It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Memory Uploads and Consciousness

page: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astrocyte
reply to post by Tetrarch42
 





There doesn't need to be "a consciousness outside of the material brain that exerts it's will on the material brain and activates brain cells that will recall a specific memory..." when the material brain does exactly this


You do realize though that this is a philosophical presupposition, correct?

Those who disagree with the premise that consciousness is just brain function disagree because it isn't very intelligible; it doesn't describe mechanism of action; it simply presumes based on its limited understanding that because the brain can give or take away consciousness, that then means that the brain IS consciousness.

And the argument that it "isn't" a necessary assumption is again, a personal feeling about you define the word "necessary". Does necessary mean that the brain changes consciousness, therefore the brain equals consciousness? Or, does necessary mean that the mental and physical are two completely different things, therefore, consciousness needs to be explained without recourse to the physical. In other words, it's what you find most interesting that determines what you consider necessary. If the idea of a "magical" creation of a new property from nothing more than the collective interactions of trillions of physical neurons sounds reasonable to you, than you will accept the premise that the brain is "all there is" to consciousness; you won't bother wondering further. However, if consciousness - cognition, and value - are things that seem to transcend any physical substance, then you will insist that science is at present incomplete; that the mental must be a basic part to the natural process; from insects, to animals, to humans, the mental is a common property.

Neo-Darwinian evolution does not provide any logical explanation for why the universe should have developed in this way; why did "consciousness" arise when it didn't exist at the beginning? Contemplate that for a second and think how absurd that sounds; that life emerged is strange enough; that creatures with "consciousness" emerged out of that process adds a degree of unintelligibility to the claim "consciousness = brain" that some people have a difficult time accepting.


My understanding is that science has uncovered no evidence suggesting that consciousness is anything but the sum total of the brain and its functions, though I'm open to evidence you have to offer. In which case there is no presupposition that the material brain exerts its will to activate the brain cells needed to recover a specific memory. Until an individual is able to support the claim that consciousness exists independent of the brain and exerts its will upon the material brain then it's nothing but speculation. I can even postulate that the brain does not, infact, have the capability to self-determine. But if you reject both these claims you're forced to simply withhold your judgement, in which case this exchange can't be productive.

There is nothing "magical" about the fact that the summation of brain matter and brain activity = the property of consciousness. No more so than the summation of thousands of termites and grains of dirt = a complex termite cathedral is "magical". Both the complex termite mound and consciousness are emergent properties of interactions between infinitely less complex units.

I'm unsure what you're attempting to illustrate with your allusion to "Neo-Darwinian evolution(is this just modern day evolutionary theory?) Evolution has nothing to say about the formation of the universe, and typically nothing to say about how life first began; unless of course you're including concepts like abiogenesis or panspermia into evolutionary theory (which may require a separate discussion). I find no issue with the idea that consciousness arose from non-consciousness, I see consciousness as nothing more than the sum total of brain and interactions between smaller items within the brain.




posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Scientists already grew a rat brain in a petri dished, and taught it to successfully manuver a flight simulator. THIS WAS DONE IN 2004!!!!!!!!!!!!

THAT'S ALMOST A DECADE AGO!!!!!!!!

I would bet money the U.S. Gov already has a Human Brain grown in a Petri dish connected to quantum super computers under some black ops pentagon black budget operation.

Imagine a room full of 100 brains, all networked together with access to the Net, Quantum Computing, with Manipulated Genes to produce Einstein sized brains, since his was 10-15% bigger than average
edit on 29-7-2013 by dominicus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Tetrarch42
 


What you're saying is just pure conjecture. You take the default position that consciousness emerging from the material brain is fact until someone proves otherwise. This is just asinine.

WHY DO WE HAVE TO START WITH THAT ASSUMPTION?

It's because people have a belief that consciousness emerges from the material brain. This has nothing to do with science. It's just an assumption based on a person's personal belief system. Why should I have to provide you evidence the consciousness isn't an emergent property of the material brain when you have ZERO evidence that any of these things are even possible for the material brain to achieve.

There's theories out there of quantum consciousness, a higher dimensional self, collective consciousness, morphic fields, cemi field theory and theories that say consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe vs. an emergent property of the material brain.

Now there's ZERO reason to say that consciousness emerging from the material brain is any more valid than any of the things I have mentioned unless you start with a priori that consciousness emerging from the material brain is true and proven and everything else has to refute this proven claim. This is just a lie.

THERE"S ZERO EVIDENCE THAT CONSCIOUSNESS EMERGES FROM THE MATERIAL BRAIN.

It's a statement of fact made by those who believe it. It has nothing to do with science.

I just recalled a memory from when I went to camp in 6th grade.

Walk me through it and give me the scientific studies and citations to back your claim that the material brain can do these things.

How does the material brain know that I wish to recall a specific memory about camp in the 6th grade?

How does the material brain know the difference between going to camp in the 6th grade vs. going to camp in the 7th grade?

How does the material brain know which brain cells to activate to recall that specific memory?

Give me some scientific evidence that's conclusive and shows the material brain can accomplish these things.

It has to be conclusive for anyone to start with the default position that Consciousness MUST emerge from the material brain. If there's not conclusive evidence that this is the case or that this is even possible based on scientific experiments instead of pure conjecture, then these other theories have to be given just as much or more weight than the assumption that consciousness emerges from the material brain.



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by dominicus
 


What an ignorant post.

First, Einsteins brain was normal sized; the only place which was slightly larger was a part in the parietal lobe - where mathematical reasoning is localized.




Scientists already grew a rat brain in a petri dished


umm, no they didn't.



I would bet money the U.S. Gov already has a Human Brain grown in a Petri dish connected to quantum super computers under some black ops pentagon black budget operation.


I would gladly take that bet. Not only have we not grown a brain, but we still don't even have an appreciable knowledge of the brain; and estimates put that happening some time later on this century or early in the 2100s.



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Astrocyte
 



What an ignorant post.

Actually, if you did your homework, you'd now that this isn't an ignorant post. Please allow me to take you to school for a second here. Class is in session:
Albert Einstein's Brain Wiki


the inferior parietal lobe was 15 percent wider than normal.

That was the context I meant to say it in. He had specific areas in the brain missing and entirely inactive, while other sections where more developed and active.


First, Einsteins brain was normal sized; the only place which was slightly larger was a part in the parietal lobe - where mathematical reasoning is localized.

Much more than that, he had other sections missing or inactive.



Scientists already grew a rat brain in a petri dished umm, no they didn't.

Ummm yes they did, in 2004. Your almost a decade behind the times.
CNN: Rat Brain gown in Petri Dish Learns to fly Flight Simlator 2004


(CNN) -- A Florida scientist has developed a "brain" in a glass dish that is capable of flying a virtual fighter plane and could enhance medical understanding of neural disorders such as epilepsy. The "living computer" was grown from 25,000 neurons extracted from a rat's brain and arranged over a grid of 60 electrodes in a Petri dish. The brain cells then started to reconnect themselves, forming microscopic interconnections, said Thomas DeMarse, professor of biomedical engineering at the University of Florida.

Nat Geo Supporting Article



I would gladly take that bet. Not only have we not grown a brain, but we still don't even have an appreciable knowledge of the brain; and estimates put that happening some time later on this century or early in the 2100s.

You would lose that bet. Scientists are able to grow entire organs via stem cell and special scaffolding, including Human brain cells.

Like I sad, they did it with rats A DECADE AGO!!!! Doing something similar with Human Brain cells, 10 years later, is a cakewalk for top scientists, however the Ethics surrounding something like that is indeed muddy waters considering if they grew a Human Brain in a petri dish and it all of a sudden took on consciousness, there would be lot of splainin to do.....

Your WAAaaaayyyyyyyy behind brother




top topics
 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join