• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Do brains really exist?

Atlas

Even in a single brain, the very (simple) process of seeing an image is composed of different kind of receptors for specific things. Movement, color, shape, etc are created by different kind of neurons in different zones in the brain.

Yet, what we see is a coherent image. We experience what it appears to be just ONE image, ONE experience.

Another easy demonstration of the naiveness in Lifegazer ideas (No Lifegazer yo do not have a philosophy)
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Atlas

Even in a single brain, the very (simple) process of seeing an image is composed of different kind of receptors for specific things. Movement, color, shape, etc are created by different kind of neurons in different zones in the brain.

Yet, what we see is a coherent image. We experience what it appears to be just ONE image, ONE experience.

Another easy demonstration of the naiveness in Lifegazer ideas (No Lifegazer yo do not have a philosophy)
Click to expand...
I certainly agree. I thought of human body examples first but chose to use examples that were more 'seperate and oblivious' in Lg's terms.

It seems to me fans at a sports event act as one when their team succeeds on a play. And the teams themselves show an extraordinary unity of action and response even when the flow of their plans are disrupted.

But I've always been fascinated with mob mentality. Individuals with milquetoast personalities are suddenly swept into the same rage as the people surrounding them. And as one they charge forward like an angry single-minded giant bent on destruction.

Lg scores again. He racks up another point for the Wrongos.
 
Boy, we haven't heard much from Darren for a few days. Hope he wasn't caught in those blasts in London.

...Not that they could have hurt him, anyway.
 
zaayrdragon said:
Boy, we haven't heard much from Darren for a few days. Hope he wasn't caught in those blasts in London.

...Not that they could have hurt him, anyway.
Click to expand...

Maybe he took the opportunity to fake his own death. That would be one of the more rational excuses I've seen to end an uncomfortable debate.
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Ok Lifegazer. I will have to answer for your (sorry for not using colors, but it is to much work for this time in the morning)

~something~ creates the internal experience of perceived light that is then interpreted as "the sun". It is this internal experience what is real and nothing out there!
Click to expand...

What is this " something "?
God?
Schopenhauer` s " will "?
 
According to Lifegazer, "god". He believes this is a "new" concept, that "his philosophy" is revolutionary, and truly novel. Of course, he ignores, basically, the whole history of philosophy in asserting this.
 
Zaayr

Actually it is a week of him not posting. I certainly hope it is not because of the explotions, but his costume of waiting for his threads to "chill" in order to open new ones, ignoring the fact that the older threads have proved he is wrong.
 
lifegazer said:
The sensed-brain has zero causal power. Consequently, it is impossible to observe the sensed-brain being the cause of thoughts/feelings.
Click to expand...

This is an important point in my opinion.
i quite agree with lifegazer that there is no proof that are the molecules ( endofphines, I do not know how they are called ) in the brain which produce our feelings and not the other way around ( that is, that BECAUSE you have that feeling the brain " behaves " like that )
 
lifegazer said:
What seems to be happening in this convo is that a number of people are arguing the case between the link that exists between real brains and thought & feeling.
But the important point to regard here is that scientists can only study the sensations that give the impression of our world/brain. Hence, the only truth science establishes is that which I mentioned at the end of the previous paragraph.

This is very important. What we see here is that science does nought but establish a link (order) between sensations thoughts & feelings. Science does not and cannot establish a link between real brains and thoughts/feelings, because science cannot study real brains.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute, AFAIK this is a century-old discussion which already ended with Kant about 200 years ago.
What are " real brains "?
Whar are " real tables ", " real windows ", etc.?
You will never be albe to know what a " real brain " is because, in order to know something, you will have to experience it with your senses ( sight, .. ) but then you will only know the " illusory brain ", the " illusory table ", etc.
To know the " real brain " is a contradiction in temrs, because you pretend to know something without experiencing it with senses, it is like jumping away from your own shadow
Maybe it is even useless to talk about " real " things..
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Zaayr

Actually it is a week of him not posting. I certainly hope it is not because of the explotions, but his costume of waiting for his threads to "chill" in order to open new ones, ignoring the fact that the older threads have proved he is wrong.
Click to expand...

Well, for what it's worth, I'm hoping for the best for Darren. I'd rather have him here spouting inanities and illogical syllogisms than have him dead or critically injured due to the inanities and illogical syllogisms of others.
 
Matteo Martini said:

Maybe it is even useless to talk about " real " things..
Click to expand...

Discussions of what is 'real' requires a framework in which something 'real' exists. In the absolute sense, there is nothing at all which can be confirmed to be real; it requires at least a few base assumptions - a premise or framework, if you will - that defines 'real' vs. 'unreal' and works from there.

