Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
June 7, 2015 at 9:28 am (This post was last modified: June 7, 2015 at 9:30 am by Little Rik.)
(June 7, 2015 at 9:02 am)IATIA Wrote:
(June 7, 2015 at 7:06 am)Little Rik Wrote:
That is funny.
So the vehicle knows that the driver intend to start such a vehicle well before the driver.
Amazing IAT.
Ok. now let us stop the bullshit and star reasoning.
Let us start with the consciousness.
Is the consciousness what come straight in your mind or what come after the reasoning?
Or is all one and happen at the same time?
The iceberg is one but only the part above the water is visible unless you go below the water and see also the hidden part.
What Libet did?
Libet took in consideration the consciousness above the water for his experiment.
Now the question is........who start the action of thinking about something?
The outer consciousness or the hidden super conscious mind?
Nothing wrong with Libet experiment except that the chap instead of looking at the super conscious mind where
the action start he look at the outer conscious mind where the feeling of the initial action emerge after.
It can be less than a second or 1/10 of a sec or whatever it may be but nevertheless it is after it start in the
super conscious mind.
I already made the example of the onion to describe the mind.
The mind is one but there are several layers.
From the very core of the onion to the outer layer.
The mind works in the same way.
Not all the layers are the same.
The core is always much more powerful that the outer ones that is why the perception of the action
doesn't happen at the same time in all layers of the mind.
Capish?
You asked for evidence and I provided it. Where is your evidence? Unless you are insisting that viruses, bacteria, amoebas, ants, bats and all the rest of the animal kingdom along with algae, plankton, trees and all the rest of the plant kingdom have separate consciousnesses, then your argument fails miserably as all life functions just fine without it.
Consciousness is a byproduct of the brain. No more, no less. And yes, all lifeforms with brains have some level of consciousness and all living things have some level of awareness. It is all based on chemical reactions, gravity, electromagnetism, weak nuclear force and strong nuclear force.
I beg your pardon!
What evidence did you provide?
Are you serious?
Libet show us that the relation between the outer layer of the mind and the brain is such that the brain feel the action before the outer mind can.
From here you unfortunately understood that the action start from the brain.
Wrong.
Libet never understood that the mind is not only the outer mind.
Behind the outer mind there is a big big world of knowledge.
I call this big knowledge the super conscious mind.
If Libet would have understood this point he would have also understood that at the end his study doesn't make any sense
although his experiment based on the outer mind is correct.
Capish?
How do you know what Libet understood? You have had a conversation with him?
biochemical reaction
neural activity
action
awareness of the action
We know nothing of the action until it happens.
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
(June 7, 2015 at 9:44 am)IATIA Wrote: How do you know what Libet understood? You have had a conversation with him?
biochemical reaction
neural activity
action
awareness of the action
We know nothing of the action until it happens.
That is how the mind works.
The outer mind is not like a calculator in which the numbers pop up in no time.
We got to think before we can come up with an idea.
This show us that the outer mind and the deep mind have a different time.
If the action would start with the outer mind the idea would pop up in no time
just like pushing a calculator button.
(June 7, 2015 at 9:57 am)Little Rik Wrote: Sorry IAT but your numbers are all wrong.
I cannot be wrong until you backup your statement with evidence to the contrary.
I have evidence and empirical data.
What do you have besides anecdotal assumptions?
Nothing, I thought not.
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
(June 7, 2015 at 7:12 am)Homeless Nutter Wrote: Would you like some freshly cracked pepper on your word salad?
Too late - he showed up here cracked (though not freshly).
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
(June 7, 2015 at 8:56 am)Little Rik Wrote: So you do know......... that the mind is a function of the brain?
And the evidence is?
The evidence is decades of research, much of which is discussed in both of Dave McRaney's books, which I have mentioned before. Scientists have mapped out most of the brain, and have learned that various parts of the mind work within specific areas of the brain. They know that damaging parts of the brain can have significant effects on the personality of people who suffer that damage. For example, they know that cutting the corpus callosum (which allow the two hemispheres of the brain to communicate) creates some odd behaviors directly linked to the fact that parts of the mind belong to areas of the brain.
