|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jan 17, 2016 11:44:17 GMT -5
A few scientific tidbits about consciousness: 1. It's tied strongly to the brain, as suspected. In fact, we have charted the circuitry in the brain that modulates consciousness. We can, if we want to, shut off consciousness by cutting its path. 2. But the consciousness isn't gone, it's just hidden away. We now know that people in a vegetative state retain consciousness. We used to think lights out, game over, "he's left us." Studies now show that sometimes such people can understand what we say, because the appropriate section of their brain lights up in response to our questions. In fact, the consciousness can be repressed for as much as ten years, and then woken up...we have had people come back from a "game-over" state as many as ten years later, and consciousness returns. 3. Moreover, consciousness appears to be returnable for several hours after brain death (I should be careful here and say after brain activity can no longer be detected). This happens when clinical death occurs and the patient is revived up to hours later. And if the patients are to be believed, the consciousness continues to work while they are clinically dead. But what all of this means is lost on me, because I struggle to define exactly what consciousness IS. I'm interested in these can you please provide references? I bet you can find info on the Don Herbert case. I'd pick up Erasing Death, by Sam Parnia, if you want to learn more. Parnia's book isn't as fascinating, he doesn't present case studies like researchers like Peter Fenwick or Stephen Hawley Martin or P.M.H. Asweet thinger, he just assumes you're familiar with the reports. I had a hard time with Fenwick et. al. because they draw conclusions which are too fantastic, but Parnia just presents the data, from a surgeon's viewpoint and pretty much lets you draw conclusions. He spends a lot of the book writing about resuscitation. edit: ok, I have no idea why A-T-W-A-T-E-R is being changed to Asweet thinger. edit again: omg, now I get it! (blushes with embarrassment)
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Jan 18, 2016 7:42:01 GMT -5
I'm interested in these can you please provide references? I bet you can find info on the Don Herbert case. I'd pick up Erasing Death, by Sam Parnia, if you want to learn more. Parnia's book isn't as fascinating, he doesn't present case studies like researchers like Peter Fenwick or Stephen Hawley Martin or P.M.H. Asweet thinger, he just assumes you're familiar with the reports. I had a hard time with Fenwick et. al. because they draw conclusions which are too fantastic, but Parnia just presents the data, from a surgeon's viewpoint and pretty much lets you draw conclusions. He spends a lot of the book writing about resuscitation. edit: ok, I have no idea why A-T-W-A-T-E-R is being changed to Asweet thinger. edit again: omg, now I get it! (blushes with embarrassment) Oh my, most entertaining references ever. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 18, 2016 11:46:21 GMT -5
I had a hard time with Fenwick et. al. because they draw conclusions which are too fantastic, but Parnia just presents the data, from a surgeon's viewpoint and pretty much lets you draw conclusions. He spends a lot of the book writing about resuscitation. To avoid having to deal with the conclusions drawn by others you can skip the middleman and simply look at the actual data on which they based their conclusions. Many times they are telling a story and also have a book to sell. History shows that with a slight twist of the facts a much better selling story can created.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 19, 2016 0:13:55 GMT -5
Interesting observation of relative consciousness by Winston Churchill:
Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Jan 19, 2016 20:55:03 GMT -5
Interesting observation of relative consciousness by Winston Churchill: Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals Good one! Wondering if consciousness could evolve by means of intelligent orchestration? Or should we call it Intelligent design?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 20, 2016 23:03:05 GMT -5
Interesting observation of relative consciousness by Winston Churchill: Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals Good one! Wondering if consciousness could evolve by means of intelligent orchestration? Or should we call it Intelligent design?
|
|
|
Post by Guest 4 on Jan 21, 2016 4:22:05 GMT -5
DNA encoded brain functional truth!
GOD does exist everywhere even in our consciousness.
