• 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.

The brain & human experience

Wudang said:
I make it 13 times I've asked lifegazer the question. Obviously he lacks sincerity.
Click to expand...

Keep at it. I once asked him the same question 18 times without getting an answer. The question was about what carnivores were going to eat in a world without death or suffering. The 19th time, he answered: There will be no eating after the revolution.
 
Jimbo07 said:
Yep. Your sensory impression is not the thing itself. I've agreed with you from the beginning.
Click to expand...
Okay... but many have not.
Here we start to diverge. In a sense, if consciousness is real then all of the impressions within consciousness are real.
Click to expand...
That's not the point.
The point is that the object which one observes is not a real object in itself, existing beyond and apart from consciousness. Hence, 'the world' [of objects] are ALL unreal in themselves. I.e., we do not observe a real world [of real objects].

Conseqently - as per my OP - we cannot attribute ultimate-causality for human experience itself to anything (i.e. the [experienced] brain).
... Notwithstanding my statement (as per my OP):
"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.".

Thus, scientific theories and research about the observable brain are not only invalid and a waste of resources, they confirm that science is bias towards a belief in the reality (and hence causal potential) of the things that it observes.

... Which is evidence supporting the case for reform.
lifegazer: In all your posts, you have provided not one good reason as to why we should not assume that these impressions from sensory data are good approximations of real objects.
Click to expand...
I could write alot about this. Perhaps I will.
But for now, let's stick to the issue-at-hand as per my OP.
 
lifegazer said:
The problems of this world are due to belief in it's reality and the consequent belief in the reality of the human individual.
Salvation can only occur via acknowledgement of unity.

"Love thy neighbour as thyself."

... Great words, but impossible to do unless one sees thyself in thy neighbour.
Click to expand...


I strongly disagree with that statement. It is my belief in the reality of the human individual that leads me to act in a respectfull and responsible way. It is not because of some perceived threat of punishment in the afterlife. It is not because of any sense of unity among myself and others. It is our individual existance that leads me to rationalize that treating them with respect is the right thing to do.

I don't need to think of us as part of some greater unity. I merely have to be aware of my own experiences and feelings and acknowledge that my actions can, and often will, affect other person's experiences and feelings.

Nothing more is needed, and to presume that more is needed indicates a lack of faith in an individual's ability to reason.
 
lifegazer said:
Doesn't prove a thing.
To be religious, I would have to be affiliated to any one of man's many religions, believing and parroting the mantras fed to me by the hierarchy of said establishment and participating in their rituals... frequenting their services.
I do no such thing.

Do not equate belief in the existence of Jesus to being a Christian. There's alot more to it than that.
Click to expand...

That's a definition of religious I haven't heard.

The dictionary defines religious as:

1. Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.
2. Of, concerned with, or teaching religion: a religious text.
3. Extremely scrupulous or conscientious: religious devotion to duty.

Seems the first definition applies, and the second might as well.

Just face is, Darren. You're a religious man.
 
Molinaro said:
I strongly disagree with that statement. It is my belief in the reality of the human individual that leads me to act in a respectfull and responsible way. It is not because of some perceived threat of punishment in the afterlife. It is not because of any sense of unity among myself and others. It is our individual existance that leads me to rationalize that treating them with respect is the right thing to do.

I don't need to think of us as part of some greater unity. I merely have to be aware of my own experiences and feelings and acknowledge that my actions can, and often will, affect other person's experiences and feelings.

Nothing more is needed, and to presume that more is needed indicates a lack of faith in an individual's ability to reason.
Click to expand...
Yeah right. You'll be telling me next that your whole life is devoted to selfless acts and promoting equality and injustice.
You'll also be telling me next that the majority of people upon this Earth have had the same attitudes as yourself.

Do me a favour - read some history books and then watch the evening news.
 
I'm well aware of the success of religious teachings in this respect. Most people discount the idea out of hand and make no effort to make the right choice when a choice is needed. God forbid, literaly, that anyone expects to be able to choose right because they believe that they can.

Too many actualy believe that they are too weak minded to think for themselves, and take the easy way out, and choose not to think for themselves.
 
Well, I've now seen enough to know that Lifegazer will never present a cogent argument supporting his position because there isn't one. His declarations are as arbitrary as any other religious declaration. He simply claims to have an absolute knowledge of things that are, by definition, unknowable. The rhetoric he employs is indistinguishable from that of any other religious justification as well. If he wore a white robe and preached his assertions to crowds of people he would certainly acquire a small band of followers eager to pretend they comprehend his message. I for one don't care for Kool-Ade.

Steven
 
lifegazer said:
People are avoiding the OP.
C'mon...
Click to expand...
Let's go baby c'mon.

Avoiding what? You repeat the same tired... stuff. Your argument (if you can call it that) goes nowhere.

Your... uh, whatever, doesn't appeal to the intelect. Your statements are disjointed (not cohesive). Your argument, for lack of a better word, doesn't appeal to the intelect in a reasoned way that would cause me to seriously consider it.
 
Foster Zygote said:
If he wore a white robe and preached his assertions to crowds of people he would certainly acquire a small band of followers eager to pretend they comprehend his message. I for one don't care for Kool-Ade.

Steven
Click to expand...
I think you give him far too much credit. But, you could be right. Hell, there are people that believe in Xenu and thetans so I guess anything is possible.
 
Molinaro said:
I strongly disagree with that statement [snip] ... I don't need to think of us as part of some greater unity. I merely have to be aware of my own experiences and feelings and acknowledge that my actions can, and often will, affect other person's experiences and feelings.
Click to expand...
I personally disagree with your disagreement. You said:
"my actions can, and often will, affect other person's experiences and feelings"​
I agree with that, and conversely other peoples actions can/will affect mine. So why should I expect others to respect my feelings if I don't respect theirs? That is my element of seeing myself in others. We are part of a unity - we are occupying the same space and time and we interact.
 
