233 replies to this topic

[Mattshark]

Karlis, on 20 May 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

Those were the standards of those days Matt. Progress has been made there.

Why are you ignoring the positive aspects of stability of society?

Because it is a myth quite frankly.

[Seeker79]

Mr Right Wing, on 20 May 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

There is and always has been documented NDEs where consciousness without brain activitiy has been proved - http://www.near-deat...m/evidence.html

The problem is it threatens some peoples world view so they convince themselves there is no evidence.

Yes I know. Pardimes are extremely hard to change and probably rightly so. Unfortunately as Max Planck and others warned us. It takes the death of the clingers of old age before things change. That's fine. At least most of them are enlightened enough not to show at my door and try to kill me for working on the truth. At least those days are pretty much behind us.

Edited by Seeker79, 20 May 2012 - 04:28 PM.

[Seeker79]

Mattshark, on 20 May 2012 - 04:06 PM, said:

Yes that is exactly what you are doing.

Why don't you try addressing the actual argument?

[_Only]

Leonardo, on 20 May 2012 - 04:17 PM, said:

There is something rather ironic in an argument proposing that reality is entirely subjective, yet accusing another of not believing that.

I didn't accuse him of not believing that. He said so, which is what I replied to. It's his continued attack on others realities, which he implies don't exist, that brought the need for me to say it. Context.

[Mattshark]

_Only, on 20 May 2012 - 04:20 PM, said:

What the heck are you talking about? This is a thread about what might be behind out of body experiences and consciousness, which has nothing to do with medicine, cancer, or seedless watermelons, and has not been "cured" through science. Stop making this connection in order to further your points here. It doesn't work, and is downright silly.



Yes, because realizing that my perception of all around me is my reality is ignorant and pure conjecture. And this has provided me nothing. I'm starting to get dizzy from going in needless circles with you.

But be sure to reply back with another unrelated thing to the topic that science has done. Because that is totally what this thread is about.

Sorry, I thought you could keep up with the conversation, apparently I was mistaken.
You were arguing for conjecture and why you thought it was relevant and as good as science, I pointed out it isn't and that science has done significantly more for society, gave examples, you sulked and forgot about context .

Mr Right Wing, on 20 May 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

There is and always has been documented NDEs where consciousness without brain activitiy has been proved - http://www.near-deat...m/evidence.html

The problem is it threatens some peoples world view so they convince themselves there is no evidence.

That is not evidence, it is someone making a unsubstantiated claim. Nothing more.

Seeker79, on 20 May 2012 - 04:24 PM, said:

How so?

I think I have pointed that out numerous times, you amusingly then accused me of what you have been doing. You think that considering the brain to be an antenna for consciousness with no detected incoming signal and a significantly less parsimonious explanation it as valid as the brain being the cause for consciousness with a large volume of evidence to suggest so because you think your personal experience is evidence. Guess what, it isn't. Experience is not evidence, is too mailable to suggestion, too subjective especially when knowledge is lacking, it is the nature of the brain to form (a commonly illogical) explanation.

[Copasetic]

eight bits, on 20 May 2012 - 03:32 AM, said:

Might a physicist be able and allowed to contribute some insight to the questions before us? A philosopher? A mathematician? An engineer? Who's on your black list? Anybody who hasn't studied biology recently has been proposed. What's yours?

Sure, but if you want the nuts on human consciousness I'm not putting my money in with the physicists. Just like if I want the nuts on quantum chromodynamics I'm sure as hell not looking for a biologist.

eight bits, on 20 May 2012 - 03:32 AM, said:

For Max Planck? I think he can take care of himself. For ChloeB, who brought Planck into the conversation? I know she can take care of herself. For all my fellow non-biologists who would venture an opinion about the relation between matter and consciousness, but might be intimidated by  the refined prose stylings somebody picked up dockside? Yeah, I'll stand up against that. But could I have that armor in red, please? Thanks.

Sorry mang, this just in from the warehouse. Were out of white and red. Pink is the only color available

Seeker79, on 20 May 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

I challenge anyone to offer any tid bit of evidence that the brain generates consciousness that can not be applied to the brain receiving consciousness. Anyone?

I did previously. I pointed some things out. I'd start with reading about the reticular activating system.

Seeker79, on 20 May 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

Just what is the evidence that conciousness arises in the brain. Don't say drugs, trauma, etc. those things will effect a generator just as much as an antenna.

If a cell phone is a receiver of the message and not the generator, then it ought to be possible to pick (either accidentally or intentionally) on the incoming message from time to time. This happens, used to happen to one of my cell phones all the time--Where I'd pick up others conversations. Likewise, you can tap into others incoming signals too.

If brains are just 'receivers' than that should happen too from time to time. Why aren't people waking up one day feeling like Seeker or Copasetic for a day? Because my consciousness isn't being beamed to my brain. The only way to circumvent the potential problem of mixed up signaling is special pleading on your part. So go ahead, lets hear the special pleading

Seeker79, on 20 May 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

It's simple. If the brain is the a generator then NDEs are just some highly accidental fluke. If its an Antenna then they are most probably exactly what they apear to be.

