the "the brain is a radio" analogy

[annnnoid]

Could be.

I don't think there's any problem with speculating about such things or seeing what sorts of malarkey your mind can dream up.

...as long as you still realize that you're probably full of it and are aware of the lack of evidence. I would also suggest that it belongs in the realm of fiction when describing such thoughts to the public. Technically, religion is just a subset of the category "fiction" but it tends to confuse people.

There's also that matter of where all the other dimensions are... maybe it's just extradimensional rather than requiring radio per se. Again, not worth the pixels it's typed in, except perhaps as fiction.

...where are all the other dimensions??? Why don't you ask the string theorists. I think they're up to 10...or is it 11? Which would mean, right here, right now (occupying your very own meta-mind-space) there are that many dimensions currently engaged (or whatever the appropriate term may actually be...if there even is an appropriate term). Wonder why it is that my last neural fMRI never picked up any of that activity? Perhaps there just weren't enough practicing skeptics manning the controls.

 

[Brian-M]

This whole "brain is a radio" analogy also leaves an important question unresolved. By what mechanism does the source of the "signal" attain consciousness?

What qualities or physical attributes are necessary for the existence of consciousness that this source possesses, which aren't present in the brain?

(If we don't know of any qualities or attributes necessary for consciousness that can't be found in the brain, why would we assume that consciousness does not originate in the brain?)

 

[Ladewig]

In addition to Brian-M's point, why do people who have been knocked unconscious typically have no memory of the event? If my body really was the robot, and the operator located "out there," then a recollection of the event should look something like this:

Instead, what you actually get is something like this:


If there really is separation between body and consciousness, then why do they always seem to be inextricably linked? There is nothing I ctan do to an actual radio that will have any effect on the transmitter. This is clearly not true of brains and experiences.

I think you may be misinterpreting what Chopra and his followers are calling a radio. They are not asserting it is only a receiver, they are asserting that it is a two-way radio. The brain and the nervous system must transmit information to the central "processor" which would then send information back to the brain. Thus knocking out a person obviously interferes with the input to the central location (which is also the output from the body) and this interference could then produce the behaviour we see in people recovering from being knocked out.

Furthermore, one could continue to tweak the analogy to account for much if not all the behaviour one sees in temporary or permanent impairment of the brain.

My point is not that remote consciousness is a serious prospect, my point is that unusual behaviours resulting from temporary or permanent damage to the system is not absolute proof against the theory.

 

[Ladewig]

All Chopra does is excessively eyeball all the stuff that skeptics typically sweep under the rug (cause it’s just plain inconvenient to have so much stuff around that there is no definitive explanation for…gotta get rid of some of it somehow...and isn't that's what rugs are for) and ask “what’s all this then…amen”.

but some of the stuff that Chopra wants to talk about might be worthless enough to sweep up as one might sweep up rubbish. The collective-consciousness folks look at the case of a person hearing a phone ring and knowing with certainty who is calling, and they conclude that both the caller and the receiver had "crossed wires" as they sent and received information from the central location where consciousnesses do their cogitating. This alleged psychic link is what allows the person receiving a telephone call to know who is calling.

 

[Manopolus]

...where are all the other dimensions??? Why don't you ask the string theorists. I think they're up to 10...or is it 11? Which would mean, right here, right now (occupying your very own meta-mind-space) there are that many dimensions currently engaged (or whatever the appropriate term may actually be...if there even is an appropriate term). Wonder why it is that my last neural fMRI never picked up any of that activity? Perhaps there just weren't enough practicing skeptics manning the controls.

Perhaps because MRIs are designed to operate only in 3 dimensions... dunno. I'm certainly not on the cutting edge of string theory. My college degree was in art, so I'm just making stuff up as I made clear in my post (or so I thought).



I'm pretty sure it's very possible to construct a technically feasible paradigm that addresses any of your concerns though. Finding actual evidence for it is a different matter, obviously. I will note, as I did in that post, that it's perfectly okay to speculate as long as you know it's speculation. It can also yield rather interesting results now and then. I know that pointing that out isn't very "skeptical" of me though.

 

[Myriad]

It don’t matter if it’s crazy, what matters is if it’s right. These days skeptics often seem just as desperate as new-agers to promote their particular happy flavor of brain theory (these threads are ample proof of that).

If it's crazy—or more specifically, if it contradicts known evidence and provides no explanation of any aspect of the phenomena in question—then it's far less likely to be right.

BTW…is the roundworm conscious (or a squid, or a fish, or a snake, or a penguin, or a mouse, or a chimpanzee)? Dumb question isn’t it. Do you know why it’s a dumb question…of course you do. Cause neither you nor anyone else can even begin to answer it.

