The brain & human experience

[lifegazer]

Scientists seek to understand how 'the brain' causes human experience.

Firstly, this is evidence supporting my claim that science views the [experienced] world-of-things as real-in-themselves.
... This is an error, of course, because nothing within experience is actually real. The distinction between experienced-things and real-things should be clear to any sincere reader, by now.
... Also, this is [a portion of] evidence supporting my claim for scientific-reform.

Anyway, read this interchange from another thread:-
Originally Posted by wollery :
"You yourself noted in one of the other threads that tampering with the brain alters emotions and feelings - 'experiences' (do I really have to look it up and link to it?)."

... This was my response:
"Please do. In the very same post, you'll also see I say that altering thoughts/feelings consequently alters the state of the brain & body.

I propose that there is an orderly relationship between sensations, thought & feeling... and since the sensations are, in effect, the [experienced] world itself (including the experienced-brain), my philosophy perfectly embraces a system whereby 'the brain' (sensations) can affect thought & emotion... and vice versa.
... Please remember that sensations (the essential ingredients of the world) are an experience too.

Also, please contemplate - if thought & emotion are effects of the physical-brain - why thought and emotion would (as they do) have the ability to effect brain/body states.
You cannot advocate that the brain is the essential cause of thought & emotion if thought & emotion alone have the ability to alter brain/body states.


Observe how science errs. Bias towards worldly-reality results in a theory that the [experienced] brain causes human experience - which, laughably, includes the experienced-brain!
Further, contemplate my response to Wollery, explaining the relationship between sensation, thought & feeling. Science has no reason to believe that 'the brain' causes human experience.
Regardless, countless £$£$ & time are spent trying to solve the mystery and find the cause of human experience, via study of the experienced brain as the cause of it all!

It's gotten beyond a joke. And it's time for change.

 

[fuelair]

Lrod help us.

 

[Unholy_Mackerel]

My brain is numb after that. I need chocolate.

 

[Cosmo]

... Please remember that sensations (the essential ingredients of the world) are an experience too.

Cosmo's Five-Step Program for Recovery from Lifegazer:

1. Our senses are our only means of learning about the world.
2. Our senses will forever be our only means of learning about the world.
3. If there exists a "real" world or a "reality", we are forever barred from learning anything about it as a direct result of 1 and 2.

Therefore,
4. We must accept the "sensed-world" as the closest we'll ever get to reality.

And finally,
5. The concept of a "sensed-world" is redundant and Occam's Razor justifies our elimination of it, in favor of treating it as if it were the real world.

 

[lifegazer]

Cosmo's Five-Step Program for Recovery from Lifegazer:

1. Our senses are our only means of learning about the world.

Actually, you need the ability to discern order too, but never mind.

2. Our senses will forever be our only means of learning about the world.

The sensations paint an appearance. 'Learning' requires a trait distinct from those sensations.

3. If there exists a "real" world or a "reality", we are forever barred from learning anything about it as a direct result of 1 and 2.

That's a big "if".
However, if you open your eyes long enough to understand that the world you EXPERIENCE is not real-in-itself, I will then explain why the only reality is yourself.
That's a big request though. A bit like asking "a fundie" to forget all the religious claptrap he has ever learnt, in order for rationale to have any chance of making an impact upon his life.

Therefore,
4. We must accept the "sensed-world" as the closest we'll ever get to reality.

You need to wake-up to the FACT that NOTHING within experience is real-in-itself.
You also need to ponder the fact that The ExperiencER is "reality".

And finally,
5. The concept of a "sensed-world" is redundant and Occam's Razor justifies our elimination of it, in favor of treating it as if it were the real world.

I'm so bored of hearing about Mister Occam and his philosophy.
Why? Because science abuses his philosophy with ever-more complex theories about ever-more complex 'parts' in an ever-more complex existence.
There's nothing simple about science or it's theories. The latest ones - involving 10+ dimensions and strings & membranes, are a ludicrous example of science-gone-mad.

You cannot simplify existence any more than saying that it is absolutely singular.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I'm so bored of hearing about Mister Occam and his philosophy.
Why? Because science abuses his philosophy with ever-more complex theories about ever-more complex 'parts' in an ever-more complex existence.
There's nothing simple about science or it's theories. The latest ones - involving 10+ dimensions and strings & membranes, are a ludicrous example of science-gone-mad.

Have you considered the possibility that you're bored with Occam because you don't understand when it applies?

