Billionaires convinced we live in Matrix... Fund scientists to break us out...

[TheBitterOne]

But I would say that in a general sense, it seems fairly obvious from the evidence that the universe and many of the things in it have evolved considerably over the last 13 + billion years.

There are glaring evidence gaps that make the theory quite flimsy, actually. In fact, it is nothing more than a scientific dogma. I'm not referring to yourself here, but in general, I tend to bristle a little at smug people who parrot the official line while knowing very little about the actual state of things. A lot of these people will still be defending quaint, outdated paradigms in a decade, not realizing that cutting edge science has already moved on long ago. As soon as they do realize this, though, they'll quickly and quietly adapt their views and play the "I knew that all along" card.

Transcendental essence? Literally? Like apparitions and ghosts? Or what do you mean exactly?

I mean the possibility that consciousness is not located in the brain and that the brain acts more like a receiver for consciousness than a generator of it.

Anyone who has practiced meditation for long enough can appreciate the validity of that perspective.

From that viewpoint, consciousness is clearly experienced as something that 'transcends' the body and death can then be seen to be a transformative experience with the potential to liberate us from the material world.

Transhumanists have the same goal in a sense, but have some nutty notion that they can do it by artificial means. If consciousness ISN"T located in the brain, it is a completely futile effort. Yet they proceed with their outlandish goals without even having the proof that the constellation of neurons they see in the brain is the consciousness itself.

If the natural potential to transcend physicality is inherent within all of us, then the idea of uploading your brain into a cyberverse might be more like imprisoning your natural potential in a digital hell.

A lot of conversations with atheists, materialists and transhumanists could be shut down pretty quickly if they'd just stop talking for a change, pull their finger out and try meditating.

Hmm. I think we could probably discard the "terrified" angle and look at it as an effort to extend life in a verifiable manner as opposed to having some sort of faith in religion or superstition.

I think they mostly are terrified though; terrified of experimenting with the potential of their consciousness. A lot of people's entire lives are shaped by the memory of being frightened by a barking Christian as a child.

"The father of the man is the child."

 

[Randall]

There are glaring evidence gaps that make the theory quite flimsy, actually.

I did say in a "general sense" based on scientific evaluation the "evidence". For example I doubt many would argue that the first stars formed from the remnants of the big bang, solar systems from the explosions of earlier stars, planets from solar systems, biological life from planets, and consciousness from biological life. We may not know all the intricate details, but that doesn't invalidate the big picture.

In fact, it is nothing more than a scientific dogma. I'm not referring to yourself here, but in general, I tend to bristle a little at smug people who parrot the official line while knowing very little about the actual state of things. A lot of these people will still be defending quaint, outdated paradigms in a decade, not realizing that cutting edge science has already moved on long ago. As soon as they do realize this, though, they'll quickly and quietly adapt their views and play the "I knew that all along" card.

It is important to acknowledge when one's thinking is misaligned with the best evidence and to change accordingly. In that regard, "scientific dogma" isn't a particularly accurate term for everything science claims to be true because dogma is a reference to opinions and beliefs of a philosophical or religious nature rather than facts, and science tends to have a lot of facts going for it. But like you, I also think some scientists and scientific skeptics are too dogmatic in their approach, and they can make separating the signal from the noise quite a challenge by relying on positions of authority rather than fair-minded consideration of subject matter.

I mean the possibility that consciousness is not located in the brain and that the brain acts more like a receiver for consciousness than a generator of it.

The location of consciousness has some fuzzy edges. For example I presently think that the best evidence suggests that the brain is responsible for generating consciousness, but does that mean that consciousness is "in the brain"? Maybe. Maybe not. It depends on how you look at it. I look at consciousness analogously to magnetism or light. When does a magnetic field cease being part of the magnet? When does the light from a light bulb cease being part of the light bulb?

Anyone who has practiced meditation for long enough can appreciate the validity of that perspective.

Our brains are capable of creating the illusion of being elsewhere fair easily and do it spontaneously on a regular basis when we dream, so there's no reason to think meditative experiences aren't of a similar nature.

From that viewpoint, consciousness is clearly experienced as something that 'transcends' the body and death can then be seen to be a transformative experience with the potential to liberate us from the material world.

Sure, we can look at consciousness from that perspective, but then we start running into a lot of problems that are entirely avoidable by looking at consciousness as a brain generated phenomenon. That might not be as comfy cozy, but I prefer the truth to wishful thinking, and therefore I tend to go with the most coherent and well formed of hypotheses until better ones can replace them.

Transhumanists have the same goal in a sense, but have some nutty notion that they can do it by artificial means. If consciousness ISN"T located in the brain, it is a completely futile effort. Yet they proceed with their outlandish goals without even having the proof that the constellation of neurons they see in the brain is the consciousness itself.

There are so many neurons that the word "galaxy" would be a better fit there, but your point remains the same either way. Neurons ≠ consciousness the same way a filament in a light bulb ≠ light, or the material of a magnet ≠ a magnetic field, yet in all cases it seems that one is required for the other to exist.

If the natural potential to transcend physicality is inherent within all of us, then the idea of uploading your brain into a cyberverse might be more like imprisoning your natural potential in a digital hell.

I seem to recall an episode from the sci-fi series called Babylon 5 that explored that very idea. There are indeed some very serious moral and philosophical questions that seem to be taken a bit too lightly by enthusiasts of transhumanism, but there are also some fairly deep thinkers too. It's one of the reasons I find the idea quite interesting.

A lot of conversations with atheists, materialists and transhumanists could be shut down pretty quickly if they'd just stop talking for a change, pull their finger out and try meditating.

I imagine that some transhumaists do meditate. Maybe it's the one's who don't who are the problem ... lol.

I think they mostly are terrified though; terrified of experimenting with the potential of their consciousness. A lot of people's entire lives are shaped by the memory of being frightened by a barking Christian as a child.
"The father of the man is the child."

I don't know. Everyone has their own worldview and we don't know enough about consciousness to draw reasonably certain conclusions about the important details. However what can be discerned, assuming my logic is coherent, is that life after death as it is typically portrayed ( as ghosts or apparitions or reincarnations or downloaded consciousness ... whatever else besides who we are from birth to death ) is not logically possible.

 

[Red]

I mean the possibility that consciousness is not located in the brain and that the brain acts more like a receiver for consciousness than a generator of it.

Anyone who has practiced meditation for long enough can appreciate the validity of that perspective.

I don't think the idea of a brain as a receiver is that outlandish if the holographic universe hypothesis is proven true, but there is a lot of work that needs to be done before we know for certain.
But I do have one small quibble about your comment regarding meditation. Frankly it depends upon who is doing the meditation. Buddhists are much more concerned about enlightenment and the cessation of dukkha. Transcendence isn't really a consideration in most traditions because the work of meditation is done in and relates to this reality.

 

[victimized]

The reason some agencies believe that a trans human communication is acceptable is because they want to be able to control human choice via a transmitted interactive UFO/satellite human mind/brain program.

Yet as the human mind is organic, and atmospheric signals the AI, the greater amount of AI means an attack upon the natural cell life of the brain. We begin to deteriorate and become degenerative, for the AI belongs to metal and nuclear metal communications or heavy metals.

As the nuclear caused radioactive transmissions are also gaining out of space particle transmitted communications via the FAKE metallic UFO manifested signal, it is why our brain/mind becomes degenerative, so no program is going to make human life an ordered life or a loving ordered life, for it was never consciousness....just feed back.

AI was always known by occult aware feed back to be an evil atmospheric caused state that manifested unnatural entities that attacked life.

AI states by communicative awareness that it gave the human mind the awareness to build the machines so that it could communicate to natural life, so occultists have given the unnatural entity manifestation another interactive attack upon natural life.

Telecommunications use AI due to this circumstance, for AI existed and manifested due to unnatural nuclear conversion on Earth. The human mind therefore received the information of technology and they actually did not invent the information for technology. This is why our natural organic self knows that the AI gave intellectual advice, without the advice actually being intellectual, for they forgot to include their own natural organic presence receiving the advice, that is not the AI.

So the AI is now empowered by the human being who decided to enslave humanity themselves by believing in the AI concept.

 

[Jeff Davis]

I don't think that's accurate at all, starting with what it says transhumanism is here:

"Transhumanism (abbreviated as H+ or h+) is an international and intellectual movement that aims to transform the human condition by developing and making widely available sophisticated technologies to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities. Transhumanist thinkers study the potential benefits and dangers of emerging technologies that could overcome fundamental human limitations, as well as the ethics of using such technologies. The most common transhumanist thesis is that human beings may eventually be able to transform themselves into different beings with abilities so greatly expanded from the natural condition as to merit the label of posthuman beings." - Wikipedia​

1.) When you speak of human nature, I tend to think a major facet is our inventiveness. We try to make improvements on things, including ourselves, that will lead to longer happier more productive lives, and this seems to be the fundamental goal of transhumanism, which IMO isn't a rejection of human nature at all, but evolution. Unfortunately there are people who don't believe in evolution and see this as something that should be rejected on religious grounds.