Yes, that's a dumb question. Which is why, if you read what I actually wrote, you'll see that I didn't ask it.

…but of course you will insist: ….[blather snipped]

Since you didn't even bother to pay attention to what I did say, guessing what I'll say next was pre-destined to end up a waste of your time and mine.

The question wasn't whether or not animals are conscious, it's whether (given the hypothesis of human brains being radio-like) only human brains are radio-like (so, there was a transmitter just transmitting away for eons waiting for a suitable receiver to evolve by chance?) or animal brains going far back into the past have also been radio-like (in which case, we must question what adaptive advantage that characteristic had, in what species, to develop and maintain that morphology—in other words, what advantageous behaviors of what animals require their brains being radio receivers to explain).

 

[Belz...]

This is simply not the case.

It is trivially so. If the brain were influenced by an outside force we couldn't detect directly, we could at least detect the effect on the brain. If we can't, then there is no effect. That is a physical fact.

 

[Belz...]

It don’t matter if it’s crazy, what matters is if it’s right. These days skeptics often seem just as desperate as new-agers to promote their particular happy flavor of brain theory (these threads are ample proof of that).

Yes but not in the way you think.

BTW…is the roundworm conscious (or a squid, or a fish, or a snake, or a penguin, or a mouse, or a chimpanzee)? Dumb question isn’t it. Do you know why it’s a dumb question…of course you do. Cause neither you nor anyone else can even begin to answer it.

Typical post by you, annnnnoid: you don't know and can't explain it, therefore no one else can.

 

[Myriad]

Even among completely false explanations, some are better than others.

Here's a relatively good (internally consistent, consistent with some known facts) explanation:

"Lightning and thunder are caused by the god Thor."
"How?"
"Well, you know how when you strike rock with a metal hammer, it sometimes makes a small flash of light? Thor has a hammer that's much bigger and mightier, and a god's strength, so when HE strikes his hammer it makes a huge flash of lightning!"
"What about thunder?"
"That's obvious! We know that striking with a hammer can make a lot of noise, so when Thor strikes his hammer with godly strength it makes a huge rumble of thunder!"

Here's a not so good one:

"Lightning and thunder are caused by the god Poseidon."
"How?"
"Well, sometimes Poseidon plays cards with the Leviathan deep under the sea, and that makes lightning and thunder."
"What does playing cards have to do with causing flashes of light and loud noises?"
"Duh! They're magical cards of the gods!"
"But if they're under the sea, why does lightning and thunder happen in the air?"
"Are you some kind of idiot? Did you not hear I said MAGICAL cards?"

The "consciousness transmitter" theory is in the latter category. "We don't know how the brain generates consciousness, so most likely something else that we know nothing at all about generates consciousness somewhere else, and transmits it to the brain by unknown means."

Sure. Let's not prematurely dismiss the possibility that consciousness is caused by the Leviathan using our brains remotely to keep score of the card game it's playing with Poseidon when he makes lightning and thunder.

 

[Belz...]

"We don't know how the brain generates consciousness, so most likely something else that we know even less about generates consciousness somewhere else, and transmits it to the brain by unknown means."

Nice summary. It's all smoke and mirrors for the soul, anyway.

 

[The Sparrow]

It is maddening isn't it.
Pretend Deekpak: The fact that we are here consciously is proof that such a force exists. Brains are the only tool that can receive and transmit from/to the 'universal consciousness' force. Science simply doesn't have the technology to detect these forces therefore cannot say they don't exist.

Pretend Deepak: Oh? Memory? Memory exists in the 'universal consciousness'. Our brains are only transmitters and receivers of those memories, like the tonearm on a hard disk drive.

Pretend Deepak: Depression? Oh no, your universal consciousness is quite content, its only the mechanisms of the brain that expresses it in this reality are broken, blocking out the good/happy and only expressing the bad/unhappy.

Pretend Deepak: Same with alcohol, your essence is not affected, you are only distorting the brain's ability to interact with this physical reality.

oh, and.....and... quantum....locality....ummm...fluctuation!

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Here's a link to a thread about QFT and how we know there are not field interactions at the human scale. The video in the first post is key.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=279144&highlight=woo+stops

Ooh that sounds right up my alley. I'll watch that later.

 

[tsig]

It is trivially so. If the brain were influenced by an outside force we couldn't detect directly, we could at least detect the effect on the brain. If we can't, then there is no effect. That is a physical fact.

Summary of the arguments for brain as transceiver:

I know nothing, you know nothing, those high muckety muck scientists know nothing, we are all together equal in a vast pool of unknowing......therefore my woo is true.

 

[LarryS]

Summary of the arguments for brain as transceiver:

I know nothing, you know nothing, those high muckety muck 'people on other side' know nothing, we are all together equal in a vast pool of unknowing......therefore my woo is true.

FIFY

If you are going to use the Forum convention of "FTFY" please ensure you make it clear what you have "fixed" for the poster.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[Fellow Traveler]

- we haven't figured out the algorithms yet, but we do know that it's all done with neurons.

Smoke and mirrors.

 

[Ladewig]

Pretend Deepak: Depression? Oh no, your universal consciousness is quite content, its only the mechanisms of the brain that expresses it in this reality are broken, blocking out the good/happy and only expressing the bad/unhappy.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it is even worse than you describe because many of these universal consciousness types say, "but don't fret, there is a solution to your problem. You just need to focus more on the good/happy transmissions until the signal strength is strong enough to make you happy again." That might even be followed up with "I'll tell the universal consciousness to send you some extra transmissions of good/happy." These folks sometimes go so far as replace good/happy with love. "You just need more love transmissions to be happy - once you feel love, then you'll be happy."

 

[annnnoid]

It is trivially so. If the brain were influenced by an outside force we couldn't detect directly, we could at least detect the effect on the brain. If we can't, then there is no effect. That is a physical fact.

No-one has a clue as to the direct relationship between neural activity and cognitive activity…and no one even knows if cognitive activity / consciousness has some manner of differentiated phenomenological existence.

IOW…we’re light years from knowing enough about how the brain works to even begin to claim that we know how the brain works, we have no idea how it creates consciousness, and we don’t even know if consciousness is a thing…and if it is, what manner of thing.

…but you’re actually going to sit there and insist that, not only could any unknown un-measurable outside influence be detected…it would be trivially easy to do so.

How….pray tell.

…please don’t hesitate to include any overly complex physics references. The last thread ended quite unhappily when I began to run all the stupid physics past my theoretical physics buddy. It’s amazing how sobering facts can be.

Typical post by you, annnnnoid: you don't know and can't explain it, therefore no one else can.

I don’t know and can’t explain it…and nobody else can either. Feel entirely free to demonstrate otherwise. I can get direct quotes from practicing neuroscientists that explicitly support this conclusion (including one who has posted on this very thread). If you are so convinced that these conclusions are flawed…then explain where the flaw is.

...typically what happens now is you shut-up cause you can't actually explain where the flaw is. I guess we'll see how typical you are.

Even among completely false explanations, some are better than others.

Here's a relatively good (internally consistent, consistent with some known facts) explanation:

"Lightning and thunder are caused by the god Thor."
"How?"
"Well, you know how when you strike rock with a metal hammer, it sometimes makes a small flash of light? Thor has a hammer that's much bigger and mightier, and a god's strength, so when HE strikes his hammer it makes a huge flash of lightning!"
"What about thunder?"
"That's obvious! We know that striking with a hammer can make a lot of noise, so when Thor strikes his hammer with godly strength it makes a huge rumble of thunder!"

Here's a not so good one:

"Lightning and thunder are caused by the god Poseidon."
"How?"
"Well, sometimes Poseidon plays cards with the Leviathan deep under the sea, and that makes lightning and thunder."
"What does playing cards have to do with causing flashes of light and loud noises?"
"Duh! They're magical cards of the gods!"
"But if they're under the sea, why does lightning and thunder happen in the air?"
"Are you some kind of idiot? Did you not hear I said MAGICAL cards?"

The "consciousness transmitter" theory is in the latter category. "We don't know how the brain generates consciousness, so most likely something else that we know nothing at all about generates consciousness somewhere else, and transmits it to the brain by unknown means."

Sure. Let's not prematurely dismiss the possibility that consciousness is caused by the Leviathan using our brains remotely to keep score of the card game it's playing with Poseidon when he makes lightning and thunder.

I’m not going to bother defending Chopra. It is quite possible that he dabbles deeply in the dubious….but…presenting equally stupid strawmen does nothing but diminish your own credibility. Have you even read how he describes his ideas? I’d be willing to bet that the answer is a resounding ‘no’…and yet you feel completely qualified to not only accurately summarize them but utterly dismiss them!

The simple fact is…there are huge gaps in the understanding of both neural and cognitive processes. And…there are a vast range of human behaviors that, at the very least, suggest the possibility of unfamiliar paradigms. Constantly sticking your heads in the sand and pretending that our current demonstrably meager comprehension of cognitive and neural processes is sufficient to dismiss these phenomenon is simply premature.

 

[Belz...]

No-one has a clue as to the direct relationship between neural activity and cognitive activity…

You're doing it again! The pre-masticated nonsense you peddle in every post, namely that your ignorance can be projected onto objective reality.

