(June 13, 2018 at 2:35 pm)Whateverist Wrote:

(June 13, 2018 at 1:41 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: That shows it's circular, but, I will get what you are looking for.   Science provides workable theories with data, it never can prove them.

That, my bolded, is a corollary to the fact that only logic and mathematics lend themselves to proof.  What scientific theories do is present explanations which fit all the available data.  Since science is entirely about empirical matters, what more do we need?

A lot more.  They present explanations - but there is multiple other explanations equally as plausible.  And available data or selected data from available data, that is debatable. And interpretation and perspective is key in all this.

(June 13, 2018 at 1:13 pm)Drich Wrote:

(June 12, 2018 at 4:25 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Now if only you had some evidence that this is the case, then you might have something.

That's what the articles in the OP were about. To show that the brain is indeed a transmitter and receiver, which lends it'self to the idea that "we" are not our bodies, but our bodies are avatars in a different world/realm.

You didn't post any 'articles' in the OP. You posted a google search and a YouTube video. Normally, I don't even respond to the posting of google searches as they are essentially a dishonest form of debate, basically the internet version of the Gish gallop in which a person presents a torrent of claims with the implication that if the other person doesn't answer them all, the first person has prevailed. Obviously that's just nonsense. In this case, however, I did take the time to go over the first page of links, and there was not one link that provided any evidence supporting your hypothesis. So you are multiply wrong on that score, and should be ashamed of appealing to such shoddy tactics. As for your YouTube video, that has already been responded to in-depth with much the same result. If you will actually present articles detailing evidence for the brain as receiver hypothesis, I'll be happy to consider them. However, posting a google search is just complete bullshit. Doubly so when the search you post doesn't even support your point.

(June 13, 2018 at 1:13 pm)Drich Wrote: If that were true then would it not change the way we looked at life and death?

Indeed it would. If there were good evidence of the brain as receiver hypothesis, it would be earth-shattering. Unfortunately, no such earth-shattering evidence has been presented.

(June 13, 2018 at 1:39 pm)Drich Wrote:

(June 13, 2018 at 1:22 pm)Mathilda Wrote: No it doesn't.

yahuh.. Kinda already proved that point beyond contestation and moved on. (lest you change the definition of the word transmitter and receiver.)

Again the only question is how far distance wise, or even transdimensional will these signals go. (that is the only point you can argue here.) Because In any event the brain does indeed transmit and receives electrical signals according to the definitions of those words. if you want proof go back and look at some of the back and fourth "jorgie" and I had.

Yes, there was a back and forth, which lead to the following point, which you never answered. As long as that point stands, all your talk about the brain being a transmitter and receiver is irrelevant because the kinds of transmission and reception which you have documented does basically nothing to support your hypothesis.

(June 2, 2018 at 9:29 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: 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.

Science isn't like the Bible. You can't just interpret it however you want and expect to be taken seriously.

(June 13, 2018 at 1:58 pm)Mathilda Wrote:

(June 13, 2018 at 1:39 pm)Drich Wrote: yahuh.. Kinda already proved that point beyond contestation and moved on. (lest you change the definition of the word transmitter and receiver.)

No you haven't. Not in the slightest.

I own this book for instance Principles of Neural Science. It's over two inches thick and is the standard textbook for everything brain. Nowhere does it say that the brain is a transmitter and receiver for consciousness and memories.

I've read the entirety of Biophysics of Computation. It is the bible of computational modelling of neurons. It goes into the smallest detail involving ion channels, voltages, cable resistance, secondary messengers for adaptive leakages etc. Nowhere does it say how neurons receive and signals outside of the brain.

Proving this would get you the Nobel prize. But they wouldn't just accept a youtube from a quackpot, an irrelevant page of google results and a youtube clip of someone controlling a remote controlled car using apparatus that can pick up electromagnetic brainwaves. They wouldn't even accept a single peer reviewed paper, which is far beyond your reach.

no, your wrong. I kinda did..

I laid it all nice and simple so someone like you could understand it.

I even posted a youtube video that demonstrated the brain actively transmitting signals, dude wearing head set picking those signals up and using just those signals was able to remotely control a car. (think right car goes right) We also use those signals to activate prosthetics limbs.. Again all these examples demonstrate the brain transmitting a signal. can't argue this unless you change the definition of the word transmit.. The only thing you can argue is the existence of a remote/different dimension where signals are sent and received..

But then comes the articles I posted that say the brian is not designed to host memories and commands.. the idea that the memories and consciousness comes from some place else.

Then to proof that the brain is a receiver is to simply point to the electrical signals our five senses transmit into an electrical signal that the brain unscrambles and displays as sight sound taste and touch. again you can not argue the brain acts as a receiver as it literally follows the literal defination of receiver. The only thig you can argue is the limitations of said signals...

(June 14, 2018 at 9:54 am)Mathilda Wrote:

indeed. it is the simple thing that topple the 'great thinkers' isn't it.

Arguing with you is a waste of oxygen. Your Dunning Kruger is reaching comical levels now. You're not even trying.

(June 14, 2018 at 9:53 am)Drich Wrote: no, your wrong. I kinda did..

I laid it all nice and simple so someone like you could understand it.

I even posted a youtube video that demonstrated the brain actively transmitting signals, dude wearing head set picking those signals up and using just those signals was able to remotely control a car. (think right car goes right) We also use those signals to activate prosthetics limbs.. Again all these examples demonstrate the brain transmitting a signal. can't argue this unless you change the definition of the word transmit.. The only thing you can argue is the existence of a remote/different dimension where signals are sent and received..

But then comes the articles I posted that say the brian is not designed to host memories and commands.. the idea that the memories and consciousness comes from some place else.

Then to proof that the brain is a receiver is to simply point to the electrical signals our five senses transmit into an electrical signal that the brain unscrambles and displays as sight sound taste and touch. again you can not argue the brain acts as a receiver as it literally follows the literal defination of receiver. The only thig you can argue is the limitations of said signals...

Yes, if you design a device to pick up brain activity and interpret it, that device can be used to show what the brain activity is, and even to then transmit signals based on that activity that can be used to control other devices. That's not in dispute. The brain can receive and process signals from sensory organs. That is not in dispute either.

What's in dispute is whether our brains function as a receiver to signals that remotely operate our body and as a transmitter to send feedback to that remote operating system. That's your claim. In support of that, you have not shown that such a signal can be detected either directly or by blocking it, and you have not shown that our brains require outside transmission beyond those available to our normal senses in order to function.

When I was in the NSA, we had to guard against TEMPEST gear that could detect the keystrokes on an electronic keyboard, even a pocket calculator. Just because someone could build something to pick up our keystrokes didn't mean our devices were designed with transmitting them in mind. A TEMPEST-hardened device blocked off from emitting detectable signals works just fine. That signals from an electronic keyboard can be detected from some distance away does not imply that such 'transmissions' are anything but a side-effect of their normal functioning. Your argument that our brains operate as transmitters has the same flaw.

I wear a tinfoil hat to stop any god waves from reaching me. It's all science man! It's working 100% so far I must admit.

God hates iron AND aluminium now!

(June 14, 2018 at 7:23 pm)ignoramus Wrote: I wear a tinfoil hat to stop any god waves from reaching me. It's all science man! It's working 100% so far I must admit.

God hates iron AND aluminium now!

Well Drich doesn't realise it because there's a lot he doesn't realise, but what that headset controlling the car was picking up were electromagnetic brainwaves. So what you really need is a hat made out of magnets to disrupt any commands transmitted to and from the brain to the cloud. If you did that and if what Drich said was correct then you would effectively die and your body would collapse to the floor without being able to be commanded any more to remove the hat. So that's a very simple way to falsify Drich's claim.

In fact I have enough Geomags I could use to create such a hat and demonstrate that Drich is wrong.

I don't have to do that though because I have had three separate MRI scans and I was alive and conscious throughout. My husband has had two MRI scans and survived both. You can't have any metal on you or in you otherwise it gets pulled off / out of you because the magnetic waves are so incredibly strong. So this falsifies Drich's claim completely.