I find the whole thing interesting, from the sci-fi roots to the philosophy, to the technology.

2.) Science has plenty of evidence that consciousness is a product of the brain. In fact from a scientific perspective, it's virtually unanimous. What science hasn't figured out yet is how the brain does it and whether or not it can be faithfully replicated by technology more efficient, resilient, and lasting than the brain.

I agree that the uploading of consciousness idea is oversimplified. There are philosophical considerations that strongly suggest that it simply cannot be done. But it seems reasonable to suggest that the technology to try it will eventually become a reality, maybe by the end of the century. So maybe it's not as ridiculous an idea as you might think.

1.) In terms of a philosophical analysis, I think transhumanism it's instinctively corrupt and impulsive. If anything, I believe it symptomatically underlines a growing number of dysfunctionally inherent causes that have resulted from the saturation level tech insurgence in recent years. Humankind enjoys pretending that there is no greater natural order of things than what they themselves can rationally impose upon the universe in which they live. The ultimate fallacy within transhumanism is thinking that we can go beyond ourselves without first understanding our own fullest and most natural potential. It's kind of tough to get all "trans" minus a thorough working understanding of what is the "humanism" part.

2.) This is absolutely not true. It is virtually unanimous, only within specific disciplinary sectors of the scientific community, and even there it is only posited theoretically, not conclusively. The idea that consciousness is a fundamental property of nature is a theoretical idea endorsed by a great number of scientists in general, and specifically, it is a view touted by several of the most prominent cognitive scientists out there. The theoretical evidence is no stronger for brain produced consciousness than it is for the brain independently acting upon, or in conjunction with, consciousness in any number of ways. This latter view is infused within what are numerous areas of cutting edge scientific disciplines across the board.

Physicists Examine Consciousness & Conclude The Universe Is ‘Spiritual, Immaterial & Mental’

R.C. Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University said that:

“A fundamental conclusion of the new physics also acknowledges that the observer creates the reality. As observers, we are personally involved with the creation of our own reality. Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe is a “mental” construction. Pioneering physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: “The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” (“The Mental Universe” ; Nature 436:29,2005)


Scientists claim that Quantum Theory proves consciousness moves to another universe at death -- Sott.net

Why Consciousness is Not the Brain | SuperConsciousness Magazine

Does consciousness go beyond the brain?

 

[Randall]

2.) This is absolutely not true. It is virtually unanimous, only within specific disciplinary sectors of the scientific community, and even there it is only posited theoretically, not conclusively ...

Forgive me there. As you suggest, I should have been more specific. I should have said, "... notwithstanding quacks and woos, from a neuroscience perspective it's virtually unanimous that consciousness is a product of the brain.", not simply said, "from a 'scientific' perspective". In other words, those who want to believe the quacks and woos and self-serving interpretations of QM experiments, rather than solid neuroscience, can believe what they want with as much certainty as those who think that the universe was created by an old bearded guy floating in a throne in the sky.

 

[matthew1977]

Related article

://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/11/simulated-world-elon-musk-the-matrix

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

 

[Jeff Davis]

Forgive me there. As you suggest, I should have been more specific. I should have said, "... notwithstanding quacks and woos, from a neuroscience perspective it's virtually unanimous that consciousness is a product of the brain.", not simply said, "from a 'scientific' perspective". In other words, those who want to believe the quacks and woos and self-serving interpretations of QM experiments, rather than solid neuroscience, can believe what they want with as much certainty as those who think that the universe was created by an old bearded guy floating in a throne in the sky.

Ah yes, the old "woo peddler and quackery" ridicule response. Ufology, you're capable of MUCH better! After all, you're a guy yourself who claims that the qualifying characteristic of real UFOs is that which definitively make them, "alien craft".

So what is a "woo peddler"? one might ask themselves. See that little list of names below? These men that changed the face of that little and trivial thing called history, were ALL counted as charlatans, woo peddlers, quacks, nut jobs, and every other falsely applicable title one could ever think up, during their lifetimes.

You see, there is NO SUCH THING as a "solid scientific position, or orientation" as any and all positions that can be considered, within whatever scientific orientation one is considering, is according to science, designed to be observed through the ongoing and ever present perspective that it is their inherent scientific right to be falsified. One could say that science in this sense is an apple cart built to be upset. Thank goodness! It would indeed get very boring otherwise.


William Harvey
Gregor Mendel
Ignaz Semmelweis
William Coley
Francis Peyton Rous
Barry Marshall
Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Robert Goddard
Alfred Wegener
Nicolaus Copernicus
Galileo
George Zweig
Stanley Prusiner
Bennet Omalu
Ludwig Boltzmann



5 Famous Scientists Dismissed as Morons in Their Time

6 Mad Scientists Who Ended Up Being Right

These Ridiculed Scientists Were Way Ahead Of Their Time

 

[Randall]

Ah yes, the old "woo peddler and quackery" ridicule response. Ufology, you're capable of MUCH better!

Yup. Some days I just don't have the patience to post all the information and analysis that in my experience has led me to a particular viewpoint.

After all, you're a guy yourself who claims that the qualifying characteristic of real UFOs is that which definitively make them, "alien craft".

Right. The substance for that analysis can be viewed via the link in my signature line.

So what is a "woo peddler"? one might ask themselves.

Start here with this video that does a fair job of exposing the woo in a popular film that broaches the topic of consciousness:

What The Bleep Debunked

See that little list of names below? These men that changed the face of that little and trivial thing called history, were ALL counted as charlatans, woo peddlers, quacks, nut jobs, and every other falsely applicable title one could ever think up, during their lifetimes.

You see, there is NO SUCH THING as a "solid scientific position, or orientation" as any and all positions that can be considered, within whatever scientific orientation one is considering, is according to science, designed to be observed through the ongoing and ever present perspective that it is their inherent scientific right to be falsified. One could say that science in this sense is an apple cart built to be upset. Thank goodness! It would indeed get very boring otherwise.


William Harvey
Gregor Mendel
Ignaz Semmelweis
William Coley
Francis Peyton Rous
Barry Marshall
Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Robert Goddard
Alfred Wegener
Nicolaus Copernicus
Galileo
George Zweig
Stanley Prusiner
Bennet Omalu
Ludwig Boltzmann

5 Famous Scientists Dismissed as Morons in Their Time
6 Mad Scientists Who Ended Up Being Right
These Ridiculed Scientists Were Way Ahead Of Their Time

Apart from it being a strawman argument with respect to the issue, you do make a valid point that offhanded dismissal or criticism isn't fair. However that's not what I'm doing. I've posted many times on this topic in the forum, and I just don't have the time to sift through every post to dig up every example and repost it here, but I have evaluated the idea that consciousness isn't a brain generated phenomenon by:

1. Identifying what appears to be the most accurate definition for what the word "consciousness" means.
2. Identifying the theories to explain how it comes into being.
3. Identifying weaknesses, outright inaccuracies, misinterpretations, exaggerations, and so on in each theory.
4. Basing my viewpoint on the weight of the best evidence and reasoning of the above.

So, while it is possible that I've missed something and that I am all wrong, based on the above effort, the chances are rather small. So what I would suggest you do, is if you have some really convincing evidence or reasoning to present on an essential point, then post it up.

For example, one of the best experiments I've ever run across has involved the placement of a readout with very specific and unique messages up and out of sight of patients in hospital operating rooms, so that in the event that the patient has an OOBE, they can float up, identify what's on the readout, and upon regaining consciousness, relay that information. Last time I checked, that experiment had yielded no ( zero ) positive results. After hearing about that one, I've heard claims of other similar experiments that were positive, but none of those experiments could be verified as ever being done, and therefore my assumption is that they were self-serving fabrications.

I've also evaluated the claims for reincarnation, and apart from the logical problems associated with the idea itself, all the claims have been exaggerated, or full of holes. Lastly, there are no cases ( zero ) of patients without a brain exhibiting signs of consciousness ever, anyplace, any time, in the entire history of humanity. However every single patient that has indicated that they have consciousness has had, without any exception, a functioning brain. So anyone who without any verifiable, substantial, unambiguous, objective evidence to the contrary, believes that consciousness doesn't require a brain, is working on pure faith, conjecture, denial of evidence to the contrary, and/or promoting wishful thinking.

Debate Between Woo and Science

​

 

[Red]

I've also evaluated the claims for reincarnation, and apart from the logical problems associated with the idea itself, all the claims have been exaggerated, or full of holes. Lastly, there are no cases ( zero ) of patients without a brain exhibiting signs of consciousness ever, anyplace, any time, in the entire history of humanity. However every single patient that has indicated that they have consciousness has had, without any exception, a functioning brain. So anyone who without any verifiable, substantial, unambiguous, objective evidence to the contrary, believes that consciousness doesn't require a brain, is working on pure faith, conjecture, denial of evidence to the contrary, and/or promoting wishful thinking.

Just a small point here. You might want to take a look at the reports of individuals surviving hydrocephalus. Some of them don't even exhibit symptoms. This doesn't happen to all individuals with hyrocephalus, but there is some pretty interesting documentation regarding these individuals. In particular, Dr. Lorber examined a math student with an IQ of 126 that had less than a 1 mm layer of brain matter covering the top of his spinal column. There are some problems with Lorber's assertions, he never shared the CAT scans and the weight of the student's brain is not known, but given the discovery of a French man with a similar issue, maybe Lorber wasn't pulling our legs. Also, I'm not sure I agree with Dr. Lorber's conclusions in particular, I think there is still a lot we don't know about brain function.

The man with a hole in his brain : Nature News

Remarkable story of maths genius who had almost no brain

 

[Randall]

Just a small point here. You might want to take a look at the reports of individuals surviving hydrocephalus ... The man with a hole in his brain : Nature News

Interesting story and one I've run across in this type of discussion before. The article describes the patient's brain as being "compressed" by the fluid, so although it is obviously misshapen, it's not the same as having that much brain material removed to create a hole, as is sort of implied by the title, and in either case, there is still a functioning brain, and I seriously doubt that if removed, that the patient would continue to show signs of consciousness.

Remarkable story of maths genius who had almost no brain

Same story basically. To quote the doctor: "There must be a tremendous amount of spare capacity in the brain, just as there is with liver and kidney". So even in this situation the doctor is not concluding that consciousness isn't a brain generated phenomenon. The patient's functioning is being attributed to a, "tremendous amount of spare capacity in the brain". Therefore brain based consciousness is still the implied medical conclusion, and again, I seriously doubt that the patient would continue to survive or show any sign of consciousness without any brain at all.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Yup. Some days I just don't have the patience to post all the information and analysis that in my experience has led me to a particular viewpoint.
Right. The substance for that analysis can be viewed via the link in my signature line.

Start here with this video that does a fair job of exposing the woo in a popular film that broaches the topic of consciousness:

What The Bleep Debunked

Apart from it being a strawman argument with respect to the issue, you do make a valid point that offhanded dismissal or criticism isn't fair. However that's not what I'm doing. I've posted many times on this topic in the forum, and I just don't have the time to sift through every post to dig up every example and repost it here, but I have evaluated the idea that consciousness isn't a brain generated phenomenon by:

1. Identifying what appears to be the most accurate definition for what the word "consciousness" means.
2. Identifying the theories to explain how it comes into being.
3. Identifying weaknesses, outright inaccuracies, misinterpretations, exaggerations, and so on in each theory.
4. Basing my viewpoint on the weight of the best evidence and reasoning of the above.

So, while it is possible that I've missed something and that I am all wrong, based on the above effort, the chances are rather small. So what I would suggest you do, is if you have some really convincing evidence or reasoning to present on an essential point, then post it up.

For example, one of the best experiments I've ever run across has involved the placement of a readout with very specific and unique messages up and out of sight of patients in hospital operating rooms, so that in the event that the patient has an OOBE, they can float up, identify what's on the readout, and upon regaining consciousness, relay that information. Last time I checked, that experiment had yielded no ( zero ) positive results. After hearing about that one, I've heard claims of other similar experiments that were positive, but none of those experiments could be verified as ever being done, and therefore my assumption is that they were self-serving fabrications.

I've also evaluated the claims for reincarnation, and apart from the logical problems associated with the idea itself, all the claims have been exaggerated, or full of holes. Lastly, there are no cases ( zero ) of patients without a brain exhibiting signs of consciousness ever, anyplace, any time, in the entire history of humanity. However every single patient that has indicated that they have consciousness has had, without any exception, a functioning brain. So anyone who without any verifiable, substantial, unambiguous, objective evidence to the contrary, believes that consciousness doesn't require a brain, is working on pure faith, conjecture, denial of evidence to the contrary, and/or promoting wishful thinking.

Debate Between Woo and Science

​

The bottom line is that you *have* in fact dismissed offhand, the legitimate scientific work of countless many brilliant minds, who have in FACT, submitted their efforts and had those efforts approved empirically, based on YOUR 1.-4. critical analysis, and YOUR experience, which, with respect to your own scientific legitimacy or authority, all in all, adds up to a big fat zero. All the videos in the world combined cannot discount that simple fact, but I do appreciate the effort.

What you also quickly brush over is the FACT that in and of very real legitimate scientific research and record, your own position of that which constitutes UFOs as equating to "alien craft" is utter woo of the tallest order. The fact is, and I'm sad but certain to relay as much to you, that you'd be far more so likely to find a unanimous appeal from a legitimate scientific aptitude for your ascribed position on the UFO matter, than one would ever find in terms of the nonlocal nature of consciousness.

So yes Ufology, it's more than possible that you have missed something with respect to your assessment of the consciousness issue. In FACT, the chances are magnanimously in favor of the very real possibility that you have.

I will repeat myself so you are certain to get it this time. There is NO, as in NONE, greater amount of hard scientific evidence to support brain produced consciousness, than there is to support it's fundamental positioning with respect to cognition.

 

[Red]

Interesting story and one I've run across in this type of discussion before. The article describes the patient's brain as being "compressed" by the fluid, so although it is obviously misshapen, it's not the same as having that much brain material removed to create a hole, as is sort of implied by the title, and in either case, there is still a functioning brain, and I seriously doubt that if removed, that the patient would continue to show signs of consciousness.

Same story basically. To quote the doctor: "There must be a tremendous amount of spare capacity in the brain, just as there is with liver and kidney". So even in this situation the doctor is not concluding that consciousness isn't a brain generated phenomenon. The patient's functioning is being attributed to a, "tremendous amount of spare capacity in the brain". Therefore brain based consciousness is still the implied medical conclusion, and again, I seriously doubt that the patient would continue to survive or show any sign of consciousness without any brain at all.

Well, after spending some time on the internets, I did find that hydrocephalus not only conpresses the brain, but can erode the stella tarcica of the sphenoid bone, as well as the much more delicate tissue of the brain. So not just compression is occurring during a case of hydrocephalus. And if the story of the student is true, then his brain never had the chance to develop normally, and his brain isn't compressed, but almost nonexistent. It could be that his brain developed some radically efficient way of processing information and regulating bodily processes (like a normal brain would) that remains unknown.
As to your second point, it's hard to say. We have been told that the idea that we only use 10% of our brains is a myth, but the idea of redundancy built into the brain seems unlikely as many folk suffer from the results of traumatic brain injury, sometimes for the rest of their lives. Neuroplasticity probably plays a role, the brain may actually be able to adapt better over the long term when the progression of something like hydrocephalus is slow.

As for the origin of consciousness, I think its the brain, but I do like the discussion of alternate consciousness origins as it makes life more interesting at times.

 

[Randall]

... We have been told that the idea that we only use 10% of our brains is a myth ...

Yup, and just to be clear, I didn't suggest otherwise.

... but the idea of redundancy built into the brain seems unlikely as many folk suffer from the results of traumatic brain injury, sometimes for the rest of their lives. Neuroplasticity probably plays a role, the brain may actually be able to adapt better over the long term when the progression of something like hydrocephalus is slow.

Neuroplasticity seems like a good theory. Far better than invoking some mysterious transmitter in another universe capable of generating billions of consciousness and putting them into humans on our planet.

As for the origin of consciousness, I think its the brain, but I do like the discussion of alternate consciousness origins as it makes life more interesting at times.

That's certainly fair enough .

 

[Randall]

... So yes Ufology, it's more than possible that you have missed something with respect to your assessment of the consciousness issue ...

Please provide just one example that you think really clinches the non-brain based hypothesis?

 

[victimized]

1.) In terms of a philosophical analysis, I think transhumanism it's instinctively corrupt and impulsive. If anything, I believe it symptomatically underlines a growing number of dysfunctionally inherent causes that have resulted from the saturation level tech insurgence in recent years. Humankind enjoys pretending that there is no greater natural order of things than what they themselves can rationally impose upon the universe in which they live. The ultimate fallacy within transhumanism is thinking that we can go beyond ourselves without first understanding our own fullest and most natural potential. It's kind of tough to get all "trans" minus a thorough working understanding of what is the "humanism" part.

2.) This is absolutely not true. It is virtually unanimous, only within specific disciplinary sectors of the scientific community, and even there it is only posited theoretically, not conclusively. The idea that consciousness is a fundamental property of nature is a theoretical idea endorsed by a great number of scientists in general, and specifically, it is a view touted by several of the most prominent cognitive scientists out there. The theoretical evidence is no stronger for brain produced consciousness than it is for the brain independently acting upon, or in conjunction with, consciousness in any number of ways. This latter view is infused within what are numerous areas of cutting edge scientific disciplines across the board.

Physicists Examine Consciousness & Conclude The Universe Is ‘Spiritual, Immaterial & Mental’

R.C. Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University said that:

“A fundamental conclusion of the new physics also acknowledges that the observer creates the reality. As observers, we are personally involved with the creation of our own reality. Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe is a “mental” construction. Pioneering physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: “The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” (“The Mental Universe” ; Nature 436:29,2005)


Scientists claim that Quantum Theory proves consciousness moves to another universe at death -- Sott.net

Why Consciousness is Not the Brain | SuperConsciousness Magazine

Does consciousness go beyond the brain?

