Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
markdohle

Consciouness without brain activity

234 posts in this topic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other ways of thinking. Imagine that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess no one is lining up to test this hypothesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The present of consciousness without brain activity is definitely a mysterious phenomenon of the known world. But just think about it, just cause there are evidence of consciousness

being present without brain activity proves nothing about a personal God's existence. It just means nature is much more mysterious and beautiful than one could expect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess no one is lining up to test this hypothesis.

Don't worry, you will one day. I promise.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The present of consciousness without brain activity is definitely a mysterious phenomenon of the known world. But just think about it, just cause there are evidence of consciousness

being present without brain activity proves nothing about a personal God's existence. It just means nature is much more mysterious and beautiful than one could expect.

It is not even a phenomena at all, there is absolutely zero evidence for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Other ways of thinking. Imagine that.

There is plenty of evidence that the mind is connected to but not located inside the brain.

The problem here is people are unable to accept science at odds with them being an automation. As I've discovered on these forums, funnily enough with the posters on this very debate which have replied before me, any science at odds with their world view is dismissed as being made up or wrong.

Even when you give them links too they are totally unable to accept they arent automatons. The way I see it is thats why people die. If they didnt there would be little scientific progress in the world.

Edited by Mr Right Wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

There is plenty of evidence that the mind is connected to but not located inside the brain.

The problem here is people are unable to accept science at odds with them being an automation. As I've discovered on these forums, funnily enough with the posters on this very debate which have replied before me, any science at odds with their world view is dismissed as being made up or wrong.

Even when you give them links too they are totally unable to accept they arent automatons. The way I see it is thats why people die. If they didnt there would be little scientific progress in the world.

There is a ton of evidence that the mind is a product of the brain. That is infact what evidence very strongly suggests in general. You know, like the fields of Endocrinology and Biochemistry.

If you wish to show real evidence that suggest the mind is located outside the brain, feel free (note, quantum physics is not linked to the mind or brain in any real way).

Edited by Mattshark
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other ways of thinking. Imagine that.

What you mean conjecture and making things up? Even what he cited it is nothing more than claims.

Oh and the Greyson is an ignorant moron who completely ignores the fact the NDE's can be triggered manually and accepts claims with no evidence and doesn't use rational. The man is a fool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

There is a ton of evidence that the mind is a product of the brain. That is infact what evidence very strongly suggests in general. You know, like the fields of Endocrinology and Biochemistry.

If you wish to show real evidence that suggest the mind is located outside the brain, feel free (note, quantum physics is not linked to the mind or brain in any real way).

You have been shown that the reality you think exists is nothing more than perception. You have been shown that those peceptions exist outside your head all around you. Therefore you have been shown why your mind is connected too but not located inside your head. Deal with it.

One thing which is quite irritating about you is your ability to quote random scientific fields as evidence to support your flawed views which have nothing to do with the debate.

The nature of mind is whats being discussed not your bodily functions. Try looking into the mind-body problem and you'll realise the mind is quite different from the body and therefore can not arise from it.

Edited by Mr Right Wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have been shown that the reality you think exists is nothing more than sensory perception. Deal with it.

One thing which is quite irritating about you is your ability to quote random scientific fields as evidence to support your views which have nothing to do with the debate.

The nature of mind is whats being discussed not your bodily functions. Try looking into the mind-body problem and you'll realise the mind is quite different from the body.

No, you haven't. All you have done is make philosophical arguments and presumed they have scientific relevance.

They are not random at, clearly there are completely relevant, you just don't like what they and have a lot to do with this debate. You don't think biochemistry which is covers brain chemistry and how that can alter the mind and endocrinology which covers hormonal control of behaviour and emotion are irrelevant?

I know plenty about it. Evidence points to the mind being product of the brain. Get over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you haven't. All you have done is make philosophical arguments and presumed they have scientific relevance.

They are not random at, clearly there are completely relevant, you just don't like what they and have a lot to do with this debate. You don't think biochemistry which is covers brain chemistry and how that can alter the mind and endocrinology which covers hormonal control of behaviour and emotion are irrelevant?

I know plenty about it. Evidence points to the mind being product of the brain. Get over it.

Firstly I have never denied that the mind is connected to the body.

Secondly you were given the science links showing you that the reality you experience is just sensory perception.

Shall we start all over again with colour? Whats colour made out of matter or energy? Its made out of neither as it isnt a property of light its sensory perception - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_perception

I know you have problems understanding that the reality you experience is just mental perceptions. Maybe thats why you cant accept that as reality exists around you your mind exists outside of your head.

Time to set you up by asking you to explain to everybody what colour is - matter, energy or mind?

(His answer can be evaluated against the above Wiki link)

Watch in amazement as he will either side step the question or tell you colour is not perception in conflict with science. This person lies to support his materialistic worldview, has convinced himself they arent lies and will argue all day long with you that you are wrong. He claims science supports his worldview while denying all science at odds with materialism.

Its laughable really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Bangs head against the wall.

You are clueless, you really are. You can't fathom the difference between conjecture and science. You also ignore half the factors for your argument because you don't like them.

Edited by Mattshark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you mean conjecture and making things up? Even what he cited it is nothing more than claims.

Oh and the Greyson is an ignorant moron who completely ignores the fact the NDE's can be triggered manually and accepts claims with no evidence and doesn't use rational. The man is a fool.

I'll refrain from calling anyone foolish, but If a scientist really wants to, he/she can probably trigger the feeling of being kicked in the balls. That says nothing about really being kicked in the balls. That argument is foolish, tired, and old. It's like saying because we can trigger the smell of flowers that flowers are not real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bangs head against the wall.

You are clueless, you really are. You can't fathom the difference between conjecture and science. You also ignore half the factors for your argument because you don't like them.

So you're gonna side step this time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is not a shred of evidence that NDEs are anything other than they appear to be. It's only the seemingly fantastical nature and threat to their world view that have materialists up in arms.

I have demonstrated the incredible resistant to new ideas even when thoroughly supported by a famouse materialist in another thread. It's the same kind of thing.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=220808&pid=4296893&st=405entry4296893

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shall we start all over again with colour?
Why don't you get something new that hasn't already been answered?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is not a shred of evidence that NDEs are anything other than they appear to be. It's only the seemingly fantastical nature and threat to their world view that have materialists up in arms.

I have demonstrated the incredible resistant to new ideas even when thoroughly supported by a famouse materialist in another thread. It's the same kind of thing.

http://www.unexplain...5

In a way you're correct, they're both unverifiable, however you happen to cherrypick one interpretation that everyone else should accept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a way you're correct, they're both unverifiable, however you happen to cherrypick one interpretation that everyone else should accept.

I don't think people should accept NDEs. If I had not experienced OBEs for myself, then it would be hard to convince me. Even now, when I hear a story, if it's very far from my own experiences, then I find it difficult to swallow. But I am more willing to give the Benifit of the doubt. Im aware that not everything can be prooven to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

There is plenty of evidence that the mind is connected to but not located inside the brain.

The problem here is people are unable to accept science at odds with them being an automation. As I've discovered on these forums, funnily enough with the posters on this very debate which have replied before me, any science at odds with their world view is dismissed as being made up or wrong.

Even when you give them links too they are totally unable to accept they arent automatons. The way I see it is thats why people die. If they didnt there would be little scientific progress in the world.

From my notes from an IT class I've taken. I read it and instantly thought of this forum:

Paradigm shift

In 1962, Thomas Kuhn defined and popularized the concept of a "paradigm shift" in

reference to the philosopy of science. A paradigm is a common belief in a theory and its

principles. A paradigm shift is a change from one way of thinking to another; it is a

revolutionary transformation that is driven by agents of change.

According to Kuhn, scientific advancement is not evolutionary, but rather is a "series of

peaceful interludes punctuated by intellectually violent revolutions," and in those

revolutions "one conceptual world view is replaced by another." When a paradigm shift

occurs, an intellectual "battle" frequently takes place between those who adopt the new

paradigm and those who cling to the old paradigm.

Because the term "paradigm shift" represents the idea of a major change in the former

way of thinking or organizing, the term is now used in non-scientific contexts, such as in

personal beliefs, complex systems, software/hardware development or business

organizations.

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. ” - Max Planck

There is a ton of evidence that the mind is a product of the brain. That is infact what evidence very strongly suggests in general. You know, like the fields of Endocrinology and Biochemistry.

If you wish to show real evidence that suggest the mind is located outside the brain, feel free (note, quantum physics is not linked to the mind or brain in any real way).

Why then do you suppose Max Planck say things like this?

Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck (23 April 18584 October 1947) was one of the most important German physicists of the late 19th and early 20th century, winning the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918; he is considered to be the founder of quantum theory.

  • As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.
    • Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], speech at Florence, Italy (1944) (from Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck, Nr. 1797)

    [*]I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.

    • As quoted in The Observer (25 January 1931)

http://en.wikiquote....wiki/Max_Planck

Edited by ChloeB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but why do you think a physicist is qualified to talk on that subject, especially as it is one that doesn't remotely involve quantum physics and for which there is a ton of biological evidence that has come in the 80 years since Planck said that?

Sorry Chloe, what he says is utterly irrelevant, Planck is not a major name in biology for a reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Sorry, but why do you think a physicist is qualified to talk on that subject, especially as it is one that doesn't remotely involve quantum physics and for which there is a ton of biological evidence that has come in the 80 years since Planck said that?

Sorry Chloe, what he says is utterly irrelevant, Planck is not a major name in biology for a reason.

It's plenty relevant. It's only a biological matter in your narrow view, and any good scientist will tell you that all sciences are extensions of physics.

Edited by Seeker79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's plenty relevant. It's only a biological matter in your narrow view, and any good scientist will tell you that all sciences are extensions of physics.

Yes, but since we are looking at things physicists don't actually look at or are educated in, it is a complete irrelevancy. It is not a narrow view, that is of course you also welcome a physicist doing surgery on you too.

Any good scientist will tell you biology is a big enough field alone that an expert in marine alagal physiology will not be qualified to tell you about genetic markers with mustelid carnivores.

So guess what, you are utterly wrong, he isn't qualified to speak on the subject and their 80 years of research since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but why do you think a physicist is qualified to talk on that subject, especially as it is one that doesn't remotely involve quantum physics and for which there is a ton of biological evidence that has come in the 80 years since Planck said that?

Sorry Chloe, what he says is utterly irrelevant, Planck is not a major name in biology for a reason.

The brain is matter is it not? He's talking about how matter comes to be matter and the study of it, whether it be a brain or a chair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.