No, annnnoid, not everyone is as ignorant as you. Your confidence comes in your utter unwillingness to educate yourself in these matters or at the very least learn from those who know more than you.

…but you’re actually going to sit there and insist that, not only could any unknown un-measurable outside influence be detected…it would be trivially easy to do so.

How….pray tell.

As I said, it is trivial, and it is absolutely not dependent upon us knowing anything about brains or how consciousness works. It is merely dependant on us knowing about logic and about basic physics.

Every physical event is an interaction. Something that is affected by something else has a behaviour. The smallest change in the universe can be detected via the movement of elementary particles. We can detect that. The brain is composed of particles that make up its cells. We can detect that. If there was an external force, even one we couldn't detect, that was somehow having an effect on the brain, we could see that effect, namely neurons firing or molecules moving or thoughts forming. Because that's how reality works, all of it -- no exceptions. Everything that acts has a behaviour, by definition. So if the brain does something and there is no cause you can detect, then you might have an unknown force at play.

As it stands, none of this is occuring, and I'd like you now to demonstrate that such a force exists by providing actual evidence of brain activity NOT caused by any known force.

I don’t know and can’t explain it…and nobody else can either.

Thank you for proving my point by engaging in the exact same wilful ignorance and projection I was accusing you of engaging in. Your ignorance is not a shield against reality. Your refusal to educate yourself is not a license to make declarations about objective truth. Everybody is telling you that you are wrong. People have even posted links to papers and evidence about what we know, and you simply ignored those posts, so you don't have any sort of benefit of the doubt here anymore. Everyone knows that you are engaging in wilful ignorance, and that your claims that no one knows anything are just hot air.

...typically what happens now is you shut-up cause you can't actually explain where the flaw is.

And now a blatant lie. Classy.

 

[tsig]

No-one has a clue as to the direct relationship between neural activity and cognitive activity…and no one even knows if cognitive activity / consciousness has some manner of differentiated phenomenological existence.

IOW…we’re light years from knowing enough about how the brain works to even begin to claim that we know how the brain works, we have no idea how it creates consciousness, and we don’t even know if consciousness is a thing…and if it is, what manner of thing.

…but you’re actually going to sit there and insist that, not only could any unknown un-measurable outside influence be detected…it would be trivially easy to do so.

How….pray tell.

…please don’t hesitate to include any overly complex physics references. The last thread ended quite unhappily when I began to run all the stupid physics past my theoretical physics buddy. It’s amazing how sobering facts can be.




I don’t know and can’t explain it…and nobody else can either. Feel entirely free to demonstrate otherwise. I can get direct quotes from practicing neuroscientists that explicitly support this conclusion (including one who has posted on this very thread). If you are so convinced that these conclusions are flawed…then explain where the flaw is.

...typically what happens now is you shut-up cause you can't actually explain where the flaw is. I guess we'll see how typical you are.




I’m not going to bother defending Chopra. It is quite possible that he dabbles deeply in the dubious….but…presenting equally stupid strawmen does nothing but diminish your own credibility. Have you even read how he describes his ideas? I’d be willing to bet that the answer is a resounding ‘no’…and yet you feel completely qualified to not only accurately summarize them but utterly dismiss them!

The simple fact is…there are huge gaps in the understanding of both neural and cognitive processes. And…there are a vast range of human behaviors that, at the very least, suggest the possibility of unfamiliar paradigms. Constantly sticking your heads in the sand and pretending that our current demonstrably meager comprehension of cognitive and neural processes is sufficient to dismiss these phenomenon is simply premature.

Why should we pay attention to someone who is so dogmatic about their ignorance?

 

[annnnoid]

Belz…I didn’t realize it was you. Still a waste of time.

…though there is one thing I’m curious about…whether or not anyone reading this thread who has physics credentials will actually be sufficiently offended by the utter incoherence of your physics argument to feel the need point out just how stupid it is.

Here’s a hint:

So if the brain does something and there is no cause you can detect, then you might have an unknown force at play.

The brain is currently doing absolutely immeasurable amounts of things that nobody knows the cause of. Do you think that just saying “it’s all elementary particles, or neurons firing, or molecules moving (…molecules….moving…I almost puked up my dinner when I read that!)… etc. etc.” qualifies as an explanation?????

Is that actually your argument!!! Please tell me you can do better than that. Because if you can’t I’m afraid I’ll have to recommend you be cast out as an embarrassment to the fine fraternity of upstanding skeptics.

Beyond that…you could change your name to Einstein… your arguments would still be just as dumb.

Why should we pay attention to someone who is so dogmatic about their ignorance?

…and tsig. Over 80,000 posts between you and still nothing to say.