This isn't all that new, either; some of this research is more than sixty years old. So there, that is the evidence. And there is a great deal of it, and it shows that the mind is a function of the brain. Your ignorance is a poor excuse in a world where Google and e-readers exist.
Little Rik Wrote:Sorry Ton but my analogy kill your believe.
Mind and brain are connected until death occur so it is OBVIOUS that one will affect the other.
You are saying that one will survive the passing of the other. You offer no evidence for that. None. I am saying that it is reasonable to conclude that the mind dies with the brain, and I keep pointing to sources of evidence as support, and you ignore them. Your insistence on clinging to your delusion does not make it any less of a delusion, nor does it change reality.
Little Rik Wrote:What facts?
You got to be dreaming if you think that you provided any facts.
Yours are none but guessing based on no evidence as i explained above.
I have pointed out the evidence a few times, now. You don't want to accept it, but your rejection of reality does not change reality.
I would point out yet again that you have not offered a shred of evidence for your own claims. Ignoring the evidence provided while offering none, then pretending to own the high ground, makes you look like either an idiot or a douchebag.
Little Rik Wrote:There is enough evidence to say that until death occur mind and brain are connected in such a way that when one is in trouble the other will suffer as well.
This doesn't mean that the mind is a function of the brain.
In other words, you dismiss the obvious connection because it is inconvenient to your beliefs. You will accept one conclusion that can be drawn from the facts, then reject the other without any reason or explanation. I wonder if you're aware of how scared you sound or if the delusion is so deeply ingrained that you simply do not recognize the disconnect.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
(June 7, 2015 at 9:57 am)Little Rik Wrote: Sorry IAT but your numbers are all wrong.
Quote:I cannot be wrong until you backup your statement with evidence to the contrary.
I have evidence and empirical data.
What do you have besides anecdotal assumptions?
Nothing, I thought not.
I just can not believe the way you carry on.
By putting the numbers in that way you think that the brain start the action and the mind after that receive the message.
If you go around and tell people that the driver is the product of the vehicle you can bet that you will find yourself into a straight
jacket and inside the mental unit very quickly.
But you dream that the brain can not be compared to a vehicle so you come up with this garbage.
For your own sake IAT wake up now.
(June 7, 2015 at 8:56 am)Little Rik Wrote: So you do know......... that the mind is a function of the brain?
And the evidence is?
Quote:The evidence is decades of research, much of which is discussed in both of Dave McRaney's books, which I have mentioned before. Scientists have mapped out most of the brain, and have learned that various parts of the mind work within specific areas of the brain. They know that damaging parts of the brain can have significant effects on the personality of people who suffer that damage. For example, they know that cutting the corpus callosum (which allow the two hemispheres of the brain to communicate) creates some odd behaviors directly linked to the fact that parts of the mind belong to areas of the brain.
This isn't all that new, either; some of this research is more than sixty years old. So there, that is the evidence. And there is a great deal of it, and it shows that the mind is a function of the brain. Your ignorance is a poor excuse in a world where Google and e-readers exist.
Here we are again with the old litany that the mind is a function of the brain.
All the evidence show is that brain and mind are connected in such a way that one can not do without the other.
End of the story.
To get evidence that the mind is a function of the brain is a totally different story.
You know the old story about the chicken and the egg about who come first?
You can bet one i bet the opposite and at the end we are not getting anywhere as the evidence is hard to come
so why not relay on what make more sense and reject what doesn't make?
Does make sense to say that the driver is the product of the vehicle?
Does make sense to say that a piece of glutinous matter is more important of something abstract?
Who is more important?
The vehicle or the driver?
And most important is.......who start the action first?
The mind or the brain?
Whoever start the action first is the one who control the other.
As simple as this.
Little Rik Wrote:Sorry Ton but my analogy kill your believe.
Mind and brain are connected until death occur so it is OBVIOUS that one will affect the other.
Quote:You are saying that one will survive the passing of the other. You offer no evidence for that. None. I am saying that it is reasonable to conclude that the mind dies with the brain, and I keep pointing to sources of evidence as support, and you ignore them. Your insistence on clinging to your delusion does not make it any less of a delusion, nor does it change reality.