Problem is, Darren's theory eliminates all possibility of a knowable 'reality', and forces the thinker to engage in fantasy which he then attempts to define as 'real'.
 
zaayrdragon said:
Discussions of what is 'real' requires a framework in which something 'real' exists. In the absolute sense, there is nothing at all which can be confirmed to be real; it requires at least a few base assumptions - a premise or framework, if you will - that defines 'real' vs. 'unreal' and works from there.

Problem is, Darren's theory eliminates all possibility of a knowable 'reality', and forces the thinker to engage in fantasy which he then attempts to define as 'real'.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think we can only wait for him to come back posting here
 
Well, he apparently is alive and well, having made a rude and senseless post in another thread.

Glad to hear you are well, Darren.

I expect, then, that your next angle of attack will be coming sometime by mid-August? And can we expect more of the usual rhetoric, or is there some chance you might have an original thought?
 
You know, the last time I was around people on acid, they sounded exactly like LG. Not trusting their senses, perceiving the God that is everything, that they were at one in the Singularity and all reality is an illusion... quite the interesting parallel.

Maybe LG just drops a bunch of LSD and posts here?? Really any kind of tryptamine would work... maybe he likes the shrooms...
 
zaayrdragon said:
Well, he apparently is alive and well, having made a rude and senseless post in another thread.

Glad to hear you are well, Darren.
Click to expand...


I'm also relieved to hear that he hasn't been physically harmed by the London bombings; but I wouldn't say he's well... I saw the post you are referring to quoted, and it seems he's collapsed into full on neurotic hatred. I may be wrong, but I've been expecting this to come for some time...

I expect, then, that your next angle of attack will be coming sometime by mid-August? And can we expect more of the usual rhetoric, or is there some chance you might have an original thought?
Click to expand...

I believe that post is the archtype of all you'll get from him for a good while after this; He's not even trying to understand the external world any longer, let alone what he reads on the JREF... He didn't post on a thread about the historical Jesus because he knows anything about Jesus the man. Nor about Jesus the Prophet, whom states in the Book Lifegazer claimed we should read that we should mourn for the bereaved, in complete contradiction of his own claims. No, he's listening to his own internal voices now; Voices which tell him of how evil we are, how so disgustingly evil everything is... and listening above else to the siren voice mixed in with all the hatred and disgust which says "You are God. You are Jesus. Jesus shall... God shall... You shall destroy all the evil ones."

This is really what it's been all about all along; If "Lifegazer's" brain ever existed, it was a product of the destruction of his prior mind, a reaction to something he couldn't face as the person he was... and now he's become unable to face the person he's become either. He couldn't be "Darren", or "Lifegazer"... So now, he's Jesus. And we're all going to burn for our stupidity.

And really, truly honestly, I wouldn't wish this form of sickness upon anybody... so I'm not actually relieved to have heard from him like this, now.
 
(sorry folks, for the BUMP)

Lifegazer... So? can you please take time to explain why my question does not annihilate your assumption?
 
Gestahl said:
You know, the last time I was around people on acid, they sounded exactly like LG. Not trusting their senses, perceiving the God that is everything, that they were at one in the Singularity and all reality is an illusion... quite the interesting parallel.

Maybe LG just drops a bunch of LSD and posts here?? Really any kind of tryptamine would work... maybe he likes the shrooms...
Click to expand...

If so, we'll probably have to wait until his next payday.
 
Robin said:
Contrary to what lifegazer claims science gives zilch weight to the sensations within a single awareness. What is important is that independent observations from individuals should agree. (Call these individuals "experiences" if you like, makes no difference whatsoever).

Now true I do not have evidence that other awarenesses than my own exist, that is an assumption, but it seems a pretty reasonable one, and one that lifegazer makes himself (try to deny it LG, so that I can quote again where you did). And if other awarenesses exist then then all of science really does constitute evidence.

OK what evidence do we have for the sun? Don't forget gravity, it was calculations based on gravity that allowed scientists to predict planets that existed on nobody's awareness.

That's right, science predicted they were there before they existed on anyone's awareness.

Happens all the time, science predicted most of the properties of DNA long before we had the technology to have the sensations of DNA.

OK so we have evidence, even if not proof beyond unreasonable doubt, for things such as the sun, DNA, brains etc.

What evidence do we have for the One that knows all experiences?

None, zilch, zero! Lifegazer bails from a thread when asked for any (or starts quoting the Bible).

So is it more reasonable to believe lifegazer's "One" for which we have neither proof nor evidence, or to believe in the independent existence of such things as brains or the Sun, for which we at least have evidence?
Click to expand...

Wait, wait..

The existence of a " sun ", of a " planet " this is something that we call " factual ".
The assumption that brain " generates " the self, this is something not supported by any assumption
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom