(June 2, 2018 at 2:17 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(June 2, 2018 at 2:10 pm)Drich Wrote: Who's laughing now sport?

Definitely still me, lol.  Please, keep at it.  I need a good laugh or two today.

---

(June 2, 2018 at 2:33 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: I also have to ask whether or not your overall argument here is not itself a grand ad hominem argument?  If your argument is that atheists are incapable of reliably and productively reasoning about these issues, therefore their conclusions are not true, then it is an ad hominem argument.  Beyond making your argument invalid, that would seem to be an example of rank hypocrisy, given that your primary fault with the majority of posters here has been that their arguments were ad hominems instead of actually addressing the evidence.  Furthermore, even if the atheists' arguments were invalid, it would not demonstrate that their conclusions are not true, as that simply doesn't follow.  A faulty argument can support a true conclusion, so concluding that the conclusion is false because the arguments are fallacious is an example of the fallacy fallacy.

Ah! great conclusion if I had no other point or direction for this thread, but the post I made that follows your last post points to the civil topic I had intended to discuss.

I was going to allow the sensationalism in the video stir up the idea that a trans dimensional human/cloud storage is the only meaning or purpose for the brain to be a transmitter and receiver, then if the topic was taken i would like i did prove without doubt that the brain transmits and receives electrical signals., which would bring us back to the original question what if science could prove the existence of this extra dimension.

I wasn't originally looking to use the subject to intentionally troll anyone. It just doesn't seem like the bar for discussion will allow someone of a different core belief the leeway to voice their opinion without the knee jerk being an adhom attack. Remember i simply posted the question, and let it go for more than 24 hours without a word from my side and I got 3 pages of hate mail. 

How is it then wrong to dissect said mail and show the senders that they are not who they pretend to be? I did in fact give credit to you and the oe other person who tried to stay on topic, and it is to you that I continue the discussion showing you not only where I am right, but provide irrefutable proof that it is so. Then I laid out the bit that could be topically argued. Is it truly my fault that the rest of the asylum chooses to argue from feeling rather than fact?

---

(June 2, 2018 at 2:26 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

Quote:I think I got what I came here for. that being a cross section of people who think for themselves, verse atheists of "faith"  I skimmed through the answers already and before I blow you all up one at a time, I want to first show you that only maybe one or two of you truly thinks for themselves. meaning they took the info provided and moved to discredit the info based on addressing the points made in the video or articles. 

The rest of you are faith based atheists. meaing you simply hold on to the current model of what is considered 'truth/scientific fact' and refuse to challenge it unless your atheist culture were to move that way and provide you with the reasons why. Meaning you can not take new info annalize it andaccet or discredit it on your own. you are stuck in what you believe till a dawkins or someone of good standing in your community tells you what to think. then you will quote and paste his work even if it does not directly address what I had to say.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe...just maybe...after acting like a complete cunt for several years, most of us simply don’t respect you enough to be bothered?  You may have had a platform here at one time Drich.  But, sadly, you burned it to ashes a long time ago.

Define cunt?

Someone who is unapologetically correct? someone who forces thought when none is preferred? Someone who does not respect the heavy hitter/the great minds who support your world view?

I am hated because I can not be dismissed out of hand. I bring point and counterpoint for anyone seeking the truth. it is only when you choose to ignore the truth and seek peer approval/full indoctrination that my words cease to matter.


If that's it, then that is my burden to bear.

---

(June 2, 2018 at 2:33 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: I also have to ask whether or not your overall argument here is not itself a grand ad hominem argument?  If your argument is that atheists are incapable of reliably and productively reasoning about these issues, therefore their conclusions are not true, then it is an ad hominem argument.  Beyond making your argument invalid, that would seem to be an example of rank hypocrisy, given that your primary fault with the majority of posters here has been that their arguments were ad hominems instead of actually addressing the evidence.  Furthermore, even if the atheists' arguments were invalid, it would not demonstrate that their conclusions are not true, as that simply doesn't follow.  A faulty argument can support a true conclusion, so concluding that the conclusion is false because the arguments are fallacious is an example of the fallacy fallacy.

post 39 proves my argument is not false. in fact the opposite as it is undeniable true.