GOD doesn't need caricatures to indicate His
Omniscience benevolent Spirit
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 21, 2016 9:15:20 GMT -5
GOD doesn't need caricatures to indicate His Omniscience benevolent Spirit No, the creation of god was something that man needed.
|
|
|
Post by Guest 4 on Jan 21, 2016 10:27:38 GMT -5
Mankind has always sought to create some type of god/idol and yet the Creator does not need to be created He is the Eternal omniscient GOD Your bodilyblueprint is nestled in the preside DNA that GOD created for your spirit/soul to reside in til your spirit is called away
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Jan 21, 2016 13:38:59 GMT -5
The human body evolving over time is separate to the soul and spirit which is god breathed.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Jan 21, 2016 15:14:29 GMT -5
No, the creation of god was something that man needed. To be more precise: The creation of the concept of God was (arguably) something that man needed. To many, the “God” (or similar) word points to an ineffable, transcendent reality that is quite independent of any thoughts we might have about it, or words we might use/invent to try to capture it. Even though "God" may have never meant anything to you other than an idea in your head, it does not negate the glimpses that others have had of the realm of the sacred, the infinite vastness, behind that word.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 21, 2016 15:54:42 GMT -5
We might as well add some 100 year old Freud & Jung ideas into the mix.
|
|
|
Post by Guest 4 on Jan 21, 2016 16:35:39 GMT -5
We might as well add some 100 year old Freud & Jung ideas into the mix. Hey can you please explain what this diagram means? Thanks
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Jan 21, 2016 16:46:07 GMT -5
Would the subconscious part of the conscious, since it can be easily accessible to the conscious Then the unconscious might be also accessible at times?
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 21, 2016 17:23:10 GMT -5
We might as well add some 100 year old Freud & Jung ideas into the mix. Hey can you please explain what this diagram means? Thanks Freud's ideas are not so relevant today. Most of his ideas have fallen out of favor. He made his own interpretations from what his patents said which was mainly explaining the behavior of his patients in hindsight instead of predicting anything about the future.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 21, 2016 17:28:33 GMT -5
Would the subconscious part of the conscious, since it can be easily accessible to the conscious Then the unconscious might be also accessible at times? I would skip Freud and go directly to Neuroscience.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 21, 2016 17:37:30 GMT -5
No, the creation of god was something that man needed. To be more precise: The creation of the concept of God was (arguably) something that man needed. To many, the “God” (or similar) word points to an ineffable, transcendent reality that is quite independent of any thoughts we might have about it, or words we might use/invent to try to capture it. Even though "God" may have never meant anything to you other than an idea in your head, it does not negate the glimpses that others have had of the realm of the sacred, the infinite vastness, behind that word. To be even more precise - there is nothing that points to there being a god. The 'glimpses' that have been passed down are all in the realm of anecdotal tales. What god has meant or means to me is not the issue. What people believe is not the issue. The issue is as old as the concept. There have been a multitude of claims but what is missing to support the extraordinary claims is the extraordinary proof. For some people belief supported by faith constitutes 'proof' but that is not the way the real world works. Dabbling in spirits and speculating regarding paranormal beliefs is fun but does not constitute proof in any sense of the word. I do not deny that people hold these beliefs nor that at some point, after countless centuries of people trying, that someone will pop up and present that extraordinary proof to support the extraordinary claim. But until that happens - god is a belief, a concept.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 21, 2016 19:22:00 GMT -5
"For some people belief supported by faith constitutes 'proof' but that is not the way the real world works."
That explains gambling addictions, football bets, and risky business adventures. Our beliefs are more than sport and passion, they convey what's ultimately important to us. Can you proved you're loved? Can you prove you're loveable? Of course you can't. No one would ever think to prove these things empirically. No one could. Like life itself, the most precious things to us are dynamic, real, and unpredictable.
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Jan 21, 2016 20:15:18 GMT -5
Recipe for "There's More than Meets the Eye" a large splash of human ego; a dose of death-denial; two generous measures of superstition; a dash of wishful thinking. We are a self-contained organism. Let us just accept what can be proven and avoid letting our imaginations run riot as this just leads into confusion and mayhem. What we can process with our senses and understand should be our focus; if it makes sense then use it; if concepts cannot be evidenced then lose them. Source expert knowledge for new information regarding consciousness. Neuroscientists including Baroness Susan Greenfield (see above video posted by xna) are at the forefront of this scientific field. Airy-fairy interpretations belong to the fairy tale phase of our childhood.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 21, 2016 20:58:45 GMT -5
Recipe for "There's More than Meets the Eye" a large splash of human ego; a dose of death-denial; two generous measures of superstition; a dash of wishful thinking. We are a self-contained organism. Let us just accept what can be proven and avoid letting our imaginations run riot as this just leads into confusion and mayhem. What we can process with our senses and understand should be our focus; if it makes sense then use it; if concepts cannot be evidenced then lose them. Source expert knowledge for new information regarding consciousness. Neuroscientists including Baroness Susan Greenfield (see above video posted by xna ) are at the forefront of this scientific field. Airy-fairy interpretations belong to the fairy tale phase of our childhood. joanna You mike like her BBC series on the brain archive.org/details/BBC.Brain.Story.1of6.All.in.the.Mind.XviD.AC3.HDTVm4ripos4archive.org/details/BBC.Brain.Story.1of6.All.in.the.Mind.XviD.AC3.HDTVm4ripos4FYI At time mark 37 min. starting with the story of Vincent van Gogh and god may be interesting to some on TMB.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 21, 2016 23:48:15 GMT -5
"For some people belief supported by faith constitutes 'proof' but that is not the way the real world works." That explains gambling addictions, football bets, and risky business adventures. In some ways. People are not very good at assessing risks. That is why people who fear flying climb into a car without question even though flying is demonstrably safer. It is why many gamblers always claim to be ahead or at least on the verge of being ahead.That does not mean they are anything but your belief supported by faith that requires neither material nor logical support.There is no need - I have never made the claim. But you could do a survey if there is some reason to know.I could ask around and get opinions. By definition if there was a single person who said they loved me I would be lovable. At the same time that would prove I was loved.But I just showed a simple way to prove whether I was lovable or not.You just asked the question and I provided the methodology.You can repeat it as much as you wish but it doesn't change the facts.Perhaps you could name some of these real things that are precious to you. I am surprised that you have eliminated god from the list.
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Jan 22, 2016 1:11:52 GMT -5
Yes, and if 100 people say that they love GOD and therefore GOD is Loveable.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 22, 2016 9:02:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Hmmmm on Jan 22, 2016 9:18:44 GMT -5
Love at first sight? hmmmm
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 22, 2016 10:41:22 GMT -5
Yes, and if 100 people say that they love GOD and therefore GOD is Loveable. Yes, their definition and concept of the god they believe in is lovable. This says nothing regarding whether that entity (god) exists or not. Hundreds of innocent children, with no reason to lie, claim to love various fairy princesses too. That does not mean there are actually fairy princesses.
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Jan 22, 2016 12:30:59 GMT -5
I think the point is about proof. Can a claim be made and be considered as a proof? How does one prove that we have love for another, unless we understand the Essence of love / (or source/nature of)??
Just something to think about.
Are we borrowing a term that belongs to our Creator ?
Can we prove that/where love exists? And that it really is as real as you or your wife?
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Jan 22, 2016 12:33:58 GMT -5
What GOD hath joined together let no man put asunder . GOD is love.
|
|
|
Post by hmmmm on Jan 22, 2016 13:10:05 GMT -5
[is the extraordinary proof. For some people belief supported by faith constitutes 'proof' but that is not the way the real world works. some point, after countless centuries of people trying, that someone will pop up and present that extraordinary proof to support the extraordinary claim. But until that happens - god is a belief, a concept.
|
|