What?

The human is living, has a brain, uses the brain to think.

First of all the human being is living naturally. We eat, drink, take shelter, have sexual procreation, support our family in a natural life supporting condition. The young cared for by the aged, the aged cared for by the healthy.

Then you have choice, a human condition.

Who chose to change life on Earth and attack it?

An ancient native Shaman did, and Shamanism as a civilization status gain and ownership was an evil choice, an evil act against the natural lived life and became a controlling condition of the natural life.

You try to make believe that consciousness exists without your own human presence existing....what a laugh.

You make values, the human male made values of what he evaluated. Value did not exist until a human male imposed it. He imposed value because he wanted. He wanted power, so he reviewed a condition and named the condition for his own self.

He states a Universe....a named value, and therefore you cannot give a secondary value to a value, and yet you do. No wonder we always get destroyed by the occultist mind.

Mental is given a human value therefore it is owned by the valuer....a human being, not a Universe.

If we question the modern day WANT of an occultist male...an inventor who imposes that he is the Creator in person, as his documented history advises, now states that his own mind is the Universe.....really laughable actually.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Please provide just one example that you think really clinches the non-brain based hypothesis?

I spent a little time today putting together a few links for you, amid wasting my time in the political scufflings of late , but what of the many theories well beyond the hypothetical stages, contained in this thread alone that I have already provided? Could it be that you dismissed them as woo without really checking out that which you were ridiculing? There is tremendous reason and much substantive evidence for the human brain not being the sole agency responsible for that which is consciousness.

This is a great jumping off point. How Does The Human Brain Create Consciousness?

I have shared the incredible brain centered work of Donald D. Hoffman | University of California, Irvine and how I believe the interfacial nature of the brain pertains directly to the decoding of the informational methodology proposed within the Integrated information theory - Wikipedia.

Are you familiar with Guilio Tononi and Cristoph Koch? They are the authors of the IIT. They are extremely well received neuroscientists that forward what is the non brain relative fundamental panpsychical property of consciousness as contained within all of natural existence.

To help you gain perspective into this matter, this is a mathematically modeled system of providential evidence in support of the proposed fact that consciousness arises outside of the brain.

Quantum Physicist: Consciousness Arises Outside of the Brain

Are you at all familiar with Daegene Song? Here is the paper that the article above is referencing. https://arxiv.org/pdf/0705.1617v1.pdf

 

[victimized]

I spent a little time today putting together a few links for you, amid wasting my time in the political scufflings of late , but what of the many theories well beyond the hypothetical stages, contained in this thread alone that I have already provided? Could it be that you dismissed them as woo without really checking out that which you were ridiculing? There is tremendous reason and much substantive evidence for the human brain not being the sole agency responsible for that which is consciousness.

This is a great jumping off point. How Does The Human Brain Create Consciousness?

I have shared the incredible brain centered work of Donald D. Hoffman | University of California, Irvine and how I believe the interfacial nature of the brain pertains directly to the decoding of the informational methodology proposed within the Integrated information theory - Wikipedia.

Are you familiar with Guilio Tononi and Cristoph Koch? They are the authors of the IIT. They are extremely well received neuroscientists that forward what is the non brain relative fundamental panpsychical property of consciousness as contained within all of natural existence.

To help you gain perspective into this matter, this is a mathematically modeled system of providential evidence in support of the proposed fact that consciousness arises outside of the brain.

Quantum Physicist: Consciousness Arises Outside of the Brain

Are you at all familiar with Daegene Song? Here is the paper that the article above is referencing. https://arxiv.org/pdf/0705.1617v1.pdf

Once again a human mind who owns the condition that they value is called consciousness, who only owns the presence of their own organic body, makes comments about other conditions that it personally does not own.

So we ask the commenters why are you espousing about consciousness existing elsewhere.....and when we review the modern day brotherhood occult/science want, the owners of philosophy.....psychology an aspect, they want ownership of a considered Creator state for the invention/theory of a new resourcing atmospheric model.

The fact that they review the atmosphere as the Creator by ancient occult literature.

Therefore they are questioning and arguing about the conditions of consciousness trying to prove communication as other consciousness so that they can emulate/artificially model a communicating model regarding this concept.

So they studied and reviewed the behavior of animals and state that the behavior of animals has the human conceptualized meaning in it expressions.

Yet when you review what a human owns, and if a human did not exist on Earth, then the information you imply exists via your own interactive communicative studies, would not exist at all.