~~ Paul

 

[Cosmo]

Actually, you need the ability to discern order too, but never mind.

The sensations paint an appearance. 'Learning' requires a trait distinct from those sensations.

Then replace "learning" with "experiencing". The end result is the same.

That's a big "if".
However, if you open your eyes long enough to understand that the world you EXPERIENCE is not real-in-itself, I will then explain why the only reality is yourself.

Why does it matter if the world we experience is real or not? Due to the inherent limitations of our senses (limitations that we cannot, by definition, eliminate or even lessen), we cannot know whether or not the universe is real, unreal, sensed, turquoise, or some combination of the above.

Every possible indication we have or could, even in theory, have (through our senses, of course) suggests that the universe is real. It is irrational to presume or act otherwise.

I'm so bored of hearing about Mister Occam and his philosophy.
Why? Because science abuses his philosophy with ever-more complex theories about ever-more complex 'parts' in an ever-more complex existence.

Unfortunately, Mister Occam doesn't care what you think. And despite the increasing complexity of modern science, his razor is still as sharp - and as relevant - as always.

There's nothing simple about science or it's theories. The latest ones - involving 10+ dimensions and strings & membranes, are a ludicrous example of science-gone-mad.

Do you have any reason for not liking string theory, or do you just not understand it?

 

[Meffy]

Everything is ratios of small whole numbers. All else is manifestations. The mite, kyte, and syte are the basis of all physical reality.

http://www.buckminster.info/Index/M/Mite.htm

Oh, and poems. They're in there too.

 

[lifegazer]

Then replace "learning" with "experiencing". The end result is the same.

The ability to discern order (or, the ability to reason), is distinct from the ability to discern sensations. Sensations could be disorderly, for example.

Why does it matter if the world we experience is real or not?

Of course it matters. Humanity's belief in the reality of a divided & real world, has shaped the history of both the individual and the whole. And what a mess that history is.
Surely you must understand the significance of a truth that unifies everything and every being?

Due to the inherent limitations of our senses (limitations that we cannot, by definition, eliminate or even lessen), we cannot know whether or not the universe is real, unreal, sensed, turquoise, or some combination of the above.

The limitations of the sensations are irrelevant. Even if we had countless sensations, they would ALL speak of experienced things.

Every possible indication we have or could, even in theory, have (through our senses, of course) suggests that the universe is real. It is irrational to presume or act otherwise.

Nonsense.
I challenge you to provide a singular evidence of the world's reality. I promise you that it's ALL reducible to experience, with nothing left other than the experiencER to contemplate.

You're a victim of brainwashing. Open your mind to facts and stop listing intuition/feeling as truth.

Unfortunately, Mister Occam doesn't care what you think. And despite the increasing complexity of modern science, his razor is still as sharp - and as relevant - as always.

Really? Perhaps you could explain to this forum the 'simplicity' behind theories such as QM (string-theories etc.). Also, perhaps you could explain to this forum the simple steps required to produce human experience with 'brain-bricks'.

Science likes Occam because it thinks there's always a simpler answer than 'God'. Yet, when it tackles the important issues of existence, science falls into a pot of complexity that is laughable - and still fails to provide answers.

Do you have any reason for not liking string theory, or do you just not understand it?

Nobody understands string-theory. Don't let 'them' kid you. Strings don't explain the experience that we have. [emphasis full-stop]

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Nonsense.
I challenge you to provide a singular evidence of the world's reality. I promise you that it's ALL reducible to experience, with nothing left other than the experiencER to contemplate.

Define what is meant by real and I'll see what I can do.

Science likes Occam because it thinks there's always a simpler answer than 'God'. Yet, when it tackles the important issues of existence, science falls into a pot of complexity that is laughable - and still fails to provide answers.

Thanks, you answered my question. You don't have the slightest notion when to apply Occam.

~~ Paul

 

[lifegazer]

Define what is meant by real and I'll see what I can do.

The existence of entities beyond the experience of them.

Thanks, you answered my question. You don't have the slightest notion when to apply Occam.

The application of the so-called philosophy is subjective - depending upon the individual's view of what the simplest explanation to anything is.

Occam's razor is not science - it's philosophy.

 

[lifegazer]

People are avoiding the OP.
C'mon...