Again All I provided was evidence to show both sides of the argument meaning how far our ability to transmit and receive brain signals can go. that was the point of the discussion was to ask what if science could prove this human cloud/heaven/other dimension

---

(June 2, 2018 at 2:57 pm)Mathilda Wrote:

(June 2, 2018 at 2:26 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Did it ever occur to you that maybe...just maybe...after acting like a complete cunt for several years, most of us simply don’t respect you enough to be bothered?  

This. Drich's OP wasn't even interesting or worthy enough to bother thinking about in too much detail.

Maybe Drich would like to propose a hypothesis for us to discuss with details rather than two links, one of which was of search results mainly dismissing what he had said.

It seems that Drich's only goal here is to try and accuse atheists of having faith.

 
How many threads have you made/how many posts have you made where I said nothing at all?

That my "good person" is how one response when a peer says something NOT WORTH RESPONDING TO.

rather i got 3 pages of you and you buddies "responding to my thread."

What a liar. 

What say you now? just proved that the brain is a transmitter and receiver...  You can't scientifically argue that without changing the literal defination of the word transmitter and receiver.

Now what if the video you didn't watch was correct and that these signal are remotely transmitted and or received. meaning what if our bodies were remotely piloted by a being not even in this dimension?

Can't pretend the world in not interested in that subject unless you are stupid and a liar.. as between the matrix and the movie avatar have made over a billion dollars in just movie ticket sales. Nor can you pretend that being remotely piloted bodied answers about 2 dozen things people commonly ask about the afterlife. not only that the repercussions dispels the great atheist position that once your brain dies yu float off into nothiness, because in this scenario is correct if you brain dies it would be like waking up from the matrix or it would be like downloading all your phone info from the cloud in you destroyed you old phone into the new version.

IF you could not see the potential of the OP, it is because you mind is sown closed from years and years of cold hearted hate and blind dedication to a singular world view that puts you and your buddies in a position where to question you is to be shat upon ...

Despited you narrow minded world view there is indeed great interest in the idea of uploading or being an avatar if that description make more sense. What makes this exciting, to the open minded person is the fact that we are transmitting and receiving all the time in a method that can currently be identified and recorded and duplicated. we can mimic these signals to help people hear or see or move a robotic arm

The idea that these electrical signals can one day even be recorded by terrestrial means leaves it wide open from a celestial method of transmission and reception/human cloud/heaven

That is what this subject could have been about, but no. honestly look at your part in all of this.. one failed attempt at character assassination after another

(June 2, 2018 at 2:57 pm)Mathilda Wrote: It seems that Drich's only goal here is to try and accuse atheists of having faith.

If Drich is saying all atheists have faith on this subject, he is most certainly over-generalizing.  I used to believe in the brain-as-a-receiver-of-consciousness idea when I was studying mysticism, but a closer study of the science changed my mind on the topic.  I was especially influenced by sleep and dream researcher Dr. Allan Hobson's many books about how the chemistry of conscious states influences their perceived content.  The brain-as-receiver idea is entirely uneconomical and unnecessary, given what we now know from brain and consciousness studies.

(June 2, 2018 at 2:58 pm)Drich Wrote: ..............

Nope, you still need to try harder.

(June 2, 2018 at 2:58 pm)Drich Wrote:

(June 2, 2018 at 2:26 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Did it ever occur to you that maybe...just maybe...after acting like a complete cunt for several years, most of us simply don’t respect you enough to be bothered?  You may have had a platform here at one time Drich.  But, sadly, you burned it to ashes a long time ago.

Define cunt?

Someone who is unapologetically correct? someone who forces thought when none is preferred? Someone who does not respect the heavy hitter/the great minds who support your world view?

I am hated because I can not be dismissed out of hand. I bring point and counterpoint for anyone seeking the truth. it is only when you choose to ignore the truth and seek peer approval/full indoctrination that my words cease to matter.


If that's it, then that is my burden to bear.

Well, quite some narrative you've got there, boy. You're REALLY impressed with yourself, aren't you?

Such a shame everyone else thinks you're a deluded sanctimonious jackass, with a martyr complex. But, of course, you don't need validation or respect from mere mortals - you have your imaginary friends, who love you just the way you are...

indeed.

(June 2, 2018 at 1:44 pm)Drich Wrote: I and a whole crap load of other scientist disagree including tesla edison and einstein.. I know those guys are all old but the proof is in the puddn' jerogie..

Unsubstantiated claim.

(June 2, 2018 at 1:44 pm)Drich Wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7bu26pp2Zs

Now from an engineering perspective no other 'proof is needed.' 

IF ifact this kid can control this car by wearing a head set designed to pick up externally transmitted brain activity the your argument is moot.

(June 2, 2018 at 1:44 pm)Drich Wrote: If the brain is self contained then why does it transmit electrical commands through the skull?

Oh fuck where do I even start with this. You are so wrong I am really struggling to come up with an analogy to show just how wrong you actually are.

I know that the entire world works by magic according to your world view, and magic by definition is beyond explanation. But it's not magic to the people who made that toy car to respond to electromagnetic waves given off by the brain.

What to you is a 'signal' is not some intelligently designed wizard's spell. It's just a fluctuation in the electromagnetic field. Neurons are capacitors that spike when they reach a certain voltage threshold. They have firing rates that change over time and therefore oscillate. They therefore produce waves and these can be read as electromagnetic brain waves. You wouldn't refer to waves in the sea as complex water commands that control the environment but this is exactly what you are doing when referring to electromagnetic brain waves in this regard. If you attached a buoy to the seabed and have it do different things depending on how strong the waves were say then the waves still would not be considered commands.

The brain is part of a sensorimotor loop where sensory information comes into the brain, the brain adapts, acts within its environment and senses the changed environment. But instead of moving a muscle to change your environment, if you are hooked up to a device to read the electromagnetic brain waves given off by your brain then you can learn to adapt to change your environment that way instead.

(June 2, 2018 at 1:44 pm)Drich Wrote: The fact that you are ware of your 5 senses/6 means the brain also receives electrical activity.

Unsubstantiated claim.

(June 2, 2018 at 2:01 pm)Mathilda Wrote:

(June 2, 2018 at 1:43 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: I love the Google-search-as-evidence. Solid.

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHB...Jz-gSDpsJU

Yeah and how he hasn't even put forward any particular hypothesis to discuss except some vague woo about the brain receiving consciousness and memories. Then when we don't discuss the details he hasn't given us, he uses it to accuse us of having faith.

I haven't been on this forum very long, but I've noticed poster Drich spends most (nearly all?) of his time pretending to be smart, and the rest of his time avoiding the consequences of his posts.  I've pegged him as someone who is not worth any time, except perhaps for an occasional poke in the brain.

(June 2, 2018 at 8:46 pm)sdelsolray Wrote:

(June 2, 2018 at 2:01 pm)Mathilda Wrote: Yeah and how he hasn't even put forward any particular hypothesis to discuss except some vague woo about the brain receiving consciousness and memories. Then when we don't discuss the details he hasn't given us, he uses it to accuse us of having faith.

I haven't been on this forum very long, but I've noticed poster Drich spends most (nearly all?) of his time pretending to be smart, and the rest of his time avoiding the consequences of his posts.  I've pegged him as someone who is not worth any time.

Give him some more time.

I guarantee......

















































he will not disappoint.

(June 2, 2018 at 8:47 pm)Kit Wrote:

(June 2, 2018 at 8:46 pm)sdelsolray Wrote: I haven't been on this forum very long, but I've noticed poster Drich spends most (nearly all?) of his time pretending to be smart, and the rest of his time avoiding the consequences of his posts.  I've pegged him as someone who is not worth any time.

Give him some more time.

I guarantee......



he will not disappoint.

Well, yes...there is the entertainment value.

(June 2, 2018 at 2:58 pm)Yes Drich Wrote: Define cunt?

Someone who is unapologetically correct? someone who forces thought when none is preferred? Someone who does not respect the heavy hitter/the great minds who support your world view?

I am hated because I can not be dismissed out of hand. I bring point and counterpoint for anyone seeking the truth. it is only when you choose to ignore the truth and seek peer approval/full indoctrination that my words cease to matter.


If that's it, then that is my burden to bear.

That’s quite the alternate reality you’ve constructed for yourself, Drich.  I’m glad I don’t live there.

(June 2, 2018 at 2:58 pm)Drich Wrote:

(June 2, 2018 at 2:33 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: I also have to ask whether or not your overall argument here is not itself a grand ad hominem argument?  If your argument is that atheists are incapable of reliably and productively reasoning about these issues, therefore their conclusions are not true, then it is an ad hominem argument.  Beyond making your argument invalid, that would seem to be an example of rank hypocrisy, given that your primary fault with the majority of posters here has been that their arguments were ad hominems instead of actually addressing the evidence.  Furthermore, even if the atheists' arguments were invalid, it would not demonstrate that their conclusions are not true, as that simply doesn't follow.  A faulty argument can support a true conclusion, so concluding that the conclusion is false because the arguments are fallacious is an example of the fallacy fallacy.

Ah! great conclusion if I had no other point or direction for this thread, but the post I made that follows your last post points to the civil topic I had intended to discuss.

I was going to allow the sensationalism in the video stir up the idea that a trans dimensional human/cloud storage is the only meaning or purpose for the brain to be a transmitter and receiver, then if the topic was taken i would like i did prove without doubt that the brain transmits and receives electrical signals., which would bring us back to the original question what if science could prove the existence of this extra dimension.

I wasn't originally looking to use the subject to intentionally troll anyone. It just doesn't seem like the bar for discussion will allow someone of a different core belief the leeway to voice their opinion without the knee jerk being an adhom attack. Remember i simply posted the question, and let it go for more than 24 hours without a word from my side and I got 3 pages of hate mail. 

How is it then wrong to dissect said mail and show the senders that they are not who they pretend to be? I did in fact give credit to you and the oe other person who tried to stay on topic, and it is to you that I continue the discussion showing you not only where I am right, but provide irrefutable proof that it is so. Then I laid out the bit that could be topically argued. Is it truly my fault that the rest of the asylum chooses to argue from feeling rather than fact?

I think I pointed out how it was wrong. Are you attempting to justify your earlier comments? Because from the above, even if you did finally come around to address the point of your thread, I think what I said above still holds. The fact that you are now engaged in substantive discussion doesn't erase your earlier comments. A current good act does not excuse prior bad acts. You of all people should know this. So are you disavowing your prior remarks?

(June 2, 2018 at 2:54 pm)Drich Wrote:

(June 2, 2018 at 2:03 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Is it possible that the brain is receiving signals remotely?  Sure, it's possible.  The question is not what is possible, but rather what is there evidence for?  Your primary complaint here seems to be that atheists haven't examined the evidence and rejected it, but rather are operating from a kneejerk, faith-based opinion without examining the evidence.  As pointed out above, your thread does not in any sense demonstrate that.  Are there some scientists who believe that the brain may be a receiver of signals rather than a generator?  Sure, but so what?  First, they are a minority, and they do not in any sense represent the current consensus of science as a whole.  Second, if you accept them as authorities independent of a critical examination of their evidence, then you are yourself engaging in the same kneejerk, faith-based type of opinion as the one which you think you are criticizing.  Beyond that, I don't see the point of your latest post, nor of your video.  No one here is disputing the existence of natural phenomena such as electrical signals, the electrical nature of the nervous system, or the fact that one can use electrical signals to remotely control things.  That however is not the issue, but rather whether our brains are being remotely controlled by some sort of signal.  Your last post didn't address that at all.

I love the dismissive quality the term "electrical signals" allows you to have if and when the person youre are speaking to doesn't understand the the meaning of the word TRANSMITTER.

 or maybe you don't understand what a transmitter does... it is the source of an electrical signal,(generic term) not just a random source, but a purposed source designed to send electromagnetic waves that carry a message signal or information. Kinda like those electrical signals coming through the skull that control the car..

Again at this point from an engineering perspective we have proven proof positive with out any doubt or any meaningful retort could counter that the brain is a transmitter. Nothing else you could possible bring to the table will EVER refute this point just short of evidence that the car being controlled was not being controlled by the brain, or two a change in the defination of the word transmitter to preclude any electro-magnetic signals sourced specifically from the brain.

Again you only point of refute is to prove we do not transmit electromagnetic signals from the brain/we can control thing like that car or video games or any one of the number of things/gimmicks, or toys we have out there that tap into brain wave activity remotely/not tapping into brain tissue. or to change the defination of transmitter. 

This concludes this portion of the argument. (the brain is a transmitter)

evidence that the brain is a receiver is the electrical signals we give it and it translates into tactical audio and visual material.. meaning our bodies send the brain electrical information/digital info that get transmitted into the 5 senses. not only awareness of the 5 senses but to the varying degrees. like not only touch but how much pressure is being applied, not just light and dark awareness but visualization on a 3 spectrum scope of light/color. sound smell taste ect all work the same way. These are all examples of the brain taking in electromatic inputs and translating them into something 'we' can understand.

this again meets all the requirements of the word receiver. This portion of the argument i also over. as nothing you can say will change the fact that the brain takes in an electrical signal and translates it into one of the 5 senses. Less you prove that it is not an electrical signal but some sort of analog signal like if you touch your nose the nose portion of the brain is also physically depressed or if you change the definition of the word receiver. You will be wrong no matter what you aregue, because it is irrefutable that brain transmits and receives electrical input...

Now that said where these signals go/are stored is another matter.

For you retards: what I just said/proved is you can't disprove the brain is a transmitter or receiver. because I have given viable examples that full fill those definitions. Now the only argument left is how far will the brain transmit and receive signal.

Now the video and the google search went to the wide end of the spectrum EI a different dimension. Which I pointed out this happens to fit the definition of Heaven... Scary scary right... Now retards...pay close attention I did not say THIS IS what is going on. I simply asked what if Science in all her glory could "ping" or rather provide proof that our consciousness resides in a human version of the cloud and not our bodies.

That my 'good people' is the arguement.

Because again nothing you can say or do can refute that the human brain is a transmitter and receiver. I have proven that in such away it can not be disproven. just shy of changing the definition of the two words to exclude the brain. so accept and swallow that part, or wear it on your face while you argue it I don't care it only make you look stupid.

The only real question is how far does these neural signals go. If most of that source material is correct in the OP then why can that dimension be named Heaven?

Then again what if we can verify or send and receive a signal from this Human/cloud where all of our memories and consciousness is stored?

which begs the question of Science could do this would you accept it?
Because what it means is after you die your conscientiousness wakes up in this heaven/dimension.

Your original post framed the debate with the following contention:

(May 31, 2018 at 4:28 pm)Drich Wrote: In short the brain is not the host or contains consciousness. that the brain is a simple receiver of memory and consciousness. nothing is stored in the brain it is mearly a relay point breaking down our sensor experience and transmitting it to our consciousness and vise versa..

Now it is true that the brain receives and emits electrical or electromagnetic signals, but that is not what is at issue here. The issue is not does it transmit and receive signals, but does it transmit and receive signals in the specific way required by the brain as receiver hypothesis? Since the brain could well transmit and receive the signals you've demonstrated without that hypothesis being true, the truth of your latest claims does not do much to support your hypothesis about consciousness.