constitute a material reality? Yet it would seem we are perfectly capable of becoming conscious within the dream landscape as well.

Whydoe

11th February 2006, 06:03 PM

On the other side of matter of course. Take for example our dreams. How do they in any way constitute a material reality? Yet it would seem we are perfectly capable of becoming conscious within the dream landscape as well.

Wow. This reminds me of my first post about out of body experiences. Just so happened that my brain fell on the floor and walked away. Hate it when that happens.

SuperCoolGuy

11th February 2006, 06:04 PM

I can guess that you WANT to BELIEVE that the brain is receiving external signals other than what medical science is aware of, and it is those signals which you BELIEVE defines "consciousness".

No dice. Hence you say:

And medical science knows very little if, nothing about spiritual matters.

Tell me how to detect those other signals using a device other than the brain to prove its existence.

Smell is electrochemical. Sight is photoelectrical. Feeling is electrochemical-mechanical. Hearing is acoustic-electrical. Taste is electrochemical. All can be studied/manipulated/tested/imitated.

I say consciousness has its origins in those senses.

Give hard evidence to the contrary or give specific evidence of another "external sense". Otherwise, I'm done.

Iacchus

11th February 2006, 06:09 PM

Except that you are suggesting that consciousness is externally generated and channeled into the brain.Well, the brain certainly doesn't maintain consciousness when you die does it? So, where does it go?

I am saying that consciousness is internally generated based on external sources limited to the capabilities of the cerebral cortex (sight, smell, touch, taste, feel).Yet wouldn't it be so much easier to say that consciousness was a piece of the greater puzzle as a whole? Then there would be no need to add anything, except to say that the brain reproduces/entertains it so to speak.

External signal detection is limited to what the cerebral cortex processing capabilities. Thus, the thalmus can generate a consciousness based ONLY on what the cortex sends to the thalmus.

Can we agree on that, then.We could be speaking of very subtle frequencies, genereated at the DNA level.

SuperCoolGuy

11th February 2006, 06:09 PM

Yes, I believe that consciousness is generated, but not within the brain.

On the other side of matter of course. Take for example our dreams. How do they in any way constitute a material reality? Yet it would seem we are perfectly capable of becoming conscious within the dream landscape as well.

Where is the other side of matter. There is no other side of matter.

Dreams are PHYSICALLY site specific neurons firing within your visual cortex and thalmus. You're dreams are materialistically electrons. Being conscious in a dream landscape doesn't it make the dream landscape real. The reality are the chemical-electrical reactions. The dream is a construct based on those firing of the electrons.

Narnia is not real. However, the construct seems real because books and movies are made that depict aspects of it. That construct is built out of videotape, ink, and paper. The videotape, ink and paper are real. Narnia is not.

SuperCoolGuy

11th February 2006, 06:12 PM

Well, the brain certainly doesn't maintain consciousness when you die does it? So, where does it go?

Ceases to exist.

Yet wouldn't it be so much easier to say that consciousness was a piece of the greater puzzle as a whole?

It'd be nice, whatever, so what?

Whydoe

11th February 2006, 06:14 PM

If I could interject something. I find it funny, no matter how many forums you go to, there are arguments where someone has a belief that no matter what someone else says, they will still believe.
I believe that if you went to any library and read every book cover to cover you would still be confused about what is true or false. Does anyone get what I'm saying? Unless the last book you read is Curious George - then at least you would be ok.

SuperCoolGuy

11th February 2006, 06:14 PM

We could be speaking of very subtle frequencies, genereated at the DNA level.

Are you speaking about phonons within the molecules? Plasmons through pi bonds between molecules?

What "frequencies" are you refering to, and please provide a source.

Iacchus

11th February 2006, 06:20 PM

I say consciousness has its origins in those senses. If you understood that the matrix of reality was defined by a conscious mind, you would be correct.

Give hard evidence to the contrary or give specific evidence of another "external sense".I'm wondering how atoms get their "cue," when it comes to their atomic weight. Does it have anything to do with matter?

Otherwise, I'm done.Frankly, I think you were done, before you got started. ;)

Iacchus

11th February 2006, 06:32 PM

Are you speaking about phonons within the molecules? Plasmons through pi bonds between molecules?

What "frequencies" are you refering to, and please provide a source.No, I don't claim to have all the details here. But I'm thinking more along the lines of a cable box on TV. Where each of these can be programmed specifically with its own address, and block out all the other signals it was not intended to receive. This way, each of us would be able to maintain our own identity (and/or soul) with our respective bodies.

SuperCoolGuy

11th February 2006, 06:32 PM

I'm wondering how atoms get their "cue," when it comes to their atomic weight. Does it have anything to do with matter?

I asked for evidence of other external sources. Instead, you give me that statement above.

Wow.

Between your "subtle DNA frequencies" and belief that "atoms need a "cue" to define atomic weight" is a glaring fact, here:

You have no freaking clue what the heck you're talking about.

Good night and good luck. Holy crap.

Wow.

SuperCoolGuy

11th February 2006, 06:33 PM

No, I don't claim to have all the details here.

Then don't ridicule medical science, or science in general for that matter, just because it doesn't support your BELIEFS.

Done.

Iacchus

11th February 2006, 06:37 PM

Then don't ridicule medical science, or science in general for that matter, just because it doesn't support your BELIEFS.

Done.As I said, medical science knows little or nothing about spiritual matters.

Bodhi Dharma Zen

11th February 2006, 07:00 PM

Wow.

Between your "subtle DNA frequencies" and belief that "atoms need a "cue" to define atomic weight" is a glaring fact, here:

You have no freaking clue what the heck you're talking about.

Good night and good luck. Holy crap.

Wow.

Exactly. WOW. I read him just to try to understand how on earth can someone be so stubborn. The "believe system" seems to be runing in circles in some guys, they simply cant see the facts from a different perspective. I bet this is the same mechanism that "protects" religious nuts, everything has an "explanation" inside their heads. It is astonishing.

Mercutio

11th February 2006, 07:14 PM

As I said, medical science knows little or nothing about spiritual matters.
You know little or nothing about medical science, and can communicate little or nothing about spiritual matters. This is amply demonstrated in your posting here. You claim that you "don't claim to have all the details"; in truth, you do not have any of the details, nor any of the big picture.

I'd ask you to produce even one peer-reviewed scientific article that agrees with your view, but you and I both know that none exist.

If you stuck to "spiritual matters", you could make all the silly claims you like and no one would care, but you continue to make empirical claims which are quite simply wrong.

"very subtle frequencies, genereated at the DNA level"...absolutely hilarious.

Tricky

12th February 2006, 05:46 AM

As I said, medical science knows little or nothing about spiritual matters.
Though Merc addressed this, I can't resist chiming in too.

You know, that's okay. Science doesn't know and doesn't address spiritual matters. It is a pity that spiritual people like yourself cannot grant the same favor to science. Instead, many make statements about science like;We could be speaking of very subtle frequencies, genereated at the DNA level. This is, scientifically, a nonsense statement by a person who knows little or nothing about science. So if you want to prattle away about your imaginary world, that's fine. If you make statements about the real world, you will be contradicted by those who actually have some knowledge of such things.

Iacchus

12th February 2006, 11:49 PM

Does anyone understand what it means to build a bridge? I can assure you, I have no problem understanding what side of the chasm I stand on.

Tricky

13th February 2006, 04:51 AM

Does anyone understand what it means to build a bridge?
It's one thing you can do to prove if someone is a witch.
I can assure you.
Out of wood or stone?
I have no problem understanding what side of the chasm I stand on.
What is your favorite color?

Mercutio

13th February 2006, 05:58 AM

Does anyone understand what it means to build a bridge? I can assure you, I have no problem understanding what side of the chasm I stand on.
Interesting...Blackmore uses the "bridge across the chasm" metaphor in her talk. Does this mean you are actually watching it? Do you understand why she dismisses the chasm as illusory? Do you understand the evidence that leads her to this conclusion?

