reply to post by neoholographic
Originally posted by neoholographic
Your reasoning equates to, Consciousness MUST BE an emergent property of the material brain even though it makes ZERO sense.
This is not my position. I have stated it more than once.
Again, these are just the facts.
You seem not to know the difference between assumption and fact. Why should I trust anything further you say if you can't get the basics correct?
Usually when science runs up against facts then you build new theories to explain the underlying phenomena. Sadly, in too many cases people
have a confirmation bias and they're stuck in their belief no matter how silly it is.
What does this have to do with the position you have? There are many people who hold many theories of how consciousness emerges, and we're attempting
to test, and verify if these theories are correct. So far, nothing solid has come out of it.
The point is, this is impossible for the material brain. It makes no sense to even entertain such a ridiculous notion.
Again, you are assuming. It's certainly not, "impossible", the truth is that we have yet to have any real understanding of how probable, or improbable
it is that consciousness arises outside of quantum mechanisms. I refer you to the second source TTTP gave, which I quoted. It clearly shows this is
not, "impossible". Do you have a specific refute to the source?
You have scientific theories that recognize this and seek to explain consciousness as a fundamental property of reality instead of an emergent
property of the material brain. Many of these theories are on the right track but they're met with ridicule because of confirmation bias and a silly,
unwavering belief that consciousness HAS TO emerge from the material brain.
They're met with ridicule because the ones who are making these wild claims are often not scientists. Are you going to refer me to "what the bleep do
we know", the documentary that twisted the one expert, and threw in a bunch of morons to play on people's beliefs and emotions?
Again, there's no way the material brain can recall specific memories at will, know the difference between specific memories and know which
memories I wish to recall.
You have absolutely no way of knowing this. I think your reasoning is pretty pathetic here, actually.
How can the material brain recall and know I want to recall a specific memory from a trip to Chicago in 1985? How does the material brain know
which brain cells to activate to recall this specific memory from 1985?
Um, I don't know, why would it not know this? It's a circular argument. How does anything in the brain happen? How does any of it come to be? The
reason we can have these experiences, is because we have a need for this to be the case. Those with less efficient memory organizations are less fit.
Over time, we have evolved to form more complex memories, and levels of self-awareness. This is very straight forward. I have no clue why you're hung
I'm not saying because we don't know it must be another explanation. I'M SAYING IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE MATERIAL BRAIN TO RECALL SPECIFIC
MEMORIES AT WILL AND KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE SPECIFIC MEMORIES.
No, it's most definitely not. What you're forgetting, is that what we consciously process is but a sliver of what is available. Think of EEC memory.
You know what that is? An easy metaphor is that various pathways through many memories are accessed, all of which give a piece of the data to
reconstruct the whole of the information. It doesn't work linearly as you're trying to make it out to be. That's what very limited people think of, on
a conscious level. The brain is simply not thinking as you demand it absolutely must.
The brain can process vast amounts of information but when you try to say that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, you're
moving into Fantasy Island territory. There has to be a force outside of the material brain that can exert it's will on the material brain and can
ACCESS AT WILL SPECIFIC INFORMATION THAT THE BRAIN HAS PROCESSED.
No, there doesn't. You provide no evidence that this must be the case. You simply run with an assumption, based on an erroneous way of viewing how the
brain must operate. It's ridiculous, and I'm done trying to get through to you.
edit on 27-7-2013 by QuantriQueptidez because: (no reason given)