Why should that be a problem? Do you realize how many things that happen to you by way of your brain an accidental fluke? You looked at those neat optic illusions? Guess what, fluke. You ever been on a neurology ward? Guess what, whole bunch of flukiness going on there. Ever had a fasciculation? Fluke. Ever seen sparklers in your vision? Fluke. Ever had an itch when nothing was touching you? Fluke. Ever had pain in your shoulder and arm during a heart attack? Fluke. Ever had periumbilical pain during appendicitis? Fluke. Ever had a fever? Fluke. Ever hallucinated? Fluke. Ever had sleep paralysis? Fluke. Ever had thought a shaped looked like another person? Fluke.

Our biology is not perfect, despite what proponents of intelligent design might claim.

Seeker79, on 20 May 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

They may. Anestisia also affects memory aswell now dosnt it?

Yes/no. It depends on the type. Go back to my first post on this thread. Recall I said the brain has task-localized-specalization. Memory, a component of consciousness has different localizations than other aspects of consciousness. Ergo, some drugs can affect certain parts of consciousness while not affecting others.

For example arylcyclohexylamines, like ketamine since people were discussing it, works on NMDA receptors. If you would recall (or maybe you are unaware of) NMDA receptors potentiate glutamatine transduction in synaptic junctions--It is the main stimulatory neurotransmitter of the CNS. Which makes it very important for things like memory generation (tetanic stimuli of hippocampal neurons) and time-place associations (think mesolimbic areas of the brain). Hence blockade tends to generate amnesia and disassociation. However you can still be alert, because parts of the RAS are well and good which are using 5-HT (serotonin and derivatives) norepinephrine (NE). (note ketamine has pretty weak affects on memory though)

Conversely if I shot you full of fentanyl then cut you with a scalpel,  you wouldn't feel it, but you'd remember every second of it. Why? Mu receptors now, different populations of neurons.

See? Localization of tasks. That why brain pathology is unique compared to other organs.

Seeker79, on 20 May 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

Everyone dreams but most people don't remember them now do they?

Again, you have to look at what is active and what isn't. You were incorrect when you said you were learning when you were unconscious. Like Leo pointed out, REM sleep (when you dream) is really a different degree of consciousness, but you are conscious nonetheless. In fact when you are most alert during the day, your brain is characterized by beta waves on an EEG (think RAS, LC, etc again). When you are in REM sleep your brain is also characterized by beta waves. Just as if you were awake. Hence REM EEG patterns are referred to as pseudowaking patterns.

Why don't you remember your dreams then (or lots of people)? Because REM is when we consolidate memory (via protein production, an act of creation). To do this the parts of your brain for "long-term" storage are disconnected from the parts that generate consciousness. Back to the RAS again: predominating in the RAS is now ACh instead of NE. With NE levels down (think of it as the neurotransmitter that opposes REM) GABA levels rise in your basal ganglia and block your thalamus from sending input to your premotor and secondary motor areas of your cortex. In effect you are paralyzed. Why is this important? Because you are conscious enough that were that not to occur you'd actually get up and act out dreams without the luxury of having an active front lobe (executive functions) to make decisions for you (Note people who do sleepwalk etc, do so in stage 3/4 sleep--not REM).

[Rlyeh]

_Only, on 20 May 2012 - 03:32 PM, said:

[/background][/size][/font][/color]

It's a dissociative anesthetic that often has out of body experiences experienced with it was the point.

And hallucinations.

Quote

Anesthetics, whether they be hindering awareness to only certain parts of the brain, or the whole brain

Anesthesia suppresses brain functions that are attributed to consciousness and memory.

Quote

have odd experiences of consciousness connected with them. And out of body experiences are also common under general anesthesia.

OBEs aren't common to begin with, but you're trying to say they are common under anesthesia? Right..

[Copasetic]

Seeker79, on 20 May 2012 - 04:27 PM, said:

Yes I know. Pardimes are extremely hard to change and probably rightly so. Unfortunately as Max Planck and others warned us. It takes the death of the clingers of old age before things change. That's fine. At least most of them are enlightened enough not to show at my door and try to kill me for working on the truth. At least those days are pretty much behind us.

You better quit dicking around then and get yourself a PhD in neuroscience. Because I interact with  the up and coming neuroscientists, regularly. They are even less inclined to believe this "consciousness outside the brain" than the current "clingers of old age". You'll get a paradigm shift alright, just 180 degrees to what you guys are hoping.

Edit
Interestingly as I sit perched up on my terrace room above the library, over looking the grand atrium, there is a congregation of neuroscientists and their students presenting posters on neural cascades and DNA regulation in neurons. They've been here all weekend.