Do you weigh the same as a duck?

Iacchus

13th February 2006, 06:21 AM

Interesting...Blackmore uses the "bridge across the chasm" metaphor in her talk. Does this mean you are actually watching it? Do you understand why she dismisses the chasm as illusory? Do you understand the evidence that leads her to this conclusion?

Do you weigh the same as a duck?No, I wasn't aware that she used this. The chasm represents ignorance, and it truly does exist, at least this is how it would be perceived if we were spirits. And no, there is no bridge between you and I on this matter, because you fail to recognize my position and/or treat it equally. Obviously, because you believe there are "no grounds" for it. ;)

Tricky

13th February 2006, 06:27 AM

Bodhi Dharma Zen

13th February 2006, 06:34 AM

Come on Iacchus, your apparent equanimity is boring. Do you honestly believe that you are right no matter what? That the way you reason is sound? That your logic processes are flawless?

Honestly???

Mercutio

13th February 2006, 06:34 AM

No, I wasn't aware that she used this. The chasm represents ignorance, and it truly does exist, at least this is how it would be perceived if we were spirits. And no, there is no bridge between you and I on this matter, because you fail to recognize my position and/or treat it equally. Obviously, because you believe there are "no grounds" for it. ;)
The reason I do not treat your position equally is that I do understand it. In fact, given that I have examined it critically and can see the internal contradictions and opposition to evidence and circular reasoning, I would argue (and be correct) that I understand your position considerably better than you do yourself.

The chasm between brain and "mind" could be termed ignorance, although in truth the chasm is created by the ignorant assumptions about the nature of "mind", rather than by our lack of knowledge about the putative connections between brain and mind. If we search the Adirondacks for Rumplestiltskin, search every square inch and do not find him, are we ignorant of his location, or were we ignorant in our assumption that he was there in the first place?

Mercutio

13th February 2006, 06:36 AM

Come on Iacchus, your apparent equanimity is boring. Do you honestly believe that you are right no matter what? That the way you reason is sound? That your logic processes are flawless?

Honestly???
He does not care if his logic is sound. If he is right, it does not matter whether the logic supports him or not.

And he assumes he is right, and avoids any information that might challenge that assumption.

Iacchus

13th February 2006, 07:18 AM

Lets see. You speak on scientific things without studying them. You speak of spiritual things without evidence. You make circular and vacuous statements. Which side of the "chasm of ignorance" are you on exactly?I think I answered this pretty well in the other thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1441650#post1441650).

Iacchus

13th February 2006, 07:20 AM

Mercutio

13th February 2006, 07:20 AM

I think I answered this pretty well in the other thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1441650#post1441650).
You really think so?

:jaw-dropp

Tricky

13th February 2006, 07:21 AM

I think I answered this pretty well in the other thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1441650#post1441650).
LOL. You think that? Well, you do have a lot of fantasies, don't you.

Bodhi Dharma Zen

13th February 2006, 07:40 AM

From the standpoint of standing on the other side of this chasm, yes.

What are you talking about? Another reality? A different point of view?

Iacchus

13th February 2006, 07:47 AM

You really think so?

:jaw-droppYes, I could be completey wrong. Is that what you would have me say?

Iacchus

13th February 2006, 08:00 AM

LOL. You think that? Well, you do have a lot of fantasies, don't you.And if what you say is true, who cares whether I entertain them or not, for they will have amounted to nothing after I die.

Iacchus

13th February 2006, 09:36 AM

What are you talking about? Another reality? A different point of view?I'm speaking of a point of view which stems from another reality, yes.

Tricky

13th February 2006, 09:41 AM

And if what you say is true, who cares whether I entertain them or not, for they will have amounted to nothing after I die.
No great loss. They don't amount to very much even now. But as to why I care, the reason is that there is something in me that hates to see BS philosophy go unchallenged. Call it a hobby.