 

[Foster Zygote]

Lifegazer, how is your view any different from religion? You point out something fragmentary from Descartes' method of doubt, namely that our senses are the only way our consciousness can relate to the universe. This is true, nobody here denies that. As Descartes pointed out, if an evil demon had control of our minds he could create our reality for us and we would never know the truth as it would be unknowable. If "the universe" doesn't exist, as you claim, then we would have no way of knowing this truth. Yet you claim to have objective knowledge of the fallacy of our senses. This strikes me as little different from a religious declaration. How is it that you seem to know the unknowable? Are you a prophet?

Steven

 

[Cosmo]

The ability to discern order (or, the ability to reason), is distinct from the ability to discern sensations. Sensations could be disorderly, for example.

That is another discussion entirely, certainly outside the scope of this thread and (arguably) irrelevant to the current discourse.

And what a mess that history is.
Surely you must understand the significance of a truth that unifies everything and every being?

Four billion christians and muslims have been (and are) absolutely sure that there is truth that unifies everything and every being.

And what a mess that history is.

The limitations of the sensations are irrelevant. Even if we had countless sensations, they would ALL speak of experienced things.

That is precisely what I meant by limitations of the sensations.

Nonsense.
I challenge you to provide a singular evidence of the world's reality. I promise you that it's ALL reducible to experience, with nothing left other than the experiencER to contemplate.

Aim yourself an a sensed-wall, start your sensed-legs running full speed, and see what happens. It is irrelevant whether the world is real or not; the results are the same. This is (again) where Occam comes in, regardless whether you want to hear what he has to say.

You're a victim of brainwashing. Open your mind to facts and stop listing intuition/feeling as truth.

Get over yourself.

Really? Perhaps you could explain to this forum the 'simplicity' behind theories such as QM (string-theories etc.).

First, we simply do not know at this point whether QM is correct. It certainly seems to be, but science has a funny way of weeding out incorrect theories. We'll have to wait and see.

Second, we simply do not know whether or not QM is as simple as it gets. Your lack of understanding about QM is not an argument against its correctness.

Also, perhaps you could explain to this forum the simple steps required to produce human experience with 'brain-bricks'.

I really have no idea what you're talking about.

Science likes Occam because it thinks there's always a simpler answer than 'God'. Yet, when it tackles the important issues of existence, science falls into a pot of complexity that is laughable - and still fails to provide answers.

Science is concerned with describing the order we perceive in the universe around us. If you believe it is science's task to explain existence (beyond the big bang) or the nature of god, you are sorely mistaken on both counts.

Nobody understands string-theory. Don't let 'them' kid you. Strings don't explain the experience that we have. [emphasis full-stop]

1. Yes, clearly there are many hundreds, if not thousands of scientists who do.
2. Your second statement, more than any other thus far, demonstrates your absolute, undeniable ignorance of string theory.

 

[Wudang]

Of course it matters. Humanity's belief in the reality of a divided & real world, has shaped the history of both the individual and the whole. And what a mess that history is.
Surely you must understand the significance of a truth that unifies everything and every being?

And your philosophy will make things better how? And you know this because your great experiment produced what results?

Are you going to abandon this thread as well rather than answer?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

People are avoiding the OP.
C'mon...

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Lifegazer, how is your view any different from religion?

Religion has a purpose.

 

[kieran]

Scientists seek to understand how 'the brain' causes human experience.

Firstly, this is evidence supporting my claim that science views the [experienced] world-of-things as real-in-themselves.
... This is an error, of course, because nothing within experience is actually real. The distinction between experienced-things and real-things should be clear to any sincere reader, by now.

Woah woah woah. Slow down. I think you had some massive typos there .... you must have meant to write ... "This may be in error, because nothing within experience is necessarily real" ...

Your view of the world is neither more or less valid than others - but you seem to treat it as though only your view is viable. You might sound a bit less pontificating if you chose your words more wisely.

 

[Wudang]

And lifegazer contradicts himself. There is no science. There is only the experience of science. And no scientists, only the experience .... you get the drift.

 

[wollery]

People are avoiding the OP.
C'mon...

What's the point?

Seriously LG, if anyone tries to argue with your philosophy you either repeat one of your inane mantras or insult them. There's nothing of substance in your philosophy (pun intentional) and, as many, many people have told you, it's not even original.

You have no idea about how science works, yet you demand that it be "reformed". Your latest idea for reforming it is to include paranormal explanations!!!

I do agree with one thing in your opening post - it has gotten beyond a joke. You're not funny anymore.