Maybe I'll mosey on down there to take advantage of the buffet (these kind symposiums food sucks compared to the grand rounds food tho ). Maybe I'll hackle a few PhD candidates and see if they are likely to spend their careers buying into this kind of fluff

Edited by Copasetic, 20 May 2012 - 05:14 PM.

[Rlyeh]

Seeker79, on 20 May 2012 - 03:51 PM, said:

There is not a shred of evidence that the brain is a producer of conciousness not a shred that cant be applied to a receiver as well.

Yeah, all those chemicals that act on the brain that alter or suppress consciousness, they aren't evidence of anything.

I have to laugh when someone presents supported evidence and real examples, only for you to come along in denial.

[Rlyeh]

Seeker79, on 20 May 2012 - 04:05 PM, said:

If we were to use the unsupported materialist assumption that an NDE is a dream, why is it now different that dreams not remembered still exist but NDEs not remembered dont?  There just dreams right?!?!? Seems to me like there are some extremely biased games being played, and completely erroneous assumptions.

Which materialists say its a dream? Oh right, you're making a straw man.

[_Only]

Mattshark, on 20 May 2012 - 04:55 PM, said:

Sorry, I thought you could keep up with the conversation, apparently I was mistaken.
You were arguing for conjecture and why you thought it was relevant and as good as science, I pointed out it isn't and that science has done significantly more for society, gave examples, you sulked and forgot about context .

That's the thing you're not getting. I was talking about his reality, not science. You're saying his reality is wrong; trying to push yours into his. And I attempted to stop you from bringing science into that, but I realize now that is utterly impossible when conversing with you.

For you, science is the only reality, and all else is wrong. And again this competition of whose reality is better, or more right, with your non-related examples.

Come off it.

[Seeker79]

Mattshark, on 20 May 2012 - 04:55 PM, said:

Sorry, I thought you could keep up with the conversation, apparently I was mistaken.
You were arguing for conjecture and why you thought it was relevant and as good as science, I pointed out it isn't and that science has done significantly more for society, gave examples, you sulked and forgot about context .


That is not evidence, it is someone making a unsubstantiated claim. Nothing more.


I think I have pointed that out numerous times, you amusingly then accused me of what you have been doing. You think that considering the brain to be an antenna for consciousness with no detected incoming signal and a significantly less parsimonious explanation it as valid as the brain being the cause for consciousness with a large volume of evidence to suggest so because you think your personal experience is evidence. Guess what, it isn't. Experience is not evidence, is too mailable to suggestion, too subjective especially when knowledge is lacking, it is the nature of the brain to form (a commonly illogical) explanation.

That's not what's been happening at all. I have shown that The brain being a receiver is just as likely as a generator. Nothing said here has been able to separate to two. Then we throw in NDEs  and other human experiences the scales begin to tip. Unless you are going to deni the existence of the experiences them selves, but I don't think you can do that. Like it or not, NDEs exist. Their existence adds credibility to the spiritual. Conclusive? Of course not. But don't expect to throw empty unsupported arguments at it, with games, and misdirection attached and be able to get away with it with everyone. If you don't have any other evidence than ridiculouse and unlikely just say so. as it stands most of the world will disagree that conciousness can exist outside of a physical body. Evidence for the validity of NDEs, and materialists in ability to support their  claims otherwise seems to be the case.    Oh Iknow, I know. Brain lesions, dugs, anestisa, etc etc affect conciousness, mental illness etc etc. just read the thread. Both are perfectly explainable from both perspectives. Yet the one that you don't agree with is rediculouse and you are not biased ....rrrrriiighhhttt.

Edited by Seeker79, 20 May 2012 - 05:34 PM.

[Seeker79]

Copasetic, on 20 May 2012 - 05:04 PM, said:

You better quit dicking around then and get yourself a PhD in neuroscience. Because I interact with  the up and coming neuroscientists, regularly.

Edit
Interestingly as I sit perched up on my terrace room above the library, over looking the grand atrium, there is a congregation of neuroscientists and their students presenting posters on neural cascades and DNA regulation in neurons. They've been here all weekend.

Maybe I'll mosey on down there to take advantage of the buffet (these kind symposiums food sucks compared to the grand rounds food tho ). Maybe I'll hackle a few PhD candidates and see if they are likely to spend their careers buying into this kind of fluff

Snip

Edited by Seeker79, 20 May 2012 - 05:45 PM.

[Seeker79]

Rlyeh, on 20 May 2012 - 05:10 PM, said:

Which materialists say its a dream? Oh right, you're making a straw man.

Sorry some say it's a dream. Quite a few actually.

[_Only]

Rlyeh, on 20 May 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

OBEs aren't common to begin with, but you're trying to say they are common under anesthesia? Right..

Out of body experiences are common. If by common, we mean happening to many people over all of recorded history, then I'd consider that common.

But you're right, they aren't common in anesthesia. I should have said it has happened to multiple people. Nevertheless, it has happened.