Genesius

13th February 2006, 09:43 AM

The brain is what channels consciousness ... as pertains to our spirit and/or soul.

First, show some evidence that you have a soul.

Not your usual mystical blathering. Evidence.

Iacchus

13th February 2006, 09:44 AM

No great loss. They don't amount to very much even now. But as to why I care, the reason is that there is something in me that hates to see BS philosophy go unchallenged. Call it a hobby.So what, your fantasies will amount to nothing when you die too. And you can ask Bodhi Dharma Zen. :D

Iacchus

13th February 2006, 09:49 AM

First, show some evidence that you have a soul.

Not your usual mystical blathering. Evidence.The fact that I might resond to any of your insuating nonsense is not evidence? If there was nothing conscious and intelligent here to reply, then no.

Genesius

13th February 2006, 09:52 AM

The fact that I might resond to any of your insuating nonsense is not evidence? If there was nothing conscious and intelligent here to reply, then no.

A spirit/soul is not necessary to craft a reply. A material brain does the job quite nicely.

Iacchus

13th February 2006, 09:55 AM

A spirit/soul is not necessary to craft a reply. A material brain does the job quite nicely.A brain with or without consciousness? So yes, it requires more than just "a brain."

Tricky

13th February 2006, 09:58 AM

So what, your fantasies will amount to nothing when you die too. And you can ask Bodhi Dharma Zen. :D
Yes. I know. It doesn't bother me.

Genesius

13th February 2006, 09:59 AM

A brain with or without consciousness? So yes, it requires more than just "a brain."

Proof? Show some evidence that "conciousness" is totally separate from the brain.

Again, evidence, not "I'm a mystic and I say so, so that's the way it is."

kmortis

13th February 2006, 10:13 AM

Genesuis,
I think the following quote sums it up nicely...

CHARLIE BROWN:
Oh, Good Grief! (He exits, from off stage there is a hollow thumping sound.)

LINUS:
Why is Charlie Brown banging his head against that tree?

LUCY:
To loosen the bark to make the tree grow faster!

From here (http://www.theatre-musical.com/charliebrown/libretto2.html)

SuperCoolGuy

13th February 2006, 10:19 AM

A brain with or without consciousness? So yes, it requires more than just "a brain."

To anyone else out there:

Did I make it clear enough why consciousness is completely from the brain in this thread. I just want to make sure I'm arguing correctly.

Genesius

13th February 2006, 10:23 AM

Genesuis,
I think the following quote sums it up nicely...

From here (http://www.theatre-musical.com/charliebrown/libretto2.html)

Yeah, arguing with Iacchus is why I asked the Powers That Be to add this smilie: :bwall

Just because it feel so good when I stop. . .

Genesius

13th February 2006, 10:24 AM

To anyone else out there:

Did I make it clear enough why consciousness is completely from the brain in this thread. I just want to make sure I'm arguing correctly.

To you, me, and anyone else capable of logical thought, yes.

If you want to get through to Iacchus, you need to find a website with an English to Mystical Gibberish translator.

Iacchus

13th February 2006, 10:38 AM

Wow, it seems like I was only gone for a few minutes? :confused:

SuperCoolGuy

13th February 2006, 11:06 AM

To you, me, and anyone else capable of logical thought, yes.

Thank you.

I've come to realize discussing anything with Iacchus is merely an exercise in mental masochism.

Genesius

13th February 2006, 11:09 AM

Thank you.

I've come to realize discussing anything with Iacchus is merely an exercise in mental masochism.
I suggest you practice using the following smilies:

:confused:

:jaw-dropp

:crazy:

:dl:

:hb:

:bwall

And if he gets to be too much, there's one more useful smilie:

:alc:

Iacchus

13th February 2006, 11:12 AM

Proof? Show some evidence that "conciousness" is totally separate from the brain.

Again, evidence, not "I'm a mystic and I say so, so that's the way it is."Obviously consciousness resides within the brain, so in that sense they are not separate. Whereas if they were "inseparable," why doesn't it remain within the brain when a person dies? And why do we so often refer to this person as "no longer being home" when this happens? Surely this is evidence in favor of "a soul."

