sinequanon:


Labels, connotations and emoticons don't further your argument.

If the testimonial evidence from the patient involves describing a bone drill used while they were flatlined, then it is worthy evidence.

You are fooling yourself that scientists have worked anything out. They have made a pure assumption that consciousness is a product of the brain. And you understand the issue so little that you have posted the assumption as evidence that the assumption is true.

And stop pretending that testimonial evidence is not evidence. It has been used in medicine since the beginning of research. In this case, there is no alternative, unless you prefer dogma.

JackBizzle:



You are the one spouting nonsense here. Scientists have long concluded that consciousness is dependent on the brain. Why? Because everytime the brain dies, the consciousness goes with it. Furthermore, many aspects of conscious thought/activities are linked to various parts of the brain.

Your scientist in the video clearly mentions anecdotal and testimonial evidence. Please, stop the lies.

Over 30 years of research has shown that the brain and consciousness cant be separated.

JackBizzle:
======================================
I also had a surgery where I described the injection that he gave me when I was asleep/unconscious. There was no out of body experience. It was only a hallucination based on my prior knowledge that my procedure required the injection. I was right about the injection because of a hallucination and prior knowledge of the procedure of my knowledge. But superstitious people will overlook that to claim out of body experience.

Out of body experiences have and will always be rightly dismissed as nonsense.




If it is not testable, observable, measurable, repeatable....it is not science.
=========================================================

sinequanon:


I think you lack the intellectual capacity to unscramble your confusion...hence your circular argument.

What you are actually saying is that evidence that A doesn't happen every time can be dismissed, without looking at the evidence, on the grounds that the A happens every time.

Please go and think before you regurgitate whatever you have been brainwashed with.

In such a case, you have to base your assessment on the evidence, not the dogma, duh!

JackBizzle:



lol....you cant strawman me into accepting your "magical nonsense".

JackBizzle:
In my place, they say that "a sober man is arrogant to the drunkard"

JackBizzle:
You are calling me dogmatic because you cant handle [size=16pt]the truth[/size] that your immaterial beliefs are unscientifc and ridiculous.

JackBizzle:
There are so many logical/material explanations for a patient describing the drill that was used on him/her when he/she was unconscious. He/she could have had prior knowledge of drills. He/she could have seen the drill before the operation and maybe forgot about it due to the relaxing drugs given pre-operation......

sinequanon:


I am not trying to convince you. It is a discussion, and I am only commenting on how illogical you are, despite what you think.



.......ok..



I am calling you brainwashed because you believe what you have been told is "the truth" for all mankind.

lol, you are ridiculous and simple.



This is the only bit of sense you have typed in this post.

Yes. And if you read carefully, I don't jump to conclusions like you. I say consider the evidence and similar cases.

What you have done is dismiss the evidence on the grounds that you have assumed the evidence must be false. DUH!

Your problem is your materialistic position. It is fragile, and you have to dismiss evidence summarily that may shatter your world view.

I don't follow a god or a religion, but I haven't painted myself into a corner such that I have to turn a blind eye to evidence to prevent a materialistic world view from crumbling before my eyes.

JackBizzle:
lol.....I give up


You are free to believe whatever magical nonsense you want to believe.

However, you will never have testable or repeatable evidence that consciousness can survive without the brain.

Over 2,000 years, you and your religious ilk have bashed the rest of us with your immaterial theory of separation of mind and body (consciousness and the brain). Souls and spiritual energy. Yet, despite all the pressure on scientists to prove or disprove such in the last 30 years, we get the same conclusions that the mind is the product of the brain.

sinequanon:


Nope. You are too simple to understand that there are taboos in science.

And you are locked into this loop of ignoring the fact that SCIENTISTS HAVE ONLY DEFINED CONSCIOUSNESS AS BEING BRAIN ACTIVITY.

Your confusion then leads you into a circular argument, where you think testing for brain activity proves that it is consciousness. DUH!

As I said, your real problem is that you must cling to scientific dogma because you are AGAINST RELIGION.

I am moreorless INDIFFERENT TO RELIGION, so I don't have your problem of fooling yourself that your emotional basis is a logical one. The reality is that you don't have a choice but to dismiss anything immaterial because it would open up the spectre of religion to you.

JackBizzle:

As for materialism, I too know the limits of materialism. In physics, there is the quantum level where things appear and disappear. There is also the idea of antimatter and dark matter. Then there is the immateriality of time.


The difference between me and you is that I am skeptical to claims that do not have strong evidence

On the contrary, I have considered many of the cases of OBE (out of body experiences) and they unnfortunately carry the same failure of the world religions- they are myths based on the culture/environment around the founders/speakers.

OBE's are peculiar to their originating culture. For instance, many Americans/Westerners see a tunnel during their unconscious spell. For Asians, it is mostly loved ones. For many Nigerians, it would be ancestors or someone from the village.

JackBizzle:


I know your type- the "I am not religious but I hold some new-age spiritual bullshiit views" guy.

I have explained my stance on materialism in my previous post. I am not an absolutist on materialism.

consciousness is a function of the brain. Try as much as you can to spin that

sinequanon:


The difference between you and me is that I don't get tangled up with words and come up with circular arguments.

You are not skeptical. You accept ASSUMPTIONS like consciousness is a product of the brain.

You don't even understand that it is an assumption.

You don't understand that the research ASSUMES this assumption. You think it proves it.

Your arguments have been woefully illogical.



Again, words are confusing you, as well as the fact that your materialistic ASSUMPTIONS paint you into a corner.

NDEs and OBEs are indeed culture dependent (although seeing "ancestors" seems to be common to all).