I believe that this is the case but i am not saying as a statement.
In this case i would be bound to bring physical evidence.
NDEs bring a lot of evidence in this sense but the evidence that you expect
is physical evidence not evidence of thousand of NDEs.
In this case is again better relay on what make more sense but my sense is
different from your sense so i guess we are getting nowhere.
By the way my sense is that we build up what we got and to get the consciousness
that we got it takes long long time.
But let me guess what is your sense.
Your sense is that we got the consciousness that we got from previous generation.
And all for free.
How nice Ton is to get something for free.
Ton, please give me the correct lotto number so i can become a millionaire.
Little Rik Wrote:What facts?
You got to be dreaming if you think that you provided any facts.
Yours are none but guessing based on no evidence as i explained above.
Quote:I have pointed out the evidence a few times, now. You don't want to accept it, but your rejection of reality does not change reality.I would point out yet again that you have not offered a shred of evidence for your own claims. Ignoring the evidence provided while offering none, then pretending to own the high ground, makes you look like either an idiot or a douchebag.
The study that show that brain and mind are connected to each other is not evidence that the mind is a product of the brain.
Get it in mind Ton because the evidence is a different story.
My claims may not be evidence to you but make a million more sense than your so called evidence.
Little Rik Wrote:There is enough evidence to say that until death occur mind and brain are connected in such a way that when one is in trouble the other will suffer as well.
This doesn't mean that the mind is a function of the brain.
In other words, you dismiss the obvious connection because it is inconvenient to your beliefs. You will accept one conclusion that can be drawn from the facts, then reject the other without any reason or explanation. I wonder if you're aware of how scared you sound or if the delusion is so deeply ingrained that you simply do not recognize the disconnect.
Researchers that study the brain-mind connection can only work within the physical-mental borders.
The problem however is that the consciousness go well behind these borders therefore these researchers
can not possibly understand how the whole system works.
UNTIL of course they will penetrate the world of intuitional science.
Little Rik Wrote:Here we are again with the old litany that the mind is a function of the brain.
All the evidence show is that brain and mind are connected in such a way that one can not do without the other.
Wrong. And simply claiming otherwise doesn't change that fact. Car/driver analogies don't change that fact. Your comical misunderstanding of even basic ideas about how the brain works doesn't change that fact.
Little Rik Wrote:I believe that this is the case but i am not saying as a statement.
My point is that you claim to believe it, but do not have a logical basis for it. You believe it because it's what you want to believe, so you reject evidence that contradicts your belief, and simply state otherwise as if saying so is sufficient. You clearly know that it isn't, since you keep demanding evidence. So you should know that you're approaching the subject in a manner that is unreasonable. You should also know that ignoring evidence (such as referring to NDEs again) isn't a logical way to approach the subject. You don't seem to care, but being willfully clueless doesn't seem like a useful way to go through life.
Little Rik Wrote:The study that show that brain and mind are connected to each other is not evidence that the mind is a product of the brain.
Get it in mind Ton because the evidence is a different story.
My claims may not be evidence to you but make a million more sense than your so called evidence.
Once again, just because you deny the facts will not make them go away. Replacing facts with your fantasies will not make the facts go away. If your nonsense makes more sense to you than reasonable conclusions reached from a study of the facts, perhaps you're nuts.
Little Rik Wrote:Researchers that study the brain-mind connection can only work within the physical-mental borders.
...which are the only "borders" that anyone can study and therefore know exist. You are making up "sciences" that you can't define, and claim that they work on some plane that you can't detect. And if you don't realize how silly that sounds, then maybe you really are nuts.
Notice that in your response you admit that you're going by what you 'believe,' interpreting facts as you please, and offering claims which deal with a science that cannot be studied or practiced. This is what you are claiming. And you apparently think that this is some kind of higher learning. Honest, it's clear that you've learned to undo the buckles on your straitjacket and get to the nurse's computer to make these posts. You sound like an insane person. Yes, it's mildly amusing, but as I said before you're getting repetitive and you've stopped trying, and that's boring. Step it up, Rik, or I'll move on to the next nutcase.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