You have your evidence.

Genesius

13th February 2006, 11:19 AM

Obviously consciousness resides within the brain, so in that sense they are not separate. Whereas if they were "inseparable," why doesn't it remain within the brain when a person dies?

It does. When the brain dies, so does the consciousness. Game over.

And why do we so often refer to this person as "no longer being home" when this happens? Surely this is evidence in favor of "a soul."
When we think someone is very stupid, we say "The lights are on but nobody's home". By your line of reasoning, stupid people have no soul.

You have your evidence.
:jaw-dropp
You actually consider that evidence. Amazing. . .

Iacchus

13th February 2006, 11:28 AM

It does. When the brain dies, so does the consciousness. Game over.No, the fact that consciousness is no longer there, is evidence that it no longer resides in the brain.

When we think someone is very stupid, we say "The lights are on but nobody's home". By your line of reasoning, stupid people have no soul.Yes, we should be very careful about making such accusations against other people.

:jaw-dropp
You actually consider that evidence. Amazing. . .Yes, and if I were in a court of law, this is the very evidence (amongst other things) I would use to argue on behalf of my case.

Genesius

13th February 2006, 11:37 AM

No, the fact that consciousness is no longer there, is evidence that it no longer resides in the brain.

No, the fact that the consciousness is no longer there is evidence that it has been snuffed out like a candle flame.

I know you want to believe that "you" will continue after your body dies, but remember the old saying: "Wishing don't make it so."

Iacchus

13th February 2006, 11:52 AM

No, the fact that the consciousness is no longer there is evidence that it has been snuffed out like a candle flame.I think we both can conclude that it's no longer there.

I know you want to believe that "you" will continue after your body dies, but remember the old saying: "Wishing don't make it so."And when's the last time you talked to a candle and it replied? When's the last time you talked to somebody on the phone, and they hung up on you? Now, just because they hung up on you, does that mean they are no longer conscious?

Tricky

13th February 2006, 12:05 PM

When's the last time you talked to somebody on the phone, and they hung up on you? Now, just because they hung up on you, does that mean they are no longer conscious?
There are a number of ways you could find out whether or not their consciousness still existed. You could try calling them back. If they lived near, you could go over and see them. You could even hire a detective to find if their consciousness still exists. But how do you go about finding if a dead person's consciousness exists? Private eyes work for a few hundred or perhaps thousand dollars. If you could prove post-life consciousness you could get a million dollars.

Do you see now how ridiculous your analogy is?

Genesius

13th February 2006, 12:08 PM

And when's the last time you talked to a candle and it replied? When's the last time you talked to somebody on the phone, and they hung up on you? Now, just because they hung up on you, does that mean they are no longer conscious?

:jaw-dropp

Holy false analogy, Batman!

We were discussing what happens to consciousness when someone dies. Unless the person on the other end of the phone dropped dead and hung up the phone as their dying act, your statement is a total non sequitur.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to come back to the "Who (or what) created the creator? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=51953)" thread and explain why you felt the need to ask me if I'm a fascist. . .

Iacchus

13th February 2006, 12:08 PM

There are a number of ways you could find out whether or not their consciousness still existed. You could try calling them back. If they lived near, you could go over and see them. You could even hire a detective to find if their consciousness still exists. But how do you go about finding if a dead person's consciousness exists? Private eyes work for a few hundred or perhaps thousand dollars. If you could prove post-life consciousness you could get a million dollars.

Do you see now how ridiculous your analogy is?How does this compare to talking to a candle? Are candles conscious?

Genesius

13th February 2006, 12:10 PM

How does this compare to talking to a candle? Are candles conscious?

<sigh> Back to playing word games. . .

Tricky

13th February 2006, 12:12 PM

How does this compare to talking to a candle? Is a canlde conscious?
Nobody said anything about talking to a candle except you. Genesius used the analogy "snuffed out like a candle" to indicate that the consciousness was extinguished, not moved. For someone who uses so many analogies, you are remarkably poor at understanding them.

Iacchus

13th February 2006, 12:15 PM

Nobody said anything about talking to a candle except you. Genesius used the analogy "snuffed out like a candle" to indicate that the consciousness was extinguished, not moved. For someone who uses so many analogies, you are remarkably poor at understanding them.The body is a means by which to express consciousness which, happens to reside in the brain. When the brain dies, there is no more consciousness ... within the body. This is all you can hope to claim.

Genesius

13th February 2006, 12:18 PM

The body is a means by which to express consciousness ... which, happes to reside in brain. When the brain dies, there is no more consciousness ... within the body.

Or outside of it, either.

Yes, we know you believe conciousness continues to exist. But still, your only "evidence" comes from false analogies and wordplay.

And I'm still waiting for your explanation why you asked me if I'm a fascist. . .

Iacchus

13th February 2006, 12:28 PM

:jaw-dropp

Holy false analogy, Batman!

We were discussing what happens to consciousness when someone dies. Unless the person on the other end of the phone dropped dead and hung up the phone as their dying act, your statement is a total non sequitur.The fact is, there is no evidence of consciousness in either case. The body, like the phone, is merely a means by which consciousness is expressed.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to come back to the "Who (or what) created the creator? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=51953)" thread and explain why you felt the need to ask me if I'm a fascist. . .Look up the words fascim (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=fascism) and oppression (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=oppression).

Tricky

13th February 2006, 12:29 PM

The body is a means by which to express consciousness which, happens to reside in the brain. When the brain dies, there is no more consciousness ... within the body. This is all you can hope to claim.
It is all I do claim, and it is based on the evidence that the properties we call consciousness only have ever been observed in living, corporeal beings. I point out that there is no evidence for a consciousness that survives the body, but I do not claim it is impossible. It is your claim that consciousness does survive the death of the body. What evidence do you have for this claim?

Bodhi Dharma Zen

13th February 2006, 12:30 PM

Thank you.

I've come to realize discussing anything with Iacchus is merely an exercise in mental masochism.

LOL! Yes. Im always amazed.

SuperCoolGuy

13th February 2006, 12:32 PM

What evidence do you have for this claim.

Here comes an analogy . . .

Bodhi Dharma Zen

13th February 2006, 12:32 PM

The body is a means by which to express consciousness which, happens to reside in the brain. When the brain dies, there is no more consciousness ... within the body. This is all you can hope to claim.

Sure, and all you have to do is demonstrate that there is this "signal" called consciousness WITHOUT A BRAIN. How? its easy, just tell us how else we can "tune" it!

Genesius

13th February 2006, 12:33 PM

The fact is, there is no evidence of consciousness in either case. The body, like the phone, is merely a means by which consciousness is expressed.
Proof?

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to come back to the "Who (or what) created the creator? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=51953)" thread and explain why you felt the need to ask me if I'm a fascist. . .
Look up the words fascim (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=fascism) and oppression (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=oppression).
Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.Main Entry: op·pres·sion
Pronunciation: &-'pre-sh&n
Function: noun
: an unjust or excessive exercise of power: as a : unlawful, wrongful, or corrupt exercise of authority by a public official acting under color of authority that causes a person harm b : dishonest, unfair, wrongful, or burdensome conduct by corporate directors or majority shareholders that entitles minority shareholders to compel involuntary dissolution of the corporation c : inequality of bargaining power resulting in one party's lack of ability to negotiate or exercise meaningful choice

OK, so what's any of that got to do with me?

SuperCoolGuy

13th February 2006, 12:34 PM

The body, like the phone, is merely a means by which consciousness is expressed.

The subtle DNA frequencies would be an expression of that consciousness as something that is channled from a dream realm where consciousness can exist free on any need for a body.

Don't you guys get it!

