The brain

[Angrboda]

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?

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:

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.