And, as I said earlier, there are many people cashing in on the interest in these matters, with fake anecdotes.

Until you are capable of CLEAR personal experience, you cannot understand.

A materialistic world view is not conducive to CLEAR experience. It hampered by ASSUMPTION AND CIRCULAR BELIEF SYSTEM.

Rilwayne001:
Jackbizzle a.k.a logickboy

How far nahh?

JackBizzle:


Wow. Just wow

sinequanon:


Yes, that's the level of your..........logic...........

JackBizzle:




My guy, I just dey.

But why do you have two sides?

One that is nasty to me when you are in the islam section when you are with your buddies?

Another that is jovial when on the religion section.

JackBizzle:



lmao.

We need people like you in the army. You dont fear death. If even you are shot in the head and your brain starts to leak on the battlefield, you would still be conscious.

Rilwayne001:


Hmmm, good.

Why did'nt you vote for me despite mentioning your moniker times without number?




I don't have 2 sides....



You know, you enjoy displaying your in the islamic state.



No.

am just enjoying the match am watching.

Face the person whooping your azz abeggg

JackBizzle:



lmao.

We need people like you in the army. You dont fear death. If even you are shot in the head and your brain starts to leak on the battlefield, you would still be conscious.

sinequanon:


Your brain is already leaking. You wouldn't make the army.

JackBizzle:




Guy, move to the left abeg.

This discussion is beyond you.

After all, you believe in souls

Rilwayne001:


then prove its non-existence to the person whooping your azzz.... lol

Reyginus:
Guy, calm down. Their is no need for the ad hominems. Just keep it cool.

JackBizzle:

Go and sit down.

sinequanon:


After I exposed JackFizzle's circular logic, that is all he had left.

Rilwayne001:
^^^JackFizzle

JackBizzle:



You think that you are in your islamic section where you can troll non-muslims?


Continue

JackBizzle:



Really?

Were you not the first to engage in insults?

JackBizzle:
Also, is saying that consciousness is a function of the brain akin to using circular logic? A well researched fact?

7 CONCLUSION

Approaches to understanding consciousness which are based on known and experimentally observed neuroscience[size=16pt] fail to explain certain critical aspects.[/size] These include a unitary sense of binding, non-computational aspects of conscious thinking, difference and transition between pre-conscious and conscious processing, (apparent) non-deterministic free will [size=16pt]and the essential nature of our experience[/size]. We conclude that aspects of quantum theory (e.g. quantum coherence) and of a newly proposed physical phenomenon of wave function self-collapse (objective reduction, OR, Penrose, 1994) [size=16pt]offer possible solutions[/size] to each of these problematic features.

Although only tested in one person, the discovery suggests that a single area – the claustrum – [size=16pt]might[/size] be integral to combining disparate brain activity into a seamless package of thoughts, sensations and emotions. It takes us a step closer to answering a problem that has confounded scientists and philosophers for millennia – namely how our conscious awareness arises...

Koubeissi [size=16pt]thinks[/size] that the results do indeed suggest that the claustrum plays a vital role in triggering conscious experience....

So while consciousness is a complicated process created via many structures and networks – we [size=16pt]may[/size] have found the key.

sinequanon:

No.
It is NOT a well-researched fact. That is something you have picked up from the tabloid press like a lot of other clueless wannabe scientists. Even the language you use, like "wow, just wow" is the sort of inane puppet language that has spread through the ranks of two-a-penny lay wannabes, who don't have the intellect to argue their point.
For a start, your position is just wrong. Take a proper research paper, for example..
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penrose-hameroff/orchor.html
That totally rips apart your layman's idea that "consciousness is a function of the brain is a well researched fact".
The above citation should tell you how far science is from establishing a factual model of consciousness.
And you are a sucker for popular reports in the lay press.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329762.700-consciousness-onoff-switch-discovered-deep-in-brain.html#.VGiwIvmsWnE
"Consciousness on-off switch discovered deep in brain"
This refers to an informal study done on just one person..
They are hypothesizing. They don't know.
They don't know if consciousness is created or how it comes about. They just ASSUME that it is created via many structures and networks that they can't identify!

7 CONCLUSION

Approaches to understanding consciousness which are based on known and experimentally observed neuroscience fail to explain certain critical aspects. These include a unitary sense of binding, non-computational aspects of conscious thinking, difference and transition between pre-conscious and conscious processing, (apparent) non-deterministic free will and the essential nature of our experience. We conclude that aspects of quantum theory (e.g. quantum coherence) and of a newly proposed physical phenomenon of wave function self-collapse (objective reduction, OR, Penrose, 1994) offer possible solutions to each of these problematic features.

JackBizzle:


Apparently, you cannot read and comprehend.


The first quote is [size=16pt]not negating[/size] in anyway the fact that consciousness is a function of the brain

JackBizzle:
Actually, they are acknowledging that there are still areas of consciousness that they do not understand or find problematic.

JackBizzle:
It is just like saying one doesnt know who his ancestors are but he knows the process by which he descended from them- se.xual reproduction. The basics is known but there are more complex issues to answer.

JackBizzle:
These scientists already know and work with the fact that consciousness is a product of the brain.

JackBizzle:
They just dont know exactly how it arises as a whole. They however know how some parts work- memory, chemically induced emotions etc.
======================================================================


I wont even bother to quote the second quote. The fact remains that the brain controls many aspects of consciousness. Yes, I agree with you that the discovery was hyped and sensationalised by the article but still, the research shows that the brain controls vital aspects of consciousness.

sinequanon:


After I exposed JackFizzle's circular logic, that is all he had left.