Genesius

13th February 2006, 12:35 PM

The subtle DNA frequencies would be an expression of that consciousness as something that is channled from a dream realm where consciousness can exist free on any need for a body.

Don't you guys get it!

You're treading dangerous ground! Iacchus is incapable of detecting parody or satire.

SuperCoolGuy

13th February 2006, 12:40 PM

You're treading dangerous ground! Iacchus is incapable of detecting parody or satire.

I'm sorry. It was way too much fun for me to pass up. Okay, I'll try to stop. Sorry.

Iacchus

13th February 2006, 12:41 PM

Sure, and all you have to do is demonstrate that there is this "signal" called consciousness WITHOUT A BRAIN. How? its easy, just tell us how else we can "tune" it!Look at someone who is in a coma. Where does this mysterious thing called consciousness go at that time? And then, only to have that person who, was "no longer home," return (sometimes, not always) with some remarkable religious experience to speak of. This is in fact evidence in favor "a soul."

Tricky

13th February 2006, 12:41 PM

OK, so what's any of that got to do with me?

This one
Main Entry: op·pres·sion

c : inequality of bargaining power resulting in one party's lack of ability to negotiate or exercise meaningful choice.
He is oppressed because he lacks the ability to negotiate or excercise meaningful choice. And it's your fault, you big bully.

Tricky

13th February 2006, 12:43 PM

Look at someone who is in a coma. Where does this mysterious thing called consciousness go at that time? Then only to have that person who, was "no longer home," return (sometimes, not always) with some remarkable religious experience to speak of. This is in fact evidence in favor "a soul."
It's evidence that when they're in a coma (or in deep sleep) the parts of the brain that generate what we call consciousness are not working. In fact, doctors often induce a coma. It's a physical thing, not spiritual, Iacchus.

Genesius

13th February 2006, 12:48 PM

Look at someone who is in a coma. Where does this mysterious thing called consciousness go at that time? And then, only to have that person who, was "no longer home," return (sometimes, not always) with some remarkable religious experience to speak of. This is in fact evidence in favor "a soul."
Since consciousness is a product of the electrochemical activity of the brain, when said activity is supressed while in a coma so is the consciousness. When the patient's condition improves and the activity of the brain increases, so does the level of consciousness.

Since not everyone who recovers from a coma has a "remarkable religious experience" I'd say that's pretty weak evidence for a soul. Could just as well be explained as a dream or hallucination.

But of course the logical explanation is the most boring, which I suppose is why you can't be bothered with it.

Genesius

13th February 2006, 12:49 PM

He is oppressed because he lacks the ability to negotiate or excercise meaningful choice. And it's your fault, you big bully.

:D And since I'm 6'6" and built like a retired NFL lineman there's not a heck of a lot he can do about it, is there?

Iacchus

13th February 2006, 12:52 PM

OK, so what's any of that got to do with me?I don't know, I'm not the one who goes around calling folks vacuous twits just because I don't agree with and/or find the need to oppress someone else's view.

Iacchus

13th February 2006, 12:53 PM

:D And since I'm 6'6" and built like a retired NFL lineman there's not a heck of a lot he can do about it, is there?Pride goeth before the fall.

Genesius

13th February 2006, 12:56 PM

I don't know, I'm not the one who goes around calling folks vacuous twits just because I don't agree with and/or find the need to oppress someone else's view.

I'm not oppressing anyone's point of view. I call you a vacuous twit because you use lousy analogies and word games to justify your beliefs instead of using more pedantic tools like "logic" and "evidence".

And I at least have the courage to call you a vacuous twit to your face, instead of making vague comments about fascism.

Iacchus

13th February 2006, 12:56 PM

It's evidence that when they're in a coma (or in deep sleep) the parts of the brain that generate what we call consciousness are not working. In fact, doctors often induce a coma. It's a physical thing, not spiritual, Iacchus.Which of course only illustrates that the body is vessel which houses consciousness.

SuperCoolGuy

13th February 2006, 12:57 PM

Since consciousness is a product of the electrochemical activity of the brain, when said activity is supressed while in a coma so is the consciousness. When the patient's condition improves and the activity of the brain increases, so does the level of consciousness.

