The brain

[Drich]

Well, again that is what the bible tells us (absent from the body=present with God.) and it was my experience at my judgement. I 'awoke' and was ushered into a small line of people being judged.

That said. we will all find out for ourselves sooner or later. If i'm wrong you can gloat and tell me you told me so.

Magic book doesnt say a damned thing about the brain, transmitters, receivers, the matrix, or the cloud, lol.  You;re starting to sound like one of those quranic miracle dipshits.

What it does say is when your being is disconnected from your body your presence will immediately be placed before God.

That phrase lends itself to the idea that our souls are not housed in our brains but control our bodies remotely. (just like the matrix or avatar)

 Now on the science end of things "science" says our brains are indeed neural transmitters and receivers. the argument being if we transmit and receive electrical signals, where do these signals come from if not sourced from the brain? 

The bible points to Heaven as the source. again it does not call heaven a different dimension as those words were not around back then, but at the same time if you took the words "different dimension" they could reversely apply to describe heaven and hell.

So the question then becomes why not Heaven? for this alternate dimension?

[I_am_not_mafia]

 Now on the science end of things "science" says our brains are indeed neural transmitters and receivers.

No it doesn't.

[The Grand Nudger]

Magic book doesnt say a damned thing about the brain, transmitters, receivers, the matrix, or the cloud, lol.  You;re starting to sound like one of those quranic miracle dipshits.

What it does say is when your being is disconnected from your body your presence will immediately be placed before God.

That phrase lends itself to the idea that our souls are not housed in our brains but control our bodies remotely. (just like the matrix or avatar)

 Now on the science end of things "science" says our brains are indeed neural transmitters and receivers. the argument being if we transmit and receive electrical signals, where do these signals come from if not sourced from the brain? 

The bible points to Heaven as the source. again it does not call heaven a different dimension as those words were not around back then, but at the same time if you took the words "different dimension" they could reversely apply to describe heaven and hell.

So the question then becomes why not Heaven? for this alternate dimension?

Allah Ahkbar! Now...which way is east?

[Drich]

 Now on the science end of things "science" says our brains are indeed neural transmitters and receivers.

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

You "proved it" by a google search link full of woo and pages describing why woo is woo?  That;s a novel interpretation of the term...almost as novel as your quranic miracle interpretation.

[Mystic]

note that "using the scientific method to judge the scientific method is circular reasoning".

This is not your original claim. You claimed that the scientific method is circular, you said nothing about using the scientific method to evaluate the scientific method. Did you think no one would notice? That said, the professor is talking out of his ass.

Science is essentially empirical. It's tested against reality, not arguments. It's not an argument, it's a method. A method of discerning what is most likely true about the things we are able to observe. No matter your opinion on science or how circular you think it might be, the electronic device and internet you're using still works. Science is a process of discovering what works and at least as importantly, what doesn't.

The purpose of the scientific method is to expand our body of knowledge. As a result of using it, we have a LOT of things that work. Most relevantly, the technology you're using to try to convince people that the scientific method is circular.

Using the scientific method to evaluate the scientific method (Is the scientific method accomplishing what it's supposed to accomplish? Yep.) is no more circular than using your eyes to verify that your eyes are working. What else would you use to check if you can see? Whether you can see or not is something you have to determine empirically, and you have to use your sight to do it.

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.

[downbeatplumb]

I was thinking of the latency from signals being limited by the speed of light.

Quantumly entangled particles.

[Drich]

I was thinking of the latency from signals being limited by the speed of light.

not familiar with the term dimension in the way it is being used in this thread are you? If so why do you keep asking how far away everything is?

---

You "proved it" by a google search link full of woo and pages describing why woo is woo?  That;s a novel interpretation of the term...almost as novel as your quranic miracle interpretation.

seriously??!? you can't be bothered to go back and look up a subject that has already been done in this thread? How can a lazy mind ever expect to find anything it does not already accept if you are not willing to go past what you already think?

[I_am_not_mafia]

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.)

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.

[Whateverist]

This is not your original claim. You claimed that the scientific method is circular, you said nothing about using the scientific method to evaluate the scientific method. Did you think no one would notice? That said, the professor is talking out of his ass.

Science is essentially empirical. It's tested against reality, not arguments. It's not an argument, it's a method. A method of discerning what is most likely true about the things we are able to observe. No matter your opinion on science or how circular you think it might be, the electronic device and internet you're using still works. Science is a process of discovering what works and at least as importantly, what doesn't.

The purpose of the scientific method is to expand our body of knowledge. As a result of using it, we have a LOT of things that work. Most relevantly, the technology you're using to try to convince people that the scientific method is circular.

Using the scientific method to evaluate the scientific method (Is the scientific method accomplishing what it's supposed to accomplish? Yep.) is no more circular than using your eyes to verify that your eyes are working. What else would you use to check if you can see? Whether you can see or not is something you have to determine empirically, and you have to use your sight to do it.

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?