The problem is that both you and I draw separate conclusions. I speak from the standpoint of what I have experienced, not what others have concluded. What else would you have me do?
Consciousness question
- Thread starter GaryLifo
- Start date
-
- Tags
- consciousness question
Again, I understand that this is what you (and other folks) have concluded.
Really? And are you sure that's not altogether different from what I'm saying? Trying reading it again ...
Also, what I stated here ...
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Nap, interrupted.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 19,141
Realize that the conclusions you draw from your experiences are often incorrect. Either that or declare yourself infallible and start a religion.Iacchus said:
~~ Paul
Then why do you ask the questions? If, as you imply here, you fully intend to ignore anyone else's contributions, then your participation in this forum is dishonest, to say the least.
Blackmore's presentation, in particular, should be of interest to you. She starts from the standpoint of what she experienced, too. Perhaps you should read her autobiography. It might be a very good test of your ability to ignore relevant information.
Either that or I know what I'm talking about.
No, I don't declare myself to be infallible. And yes, it was my intent to start a religion. But, up to this point nothing has materialized, neither do I forsee anything happening anytime soon.
Z
Variable Constant
The brain has no receptors, other than neurons. Neurons transmit and receive chemoelectrical signals and nothing more. The sensors of your body receive signals of a variety of types - pressure, light, vibration, etc - and translate those into neural signal. If consciousness were something transmitted, there would need to be an organ that translates consciousness into neural signal as well - and there is not.
Second, although correlation does not always equal causation, it is a fact that no consciousness has ever been reliably observed without a functioning brain. It is also a fact that alterations to the brain directly alter consciousness as well. It is also a fact that the brain, even when shielded by all known forms of transmittable energy, continues to generate consciousness.
Iacchus, you have no knowledge - neither real nor esoteric. Your hopes of starting a religion are pathetic, because you have nothing new to say. You may, however, one day start a small personality cult; after all, there's a sucker born every minute, so they say.
Second, although correlation does not always equal causation, it is a fact that no consciousness has ever been reliably observed without a functioning brain. It is also a fact that alterations to the brain directly alter consciousness as well. It is also a fact that the brain, even when shielded by all known forms of transmittable energy, continues to generate consciousness.
Iacchus, you have no knowledge - neither real nor esoteric. Your hopes of starting a religion are pathetic, because you have nothing new to say. You may, however, one day start a small personality cult; after all, there's a sucker born every minute, so they say.
You, in fact do not know what you're talking about. All I have attempted to do was make what I know available. This is all it will ever entail. If, in fact a religion should sprout up as a result of this, I will most likely be long gone by then.
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Nap, interrupted.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 19,141
I recommend you call it Solipsism. You should get a lot of converts.Iacchus said:
~~ Paul
It is not in my hands to call it anything at this point.
Too much of what you say is either internally inconsistent or counter to all observed evidence. The only way you can keep the illusion of knowledge is by avoiding the reading or videos we recommend to you.
The one glimmer of hope is that you know this. If you really believed that you knew, you would not be so reluctant to read or view these materials. You would think your view could stand up to such challenges. You, on the other hand, know that your view falls apart like wet cardboard, and so you know you must avoid any information precipitation.
(Both hammegk and Interesting Ian took the time to read things I recommended to them in debates; what is more, both demonstrated that they understood them. In the course of this debate, I learned quite a bit more about their view, as they did of mine; since then I have defended them when it has been appropriate, even though I do not share their view.)
I think we can safely call it ignorance.
There's no reluctance there whatsoever. It's more laziness or, shall we say, "Ho hum," than anything else.
So, mine may complete the triune then? It is possible. Hence the fourth aspect would be "delta" ... wherein the mind rests in its doctrine.
Remarkable how much energy you have for asking the questions and giving your own answers out of ignorance, and how little energy you have for examining anything which might threaten that ignorance.
I doubt it.
If you ever do educate yourself on this topic, you will look back and blush at statements like that.
I am not threatened in the least.
No, I'm referring to your ability to understand what I'm talking about here ... for yourself that is.
Good. Let us know when you have watched the videos, then. And when you visit the library for those biology and physics introductory texts. If you ever actually do start looking into these things, you will find more beautiful things there than in Swedenborg's dreams. What is more, these beautiful things are backed by evidence, not believed despite evidence.