the "the brain is a radio" analogy

[Navigator]

Does it support some external consciousness received by the brain, the topic of this thread?

That is my point regarding both observation and explanation of said observation.

It can be seen to support both ideas, especially with the addition of the subconscious

Does it perhaps support the combination of conscious and unconscious processing that happens in the brain?

It certainly supports that, but I am pretty sure the argument/assertion re radio isn't along the lines of 'the brain has nothing to do with the consciousness interacting with it.'

As more of the asspects are directly identified and mapped in the brain, perhaps even modeled and translated from brain activity what is really left to be received by a 'radio brain'?

I suspect even if the whole thing is successfully mapped, we still won't be able to know whether consciousness can be formless or inhabit other types of form..etc... I suspect that such a question will remain unanswered - perhaps indefinitely...

Like - I have wondered on occasion about AI and if one day they could 'become' conscious...even if that happened, would it be a clear enough indication that the human brain is the creator of human consciousness?

It would definitely weigh heavy in favor of being the case...

Then again I wonder if one day it would be possible to transfer an individuals consciousness into another brain...and would that be evidence that the 'radio' theory might be the case?

In the mean time, my position remains as stated in post #100 of this thread.

 

[Belz...]

Do you ever get tired of being completely wrong?

I don't know yet, as you've yet to address the argument you keep saying is wrong.

So perhaps you could explain how you arrived at the conclusion that science can somehow detect ALL neurons firing.

My bad. That was imprecise, and if there's something I know, it's that people like you _love_ to get stuck on minor stuff. Not all individual neurons, sure. You win this one.

…and since science most indisputably CANNOT adjudicate neural activity to anything like the resolution you have ignorantly claimed…

What the hell do you even mean by that word you keep using? No definition I'm aware of makes sense in this context.

it is reasonable to conclude that there is a great deal of neural activity that is unconditionally immeasurable.

So you're going to hide the soul in these individuals neurons who might not show up in the scan? The point remains that you can observe all kinds of brains activity (and I mean that literally: all the kinds). If they're caused by an outside, unknown force, we could at least tell that.

If it can’t be measured then we cannot explicitly exclude the possibility of unknown forces.

So your theory is that some unknown force is having an effect specifically on neurons that don't show up on the scan? Do you really think you have a winning strategy, there?

Dlorde didn’t find it very funny when all his pet theories got trashed.

You live in la-la land.

 

[Navigator]

But to suggest it is a correlation (really he is suggesting it is a reaction) is a hypothesis in itself. It implies that the conscious activity happened first, 'out there in the ether' and the brain reacted to it by receiving it.
Ok, all is needed then is some evidence of this consciousness acting first.

We can look at an analogy of sorts. parts of the brain fire off when I attempt to move my hand. Then, the hand follows by moving. WE can measure this pretty well. For the Deepak to be right, the conscious force will act first by creating the idea of...."I want an apple". Then that force will enter our brain and our brain will 'light up' in reaction.
Sounds like a decent experiment to me. Has anyone detected that force yet?

That reminds me of the subliminal...like when a single frame advertising a product sold in the theater was said to have increased the sales of that product because of the subliminal influence.

The way I was 'reading' the radio-brain was that it was an analogy for consciousness existing before birth and after death and while within the experience of a human body it is using the brain in a similar manner as how a radio picks up signals...the 'signal the brain is picking up is the consciousness interacting with it, but the consciousness isn't out there somewhere in the atmosphere...it is inside the human form -

 

[Navigator]

If anything, the brain is more like the internet...or is the internet more like a brain?

But thinking about radios and signals it is not a bad analogy...after all the brain is picking up signals all the time - information from outside. When evaluating that info internally it is a computer more than a radio...

 

[Belz...]

If anything, the brain is more like the internet...

An endless source of knowledge that's used for self-confirmation rather than enlightenment?

 

[Navigator]

An endless source of knowledge that's used for self-confirmation rather than enlightenment?

Funny!

Self conformation can = self enlightenment.

I like the idea that I have a brain far better than the idea that I am a brain/I am a slave to a brain... but whatever floats the boat...we'll all ganna die one day and whether that means oblivion or something else, best we just live while we are and do the best with what we have.

 

[The Man]

That is my point regarding both observation and explanation of said observation.

It can be seen to support both ideas, especially with the addition of the subconscious

Why "with the addition of the subconscious"? With the step from unconscious processing to conscious processing just being a matter of cognitive awareness and at least some portion of that unconscious processing happening in the brain, that external consciousness (now perhaps just external unconsciousness) must be getting boarded with little to do.

It certainly supports that, but I am pretty sure the argument/assertion re radio isn't along the lines of 'the brain has nothing to do with the consciousness interacting with it.'

Ah, now there's where the rubber meets the road. It then become a matter of extent, how much processing needs to take place in the brain before the idea of an external consciousness/unconsciousness becomes irrelevant?

I suspect even if the whole thing is successfully mapped, we still won't be able to know whether consciousness can be formless or inhabit other types of form..etc... I suspect that such a question will remain unanswered - perhaps indefinitely...

