Questions for Atheists and Agnostics

[ChristineM]

Evidence for string theory?

Save your time. There's none.

Like i thought, you have nothing but obfuscation. You introduced string theory after the fact as some method to explain your claim of " You are talking to people who insist as an article of faith that consciousness is a product of the brain. "

Please provide an explanation as to how string theory is relevant to consciousness, preferably with medical or scientific citations

Or simply provide evidence for your claim. Its simple enough, you made a claim now justify it.

 

[ERLOS]

Like i thought, you have nothing but obfuscation. You introduced string theory after the fact as some method to explain your claim of " You are talking to people who insist as an article of faith that consciousness is a product of the brain. "

Please provide an explanation as to how string theory is relevant to consciousness, preferably with medical or scientific citations

Or simply provide evidence for your claim. Its simple enough, you made a claim now justify it.

Don't try to bully me.
Prove it (consciousness) doesn't originate outside the brain?

 

[ERLOS]

Said my bit. On my bike ...

 

[ChristineM]

Why do you ask? String theory is not even a proper scientific theory. The math is promising for it, but it has not been supported by evidence yet. Even scientists sometimes use the word "theory" incorrectly. Did you have a point?

His point was to obfuscate because he cannot justify his claim

 

[Subduction Zone]

To start with the body/brain and conclude everything originates therefrom is quite similar to the belief that everything went round the earth, imo.

There is rather strong evidence that the brain is the source of thought. What evidence do you have to the contrary?

 

[Subduction Zone]

His point was to obfuscate because he cannot justify his claim

I can see that. Those that can't support their beliefs with evidence will often try to lay a smoke screen and use the tu quoque fallacy.

 

[ERLOS]

Last comment then: I can have an idea that cant be proved and that's bad; but when you do the same thing, that's good.

 

[ChristineM]

Don't try to bully me.
Prove it doesn't.

Who is bullying? You made a claim, i am asking you to justify it. Its your own credibility that suffers if you can't

 

[ChristineM]

Exactly. It's a nice idea that has a lot of serious people interested in it. But not an iota of proof or evidence. Supetsymmetry hasn't been found by the LHC so now they just shift the possible parameters and suggest a bigger collided may find it?

These are serious scientists. But who completely reject anything like disembodied consciousness exists because it cannot be proved.

I find it pretty sad.

So why ask?

Obvious... Obfuscation

 

[ChristineM]

Last comment then: I can have an idea that cant be proved and that's bad; but when you do the same thing, that's good.

Nope, all you need to do is identify it as opinion... Simples

 

[Subduction Zone]

Last comment then: I can have an idea that cant be proved and that's bad; but when you do the same thing, that's good.

What are you talking about? It appears that you are opposing an idea that is supported by evidence with an idea that is not supported by evidence. No idea in science is "proved". Not even something as obvious as gravity. But one can test one's ideas in science. How would you test your idea? If you can't think of a reasonable test then it moves into the realm of "not even wrong".

 

[SalixIncendium]

So what is is a product of, with citations please

Are you the citation police? Your tactics on this forum are getting old. Just because someone suggests something that goes against your worldview doesn't mean you have the right to bully them into citing references that supports what they suggest.

Where consciousness originates is an ongoing debate. The suggestion that it originates in brain is nothing more than a hypothesis in the scientific community. Attempting to bully some who suggest otherwise into posting citations amounts to nothing more than trolling.

 

[SalixIncendium]

There is rather strong evidence that the brain is the source of thought. What evidence do you have to the contrary?

"Rather strong evidence?" Please share.

 

[SalixIncendium]

What are you talking about? It appears that you are opposing an idea that is supported by evidence with an idea that is not supported by evidence. No idea in science is "proved". Not even something as obvious as gravity. But one can test one's ideas in science. How would you test your idea? If you can't think of a reasonable test then it moves into the realm of "not even wrong".

Again, where is this evidence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Rather strong evidence?" Please share.

Really? You have no clue? The tie between brain injury and generally lessened mental ability, the various brain scans that show a tie between chemical activity in the brain and thought? Those are evidence for a physical base to thought. I could find and link studies for you if you are unaware of those. What studies demonstrate anything else?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Really? You have no clue? The tie between brain injury and generally lessened mental ability, the various brain scans that show a tie between chemical activity in the brain and thought? Those are evidence for a physical base to thought. I could find and link studies for you if you are unaware of those. What studies demonstrate anything else?

'Consciousness' is not 'mental ability' nor is it 'thought.' Consciousness is your existence before (or more accurately, behind) thought or the ability to perform mental processes. You are here before a thought arrives, and you are here after a thought has departed.

I am not my thoughts. I am not my body. I am not my mind. I simply am.

 

[ERLOS]

Really? You have no clue? The tie between brain injury and generally lessened mental ability, the various brain scans that show a tie between chemical activity in the brain and thought? Those are evidence for a physical base to thought. I could find and link studies for you if you are unaware of those. What studies demonstrate anything else?

I can't let it go, in case someone out there is hoodwinked by the faulty logic. If my computer is damaged, its function will be degraded.

The analogy: many functions, typewtiting, calculating etc, do originate from the unit. Many ordinary functions relative to everyday living probably do originate in the brain.

ie: no brain function = brain dead.

But there is another far greater function of my computer, as a reception vehicle for the internet.

Imo.

 

[Subduction Zone]

'Consciousness' is not 'mental ability' nor is it 'thought.' Consciousness is your existence before (or more accurately, behind) thought or the ability to perform mental processes. You are here before a thought arrives, and you are here after a thought has departed.

I am not my thoughts. I am not my body. I am not my mind. I simply am.

That is mostly word salad. Perhaps a little ranch dressing would work. Meanwhile they the seat of consciousness may have been found:

https://www.sciencealert.com/harvar...pinpointed-the-neural-source-of-consciousness

Now do you have anything at all that supports something other than a physical origin of thought and consciousness?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can't let it go, in case someone out there is hoodwinked by the faulty logic. If my computer is damaged, its function will be degraded.

The analogy: many functions, typewtiting, calculating etc, do originate from the unit. Many ordinary functions relative to everyday living probably do originate in the brain.

ie: no brain function = brain dead.

But there is another far greater function of my computer, as a reception vehicle for the internet.

Imo.

Poor analogy since we understand how computers connect to the internet. You are the one making an unsupported claim about consciousness. I can support a physical origin, you can't seem to support your beliefs at all. You really should not accuse others of your sins.

 

[ERLOS]

Poor analogy since we understand how computers connect to the internet. You are the one making an unsupported claim about consciousness. I can support a physical origin, you can't seem to support your beliefs at all. You really should not accuse others of your sins.

https://www.sciencealert.com/harvar...pinpointed-the-neural-source-of-consciousness

... the researchers acknowledged that they need to verify their find across a larger group of patients.

Independent teams will also need to confirm their results before we can say for sure that these three regions are the physical source of consciousness in our brains.

In the meantime, the research will hopefully lead to new treatment options for patients in comas and vegetative states, who might have otherwise healthy brains but simply can't regain consciousness ...

Really, I'm out of here ...

 

[Subduction Zone]

https://www.sciencealert.com/harvar...pinpointed-the-neural-source-of-consciousness

I... the researchers acknowledged that they need to verify their find across a larger group of patients.

Independent teams will also need to confirm their results before we can say for sure that these three regions are the physical source of consciousness in our brains.

In the meantime, the research will hopefully lead to new treatment options for patients in comas and vegetative states, who might have otherwise healthy brains but simply can't regain consciousness ...

Really, I'm out of here ...

Yes, all findings in science are always tentative. If all you can do is to demonstrate a lack of understanding of the scientific method you only shoot yourself in the foot. You tried to accuse others of your wrong doings. There is evidence for consciousness being a totally "mechanical" process. I can support my claims with evidence. What evidence is there for there being more to thought than just the physical?