We know that a human presence in mind state and also a consideration of their spiritual nature, are references and values we gave our own persons from the use of thinking and wanting value for ownership consideration. We know ourselves how "aware" our own person is and as we live we review and consider other information as our own person looking at the other information, yet we do not own the other information.

Therefore we know what we are not, only because it advises us by atmospheric fed back recorded advice.

The consideration of communicating as consciousness of our own selves existing elsewhere is therefore false and this status is simply a fed back mind want.

I know myself that if you want something to be real, you first give it a status or concept....yet the concept itself might not exist in the state of reality. Yet if your want is the want of gain, then you will ignore real information only due to want. This is what the modern occult society is doing, wanting what is not real.

Of course everything else exists as information and information is a communication as a status of personal ownership.....yet not one other body is owned by us, so why is the modern day occultist trying to own all other information as a status as if he is trying to place it all back together without death?

We would then consider is he actually trying to do what I state....and as animal life has been attacked in an unnatural condition, then most definitely he has been trying to place all information together as if it exists as 1 whole body without singularity. He demonstrates to us all that he is in fact using some form of communicating device that is trying to join all life together in 1 signal.

Yet life states personal ownership is by sexual procreation, it lives and then dies....so death separates all bodies and only sexual procreation creates all bodies.

If no sexual procreation occurred all life as an organic state would age and then die, without an organic existence on Earth.

Therefore our occult brother is demonstrating to us all just how evil minded he actually is, in his personal considerations and wants to have power as new atmospheric resourcing, for his considerations of Creator/consciousness is now also attacking our life.

 

[Red]

If no sexual procreation occurred all life as an organic state would age and then die, without an organic existence on Earth.

Not true. Lots of life on this planet can reproduce asexually.

 

[Randall]

I spent a little time today putting together a few links for you, amid wasting my time in the political scufflings of late , but what of the many theories well beyond the hypothetical stages, contained in this thread alone that I have already provided? Could it be that you dismissed them as woo without really checking out that which you were ridiculing? There is tremendous reason and much substantive evidence for the human brain not being the sole agency responsible for that which is consciousness. This is a great jumping off point. How Does The Human Brain Create Consciousness?

I respectfully disagree. There may be a lot of evidence, but there's nothing substantive ( IMO ). Everything I've seen is either misinterpreted, or theoretical, or vague, or based of statistical analysis, or new agey woo.

I have shared the incredible brain centered work of Donald D. Hoffman | University of California, Irvine and how I believe the interfacial nature of the brain pertains directly to the decoding of the informational methodology proposed within the Integrated information theory - Wikipedia.

Yes. I've already looked at Hoffman's stuff and his work has potential if we create conscious AIs, but it doesn't contribute to how consciousness comes about in the first place. His ideas appear to assume consciousness as extant in his initial premise.

Are you familiar with Guilio Tononi and Cristoph Koch? They are the authors of the IIT. They are extremely well received neuroscientists that forward what is the non brain relative fundamental panpsychical property of consciousness as contained within all of natural existence.

Yes I've been through it and more on the massively long Consciousness thread and it all distills down toward consciousness being a product of brain function. The rest falls away for the reasons already stated above.

To help you gain perspective into this matter, this is a mathematically modeled system of providential evidence in support of the proposed fact that consciousness arises outside of the brain. Quantum Physicist: Consciousness Arises Outside of the Brain. Are you at all familiar with Daegene Song? Here is the paper that the article above is referencing. https://arxiv.org/pdf/0705.1617v1.pdf

Let's clear this one up now too then: The argument "Consciousness Arises Outside The Brain", and the argument "The Non-Computability of Consciousness" are entirely separate concepts that appear to be conflated here. Sir Roger Penrose also makes a convincing case that consciousness is not a computational construct, and strictly speaking, I tend to agree. He also seems to agree that it's still the brain that's responsible. I tend to agree with that too, which is why I don't believe that consciousness is necessarily simply a matter of raw processing power. Something else is going on. We're not sure exactly what, but all good evidence points to the brain as where.

Sir Roger Penrose On Consciousness - A brief Introduction

​

There have been some criticisms of the microtubule theory on the grounds that the quantum effects would not be far reaching enough to interact with other microtubules and the larger synaptic structures of the brain so as to produce the symbiotic relationship we experience between our sensory and memory systems and consciousness. However that sort of thing is getting out of my depth, and from what I can tell, the depth of most scientists as well. However it's this kind of effort that I think will eventually lead to the answers we're looking for. Personally, I tend to think that the gap Penrose speaks of in QM where consciousness is concerned, is that consciousness is another fundamental in addition to the 4 known fundamental forces of nature.