I'm honestly not sure if this is really Darren or not. His approaches this time are even weaker and more poorly presented than usual. Granted, I never expected him to integrate the points made in earlier discussions; I fully expected he'd return, spouting the same old rhetoric to a crowd of new faces. But I didn't expect his material to degrade this badly, either.

Maybe his new wife has taken to posting under his name? --if she exists, that is...
 
zaayrdragon said:
I'm honestly not sure if this is really Darren or not. His approaches this time are even weaker and more poorly presented than usual. Granted, I never expected him to integrate the points made in earlier discussions; I fully expected he'd return, spouting the same old rhetoric to a crowd of new faces. But I didn't expect his material to degrade this badly, either.

Maybe his new wife has taken to posting under his name? --if she exists, that is...
Click to expand...
Why not edit your post by simply calling me a liar?

There's nothing wrong with the material I have presented here.
... It exposes the actual belief in the reality of 'the brain' (the reality of any 'thing', actually) as a sham. There's ZERO rationale for claiming any material object exists, least of all the brain!
... Also, the fact that experienced objects are reducible to sensations means that "tampering with the brain" (e.g., drugs or axe etc.) to show that emotions & thoughts are affected by such an activity, ONLY proves that thinking-experience & emotional-experience is affected by sensory-experience. It does NOT prove that 'the [real] brain' controls thinking & emotions.
This should be apparent when one observes the effects thoughts & emotions can have on the physical state of the brain & body. However, this is reducible to the fact that thoughts & emotions have the potential to effect the sensations [of there being a brain & body and the current states of them].
Your fears/loves etc., have the potential to alter the state(s) of your brain & body as much as tampering with the structure of the brain/body has the potential to alter the state(s) of your thoughts & emotions.
This obvious fact is overlooked by materialists/scientists. Nevertheless, it is true. Moreover, philosophy can reduce all experience to the fact that there is an intrinsic relationship between thought, feeling & sensation (of body/world).

In other words, there is ZERO evidence (scientific or rational) to suggest that there is a relationship between a real brain and thought & emotion. That is just the obsolete outlook. The neanderthal view.

... The view which you still harbour in spite of sound analysis by myself.

And for what it's worth, I really don't give a **** whether you believe I'm married or not. Regardless, your judgement of my personal life or my character, is meaningless with regards the philosophy I present on this board.
So don't make a complete t**t of yourself by trying to attack my character as a means to attack my philosophy.
It just exposes you for the s******d that you are.
 
Lifegazer, you seem to keep trying to convince people that nothing is real. Please tell me, is there any benefit in believing that? You'd still have to function in the same world, in the same way, wouldn't you?

You'd still experience yourself as the center from which you perceive (un-)reality, and you'd still have to interact with your perceived (un-)reality outside of that center. Nothing's changed, has it?
 
UndercoverElephant said:
Keep at it. I once asked him the same question 18 times without getting an answer. The question was about what carnivores were going to eat in a world without death or suffering. The 19th time, he answered: There will be no eating after the revolution.
Click to expand...

"While trolling through the thread one day
In the merry, merry month of August (sorry about that)
I was taken by surprise by some silliness and lies -
While trolling through the thread one day!!"
 
lifegazer said:
Basic philosophy mate - sensations are distinct from real things, existing necessarily beyond consciousness. All One can observe, are the ordered sensations within/upon consciousness, which themselves yield the impression of objects.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%.

But the impression of an object within consciousness, is not the reality of an object existing beyond consciousness.

I repeat: NO THING within consciousness is real.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be real to be true though. Did Einstein have to really travel at the speed of light in order for his idea to be true?

Every person is capable of thought experiments. That is, they have the ability to say "what if?" and the further ability to figure out exactly what the results would be. This is what Einstein did.

Now, scientists and non-scientists can both do this. What seperates the two is that a scientist does not assume that his result is true until it aligns with what he observes in the physical world. A non-scientist just assumes that anything he can dream up is true. It turns out that science is the most effect tool we have for collecting information and finding out what is real and what is not.

Very early in science it became obvious that an observer's senses could be fooled and they were not to be trusted. Science developed tools that extended the limits of our senses and made them much harder to fool. mathematics was developed as the ultimate tool for deciding what is real although it cannot always be applied.

In the everyday world that we live in, it is pretty hard to beat the human senses as a way for deciding what reality is. Our senses were accurate enough and fast enough to allow us to climb to the top of the food chain. Outside these areas we have tools and techniques that extend our senses.

In fact, we have come to the point where we may have reached the limit of what we can understand simply because our senses rely on past experience to help us understand new experiences. Some new experiences maybe so different from what we have so far observed that all the experience in the world will not help us. We are left to rely on a "luck guess."

But make no mistakes, the system of science is very accurate, if not exactly correct, at solving the mysteries that surround us. How do I know? Because I am communicating with you on a device thats very existence relies on everything I mention in this post being correct.

You pooh-pooh science's abilities even as you enjoy the marvels of its success.
 
qayak said:
I agree 100%.



It doesn't have to be real to be true though. Did Einstein have to really travel at the speed of light in order for his idea to be true?
Click to expand...
"If I could ride a beam of light..."

Thank you, I repeat this argument 2 or 3 times a year. Oh, and welcome to the forum.

ETA:
You pooh-pooh science's abilities even as you enjoy the marvels of its success.
Click to expand...
Exactly, the guy is using a computer tied into the interent to argue that the computer and the internet are not real.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom