Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Plus they're tasty.
Evolution - A serious question.
- Thread starter TroutBum
- Start date
Red
Well-Known Member
I'm just bustin your chops. I haven't forgotten the fact that you jumped into three of my threads with a level of unprovoked hostility and anger, the likes of which I have never seen before, and that's saying a lot, given how much time I waste on forums. So I just figured I'd have some fun pointing out how out of whack your Dino/bird theory was in relation to the facts of the matter. As far as who told me at least 4 groups of humans existed 50,000 years ago, it would be fossils and DNA analysis. I'm not responsible for either, and you can dismiss all of it. I do respect your right to support Creationism.
Last edited:
Red
Well-Known Member
Siro wrote:
"Consciousness is a physical phenomenon no different than any other. It resides in the brain and can be altered and/or removed when the brain is damaged or changed in some ways. The study of the nature of consciousness and other aspects of subjective experience are indeed at the frontier of neuroscience. And why shouldn't they be? Quantum consciousness is at the frontier of talk show hosting and drug-fueled conversation of non-scientist college students. The history of how you read the works of others who agree with you is of no concern."
The frontier of talk show hosting:
https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/panel-exploring-non-local-consciousness/
Drug fueled conversation:
DMT: The Spirit Molecule:
https://vimeo.com/134182983
Yes, I do believe consciousness is non local. No, I cannot prove it, nor has true veriidical perception been proven. My own "subjective" experiences have demonstrated that it is non local, but those carry no weight beyond myself.
I have been willing to use my own body as a lab. Shamans have been so inclined for thousands of years. It's not the way of the West or it's science, but it's been valid within those cultures, around the globe, for centuries. I learned long ago not to dismiss them just because I was born and raised in the West.
And I have joined them at times to explore their "universe" on their terms.
https://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm
"Consciousness is a physical phenomenon no different than any other. It resides in the brain and can be altered and/or removed when the brain is damaged or changed in some ways. The study of the nature of consciousness and other aspects of subjective experience are indeed at the frontier of neuroscience. And why shouldn't they be? Quantum consciousness is at the frontier of talk show hosting and drug-fueled conversation of non-scientist college students. The history of how you read the works of others who agree with you is of no concern."
The frontier of talk show hosting:
https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/panel-exploring-non-local-consciousness/
Drug fueled conversation:
DMT: The Spirit Molecule:
https://vimeo.com/134182983
Yes, I do believe consciousness is non local. No, I cannot prove it, nor has true veriidical perception been proven. My own "subjective" experiences have demonstrated that it is non local, but those carry no weight beyond myself.
I have been willing to use my own body as a lab. Shamans have been so inclined for thousands of years. It's not the way of the West or it's science, but it's been valid within those cultures, around the globe, for centuries. I learned long ago not to dismiss them just because I was born and raised in the West.
And I have joined them at times to explore their "universe" on their terms.
https://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm
Red
Well-Known Member
"Seems like every generation thinks their paradigms are the final ones, nothing new to learn. Meteorite studies a good example of that. In the 18th century, French scientists dismissed reports by peasants that stones had been seen to fall from the sky as the rantings of "uneducated dolts". Science did not have to pay attention to French peasants. Yet, in that instance, the science that said stones cannot fall from a clear sky was very, very wrong. The old guard fights new ideas tooth and nail. Even just 20 years ago, you had better have tenure to suggest people were in the Americas before about 13,000 years ago. Careers ruined for suggesting there were people here before the Clovis hunters. Careers ruined for believing in the truth and suggesting better interpretations of the data. Should not work that way, but, in fact, human nature sees to it that that is exactly how progress is attained: by pitched battles in obscure journals between the New and the Old guard....."
There we go again with "you don't know everything, so I must be right" argument. I never get tired of hearing that from people who are very clearly wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, you're right. No point in that argument. But it was not an "I must be right" argument at all. I just happen to see the debate over local and non local as an example of old guard vs. new guard. But, since what I see is in fact based on my assumption that consciousness is non local, it can come across the way you interpret it. And since it proves nothing regarding non local vs. local, then you're right, no point going there. I'm wrong most every day of my life, and I could be wrong in my beliefs here. I do believe the battle I see between materialist/reductionists and those who think NDE's demonstrate non-locality is an example of old guard vs. new guard in the sense Kuhn described when describing how change occurs in science. But that's because I've come down on the side of the NDE studies that suggest the non local nature of consciousness. So I'm making a call on how I think things will unfold going forward.
There we go again with "you don't know everything, so I must be right" argument. I never get tired of hearing that from people who are very clearly wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, you're right. No point in that argument. But it was not an "I must be right" argument at all. I just happen to see the debate over local and non local as an example of old guard vs. new guard. But, since what I see is in fact based on my assumption that consciousness is non local, it can come across the way you interpret it. And since it proves nothing regarding non local vs. local, then you're right, no point going there. I'm wrong most every day of my life, and I could be wrong in my beliefs here. I do believe the battle I see between materialist/reductionists and those who think NDE's demonstrate non-locality is an example of old guard vs. new guard in the sense Kuhn described when describing how change occurs in science. But that's because I've come down on the side of the NDE studies that suggest the non local nature of consciousness. So I'm making a call on how I think things will unfold going forward.
Consciousness is a brain phenomenon in a similar way that Microsoft Word is a hardware phenomenon.
Consciousness is a brain phenomenon in a similar way that Microsoft Word is a hardware phenomenon.
He disagrees. I forgot what his opinion was, but something along the lines that the brain's role in cognition is over-rated.
Well, Word works about the same way on vastly different hardware platforms. I'll be interested in reading his disagreement.
I don't think the hardware/software distinction works that well for the brain. The "software" is encoded through changing the hardware. They are basically one and the same.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
If you take an intact copy of Word on a hard drive, and change a couple of bits, you wind up changing the software. If Word is in RAM and you change the current flows, you change the running version of the software.
I agree the analogy breaks down for several reasons, but I am not sure your example is one. I agree that there is nothing to the code (mind/Word) beyond what is loaded in the platform (brain/hardware), but that does not mean you can successfully analyze the code just by studying it at the level of the platform.