Well finding it or creating it in other forms would certainly answer the latter but just not finding it as "formless" can't dispel the formless former.

Like - I have wondered on occasion about AI and if one day they could 'become' conscious...even if that happened, would it be a clear enough indication that the human brain is the creator of human consciousness?

It would definitely weigh heavy in favor of being the case...

Not likely as the position could always be that we just created a new type of 'receiver'. So unfortunately as one can't demonstrate the brain is not a receiver regardless of how much processing takes place within it, it is then up to the proponents of such a receiver notion to show where the consciousness is received form and how it is received.

Then again I wonder if one day it would be possible to transfer an individuals consciousness into another brain...and would that be evidence that the 'radio' theory might be the case?

In the mean time, my position remains as stated in post #100 of this thread.

How would one discern if the consciousness has been transferred and not just emulated or sufficiently similar? Again the only direction is to locate the source and method of reception / transmission.

Similarly for proponents of the the brain as the source, they have to show how the processing progresses for non-conscious to subconscious to conscious. Which is why I wondered above about the "with the addition of the subconscious" assertion as that is exactly what a brain as the source needs to happen in the brain.

 

[Navigator]

An endless source of knowledge that's used for self-confirmation rather than enlightenment?

But no that is not what the internet IS!

The 'endless source of knowledge' comes from another source which uses the internet.


Internet [noun]..".a global computer network providing a variety of information and communication facilities, consisting of interconnected networks using standardized communication protocols."

 

[annnnoid]

My bad. That was imprecise, and if there's something I know, it's that people like you _love_ to get stuck on minor stuff. Not all individual neurons, sure. You win this one.

Minor stuff? You are off by a few billion orders of magnitude. Your entire argument collapses around this ‘imprecise’ point! That is hardly minor stuff!

What the hell do you even mean by that word you keep using? No definition I'm aware of makes sense in this context.

Adjudicate means to simply judge (by whatever means available) the condition of something.

So you're going to hide the soul in these individuals neurons who might not show up in the scan?

Where have I ever used the word soul…ever?

The point remains that you can observe all kinds of brains activity (and I mean that literally: all the kinds).

You are impressively incoherent. You just finished admitting that there is an awful lot of neural activity that science has absolutely no capacity to measure …and the first thing you do is flatly contradict yourself and claim that science can still observe ALL of brain activity…literally!

Is there some kind of difference between those billions of cells and synapses that cannot be measured and this brain activity that you insist can be measured? Is all that cellular activity suddenly NOT brain activity?

If they're caused by an outside, unknown force, we could at least tell that.

Even if we can ‘observe’ ALL brain activity (which we can’t even begin to do, but whatever)…if we cannot explain how it happens, how is it possible to exclude the possibility of some unknown force?

How, precisely, is it possible to ‘tell’ if an event is caused by an outside force?

…or are you also going to claim that science has also already acquired the capacity to explain ALL this brain activity that you can’t seem to decide if we have the capacity to measure, or not?

So your theory is that some unknown force is having an effect specifically on neurons that don't show up on the scan? Do you really think you have a winning strategy, there?

Where did I ever claim that was my theory? I am simply pointing out that there is an awful lot that science cannot explain. I point this out over and over and over. That is why this thread exists…because if science could explain this stuff, Chopra would be shut up overnight! You don’t seem to want to admit that facts are facts. As a result you end up making stupid mistakes….like claiming that billions of neural events that can’t be measured…actually can be measured.

…perhaps you should stop doing that.

You live in la-la land.

…but I am not the one who is continually making claims that are not only unsupportable but just plain wrong!

 

[Navigator]

Similarly for proponents of the the brain as the source, they have to show how the processing progresses for non-conscious to subconscious to conscious. Which is why I wondered above about the "with the addition of the subconscious" assertion as that is exactly what a brain as the source needs to happen in the brain.

Consciousness is not really well understood as far as I can tell. Subconsciousness seems to be even more of a mystery and sometimes is referred to as 'unconscious' but tell me why you think the brain needs consciousness at all?

Also - why is it particularly necessary to separate the aspects of consciousness into these categories as if they were separate entities? Is it because they do specific things?

If we primarily identify with the 'conscious' part of consciousness, does this signify that 'we' are not the subconscious part because that part is separate from the part of consciousness which is conscious?

The proponents of 'the brain is the source of consciousness' have shown why they believe this to be the case, but what is observed and how that is interpreted is still on the table...

ultimately it may not really matter, or does it?

 

[Belz...]

Self conformation can = self enlightenment.

Not really.

 

[Belz...]

Minor stuff?

Yes, you know like someone correcting a typo and ignoring the actual argument.

You are off by a few billion orders of magnitude.

Misleading, but not surprising, coming from you.

Adjudicate means to simply judge (by whatever means available) the condition of something.

Exactly, it's completely worthless in the context you use it.

Where have I ever used the word soul…ever?

I'm not saying you did. I'm saying that this is the belief behind your "arguments".

You just finished admitting that there is an awful lot of neural activity that science has absolutely no capacity to measure

No, that's not what I said. I granted that we don't track individual neurons (yet).

…and the first thing you do is flatly contradict yourself and claim that science can still observe ALL of brain activity…literally!

No. Again you have zero understanding of the issue. That much is clear.

Is there some kind of difference between those billions of cells and synapses that cannot be measured and this brain activity that you insist can be measured? Is all that cellular activity suddenly NOT brain activity?

Even if we can ‘observe’ ALL brain activity (which we can’t even begin to do, but whatever)…if we cannot explain how it happens, how is it possible to exclude the possibility of some unknown force?

For the same reason that you don't need a complete theory of physics to understand that if I punch you in the face, my fist isn't an unknown force, but if you act as if you've been punched and no one's around you, it may point to one.

Where did I ever claim that was my theory?

See what I mean by focusing on typos? The theory that you hinted to. "Your" theory.

 

[Navigator]

Even if we can ‘observe’ ALL brain activity (which we can’t even begin to do, but whatever)…if we cannot explain how it happens, how is it possible to exclude the possibility of some unknown force? !

This is a reasonable question. The reasonable answer is that we can't, BUT be that as it may, we are within a physical reality dealing with what we do know and cannot make assumption either way on this question.

Perhaps a more reasonable question to ask is why it might matter one way or t'other

 

[Navigator]

Not really.

Why 'not really'? Is it because everything is subjective in relation to consciousness?

 

[The Man]

Consciousness is not really well understood as far as I can tell. Subconsciousness seems to be even more of a mystery and sometimes is referred to as 'unconscious' but tell me why you think the brain needs consciousness at all?

Who said "needs consciousness", heck who even said that animals need brains? However, we do find animals with brains and even ones we consider conscious.

Also - why is it particularly necessary to separate the aspects of consciousness into these categories as if they were separate entities? Is it because they do specific things?

Because that's what conscious means to be aware of something. So probably a good deal of the brain's processing we are not aware or conscious of. As such the distinction is not only relevant but at the heart of the matter. What processing are we aware of and why and how does it go from one to the other.

If we primarily identify with the 'conscious' part of consciousness, does this signify that 'we' are not the subconscious part because that part is separate from the part of consciousness which is conscious?

We are the sum of our parts even those we are not directly or currently aware of. In fact as the suppression of impulses are a function of neural processing we are even the subtraction of some of our parts.

The proponents of 'the brain is the source of consciousness' have shown why they believe this to be the case, but what is observed and how that is interpreted is still on the table...

ultimately it may not really matter, or does it?

Show what "to be the case" that we are not aware of all the processing of the brain, that some neurological strutures and compounds generally suppress impulses?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-Aminobutyric_acid

The suppression of suppression...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depolarization-induced_suppression_of_inhibition

 

[Navigator]

Who said "needs consciousness", heck who even said that animals need brains?

So are you saying that there was no need involved in the process of brain developing consciousness?

 

[Navigator]

Because that's what conscious means to be aware of something.

Consciousness means 'being conscious'? That will be where the bulk of the problem is then.

The definition of consciousness simply means to be aware/awake etc where folk refer to consciousness as anything more than this, they are mistaken and mean something else which is usually defined in spiritual or religious terms such as 'spirit/soul' etc...

They mean that they can acknowledge existing and not be aware of everything else but that they are still aware that they are more than just the things they are aware of at all any given moment of being awake....and in some cases, being asleep or experiencing visions and hallucinations, alternate realities etc...something about consciousness/being conscious also involves things which are not necessarily real objects within sight of the observer...

 

[The Man]

So are you saying that there was no need involved in the process of brain developing consciousness?

Depends on what you mean by "need", and who or what would have this "need". Certainly a formless consciousness that required some 'receiver' would have such a "need". Otherwise just the ability to be situationally and/or self-aware probably does provide some survival advantages. As such one is likely to find different levels of such self and situational awareness in different animals with brains.

 

[Navigator]

We are the sum of our parts even those we are not directly or currently aware of. In fact as the suppression of impulses are a function of neural processing we are even the subtraction of some of our parts.

So we are all things to do with the body/form even those things we are not aware of...which all in all I called 'consciousness' which includes subconscious activity and anything else to do with the form and how we make the form react in any given circumstance within the environment of both the form and the environment the form is within.

I use the word "Consciousness" to cover all the states be they well known or fairly mysterious

 

[The Man]

Consciousness means 'being conscious'? That will be where the bulk of the problem is then.

The definition of consciousness simply means to be aware/awake etc where folk refer to consciousness as anything more than this, they are mistaken and mean something else which is usually defined in spiritual or religious terms such as 'spirit/soul' etc...

They mean that they can acknowledge existing and not be aware of everything else but that they are still aware that they are more than just the things they are aware of at all any given moment of being awake....and in some cases, being asleep or experiencing visions and hallucinations, alternate realities etc...something about consciousness/being conscious also involves things which are not necessarily real objects within sight of the observer...

Sorry, I can make no sense of this. Could you please try to make your point more directly?