Since not everyone who recovers from a coma has a "remarkable religious experience" I'd say that's pretty weak evidence for a soul. Could just as well be explained as a dream or hallucination.

But of course the logical explanation is the most boring, which I suppose is why you can't be bothered with it.

In case you missed it.

Iacchus

13th February 2006, 12:59 PM

I'm not oppressing anyone's point of view. I call you a vacuous twit because you use lousy analogies and word games to justify your beliefs instead of using more pedantic tools like "logic" and "evidence".I suppose I could register a complaint with moderators and see what they have to say about it.

And I at least have the courage to call you a vacuous twit to your face, instead of making vague comments about fascism."Live long and prosper."

Genesius

13th February 2006, 12:59 PM

In case you missed it.

Sorry, Iacchus is much too spiritually advanced to consider the deranged ramblings of a fascist like me. But thanks for trying.

:p

Genesius

13th February 2006, 01:00 PM

I suppose I could register a complaint with moderators and see what they have to say about it.

Have fun.

Iacchus

13th February 2006, 01:03 PM

And I at least have the courage to call you a vacuous twit to your face, instead of making vague comments about fascism.Yes vague, because I don't generally go around calling people fascist swine.

Iacchus

13th February 2006, 01:04 PM

Have fun.Yes, I just did report your post.

Genesius

13th February 2006, 01:08 PM

Yes, I just did report your post.

Hmmm. . . no big "Warned Post" sign on any of my posts.

Ah well, I shall just wait here for the wrath of the moderators to fall upon me like a thunderbolt.

Bodhi Dharma Zen

13th February 2006, 01:13 PM

Which of course only illustrates that the body is vessel which houses consciousness.

Ladies and Gentleman. He is just teasing us. I might add that he does a pretty good job as he is keeping us here, answering his questions.

One respectable member will ask him. - Its the number one, see the shape Iacchus?

- Nope, thats number two.

Our respectable member will insist - Ok, lets try another strategy, ask someone who knows, like a mathematician.

- They are wrong, thats not number one, its number two.

Our dear and respectable member will ask for a third time. - Lets try another thing. This is the number 1, do you see it now?

- Nope, you are wrong. Thats number two.

SuperCoolGuy

13th February 2006, 01:24 PM

Ladies and Gentleman. He is just teasing us. I might add that he does a pretty good job as he is keeping us here, answering his questions.

So true BDZ, so true.

Mercutio

13th February 2006, 01:26 PM

Which of course only illustrates that the body is vessel which houses consciousness.
...and when we blow out a candle's flame, where does it go? It is clearly no longer there, and since candles only channel flame that arrives as a signal from somewhere else, it clearly is returning to that place when you blow it out!

I could be completey wrong. Is that what you would have me say? Um...I don't think anyone here is hazy on the concept that you might be wrong. The trick is, there is a chance you are right. How would you know if you were? How could we? This is what is important. If you are right, we need to re-interpret several hundred years of biology and physics, and over a century of psychology, in order to see how what we thought we understood was actually wrong. If you are right, it will be the biggest revolution in thought since Einstein, or perhaps since Copernicus. But of course, it is possible that you are right. All we need is evidence. We don't need any more evidence that you could be wrong. There is plenty of that. You don't need to acquiesce to that...but it would be nice to see the first bit of evidence that you are right.

Oh...and 2 more things. Reminders, really. You are lapsing back into your favorite circular arguments (such as "obviously you need consciousness for your brain to work, and when you are unconscious, your consciousness has left for another plane", that sort of thing), and I know you really don't want to use circular arguments...and secondly, despite saying it isn't all that important, you are once more making claims of fact about things you have refused to look at the factual evidence for. The things you say are quite simply wrong, and demonstrably so, after repeated offers of information through which you could correct your misstatements.

An accurate description of what you do here is very different from an insult; in this case, confusion might be understandable.