The brain

[Angrboda]

First of all, his analogy is wrong.  No examination of the circuitry of a television leads us to conclude that the television is the source of the signal, so he's simply wrong in trying to draw a parallel there.  So, no, we don't need to draw upon additional evidence in the case of the brain because we haven't concluded that the television is the source of the signal.  His analogy is invalid, therefore his conclusions based on that analogy do not hold.  Beyond that, his entire spiel is basically one long argument from ignorance.  Science can't explain it, therefore God!  We have good evidence that consciousness and the brain are related.  Whether you find that evidence compelling or not is a matter of opinion.  

Really?  Gary Schwartz?  You have gone full troll on us, Drich.

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..
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.

Do I really need to explain any further?

If the brain is self contained then why does it transmit electrical commands through the skull?

The fact that you are ware of your 5 senses/6 means the brain also receives electrical activity.

Again argument over from an engineering perspective. the concept is proofed by our tactile senses, and the neural transmission of electrical signals that control a car by no internal connection but the picking up of neural waved transmitted by the brain through the skull into the neural receiver simply worn by the kid controlling the car.

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.

[Silver]

It seems theistic zombies are as interested in brains as regular zombies.

[Drich]

The scientific answer is in an alternate dimension, meaning we die here and wake up there

Oh, that’s the “scientific” answer, Drich?  Thanks for the laugh.

Btw, did you even bother to glance at page one of your google search results?  Do you come up with stuff while jerking off with the other hand?

glob...

I did

I saw it and decided to go with it anyway. why?

because this is about the subject more than it is about how you 'good people' process the subject or did you miss that?

Meaning (for you campus indoctrinated thinkers) I gave you ammo not only to support my OP but to also scientificall refute it. why?

To see if you 'good people would use the "Facts" as an overwhelming way to shut me down... or would you just Ad Hom Ad hoc attack me and try and win a popularity cntest.

Do you get it now? or do I need to finish connecting all the dots and color it all in?

I got 3 pages of ad hoc attacks meaning: no one who was addressed the subject/op, care about the facts to use them (as again I provided them to both support and to refute..) all you people wanted to do was attack the messenger, which shows you all are not smart enough to defend a scientific position the refutes your core beliefs, (there is no God) which makes what you believe a matter of faith... Meaning you can only use science to defend a position that God and science can not mix, and when challenged you seek to use pop culture to refute a scientific explanation that would suggest otherwise.

Who's laughing now sport?

[Angrboda]

I got 3 pages of ad hoc attacks meaning: no one who was addressed the subject/op, care about the facts to use them (as again I provided them to both support and to refute..) all you people wanted to do was attack the messenger, which shows you all are not smart enough to defend a scientific position the refutes your core beliefs, (there is no God) which makes what you believe a matter of faith... Meaning you can only use science to defend a position that God and science can not mix, and when challenged you seek to use pop culture to refute a scientific explanation that would suggest otherwise.

Who's laughing now sport?

You are once again conflating did not with can not, so I wouldn't be one to be making judgements about other people's intelligence. So, again, your conclusion doesn't follow.

I think you're the only one laughing here Drich, but the reason why you are laughing is pathetic and sad, not because there is anything really funny here.

[LadyForCamus]

Who's laughing now sport?

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

[Succubus]

Everybodyyyyyyyyy.

[LadyForCamus]

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.

[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.

[Drich]

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..
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.

Do I really need to explain any further?

If the brain is self contained then why does it transmit electrical commands through the skull?

The fact that you are ware of your 5 senses/6 means the brain also receives electrical activity.

Again argument over from an engineering perspective. the concept is proofed by our tactile senses, and the neural transmission of electrical signals that control a car by no internal connection but the picking up of neural waved transmitted by the brain through the skull into the neural receiver simply worn by the kid controlling the car.

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.

[I_am_not_mafia]

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.