Considering your 1300 posts in one month you seem to be in a manic mind state, like euphoric missionaries were when bringing the gospel truth to the ignorant pagans in the new world. Transforming reality into a scientific materialistic view, devoid of that which it tries to explain in the first place is means that this approach is incapable of explaining consciousness. It can only describe consciousness, meaning it can tell if it's present in a system of particles interacting with the world around it. — EugeneW

And you all appear as Pharisees condemning wlhat you don't like to hear, because you feel as if it will demolish your coherent belief system. It won't.

And you all appear as Pharisees condemning wlhat you don't like to hear, — Garrett Travers

Who says I don't like to hear it? I'm very interested in the physical worldview. I got a nice theory about elementary particles, cosmological genesis, creatures arising in it, and about the brain. It misses a thing though. I have proof and evidence of what is missing but you don't accept that as proof or call it an epiphenomenon or emergent property.

Who says I don't like to hear it? I'm very interested in the physical worldview. I got a nice theory about elementary particles, cosmological genesis, creatures arising in it, and about the brain. It misses a thing though. I have proof and evidence of what is missing but you don't accept that as proof or call it an epiphenomenon or emergent property. — EugeneW

I don't know what you are talking about.

I don't know what you are talking about. — Garrett Travers

The divine magic inside of matter. The constant divinity running around in our brains like millions parallel mini lightings on the neuron pathways on paths of least resistence.

The divine magic inside of matter. The constant divinity running around in our brains like millions parallel mini lightings on the neuron pathways on paths of least resistence. — EugeneW

Eugene, that would be amazing if I could detect such, if it was something that was clear was going on. I'm not opposed to that being the truth, but I don't see it. I didn't detect it when I was a Christian devotee, and I cannot detect it now. And what exactly are we talking about? Elctromagnetism? Quanta? I don't know.

We are talking about that with what matter is charged. Physical charge!

Cut out the heart and the brain dies. Therefore, we're just hearts.

Yeah, neuroscience and sociopathy have got to be closely linked. It amounts to emotional slavery.

It shouldn't even be a matter of contention that we're "just" our nervous system. It strips us of our property, our bodies, which we altogether and without a doubt are. The brain is "just" another part of us, and is equally dependent on the rest of our bodies.

You can't just explain the empirical nature of a body, though. The brain included, of course, but it seems less obvious that it's abstract.

Physical charge! — EugeneW

You mean, protons and electrons?

Cut out the heart and the brain dies. Therefore, we're just hearts. — theRiddler

The brain controls the heart.

Yeah, neuroscience and sociopathy have got to be closely linked. It amounts to emotional slavery. — theRiddler

Insults are getting fucking old, dude.

"just" — theRiddler

Your term, not mine. This is reduction. There is no "just," in reality.

You can't just explain the empirical nature of a body, though. The brain included, of course, but it seems less obvious that it's abstract. — theRiddler

Sure you can, there ae whole fields of science dedicated to just that.

Their charges. All massive particles comes from massless particles. They posses two or three kinds of charge, which couple them to intermediate virtual condensates to interact with other massless basics. I will not go deeper into this (it's not a physics site), but the true nature of charge is unknown. Our brain gives us, as the bodies we are, a means to consciously exist in the world, which is constantly projected into our inner world by the senses of our body.

The brain controls the heart. — Garrett Travers

The beating of the heart is autonomous.

Their charges. All massive particles comes from massless particles. They posses two or three kinds of charge, which couple them to intermediate virtual condensates to interact with other massless basics. I will not go deeper into this (it's not a physics site), but the true nature of charge is unknown. Our brain gives us, as the bodies we are, a means to consciously exist in the world, which is constantly projected into our inner world by the senses of our body. — EugeneW

Well, I'll make you a deal. You give me the benefit of accepting that what the empirical evidence suggests is what I have relayed here, irrespective of whether or not you agree, and I'll go look into this concept yours as best I can, and I'll go ahead an accept your position as within the realm of being totally possible. Sound pretty good?

when I was a Christian devotee — Garrett Travers

Ah, that explains it.

The beating of the heart is autonomous. — EugeneW

No.

The heart is innervated by sympathetic and parasympathetic fibres from the autonomic branch of the peripheral nervous system. The network of nerves supplying the heart is called the cardiac plexus. It receives contributions from the right and left vagus nerves, as well as contributions from the sympathetic trunk. These are responsible for influencing heart rate, cardiac output, and contraction forces of the heart.

https://www.kenhub.com/en/library/anatomy/innervation-of-the-heart

Ah, that explains it. — Janus

Still doing that insult thing, Janus. It doesn't make you sound witty dude, it looks pathetic. Quit doing it.

It wasn't an insult. Your being a fervent believer in Christianity explains your current status as fervent believer in what you think neuroscience has to show us. Proselytizing mindsets don't seem to change, but at most shift from one crusade to another: I've seen this phenomenon so many times.

Yes, here you're partially right.
Some people can stop their heart by mental power.

But in a normal state the brain isn't involved.

I accept everything you write and all the links you gave. I mean, those things are going on. But I don't think it's the whole story.

It wasn't an insult. Your being a fervent believer in Christianity explains your current status as fervent believer in what you think neuroscience has to show us. Proselytizing mindsets don't seem to change, but at most shift from one crusade to another: I've seen this phenomenon so many times. — Janus

Proselytizing mindsets.... What an absolutely embarrassing tactic for dismissing science to cling to your unsupported position. Unbelievable...

I accept everything you write and all the links you gave. I mean, those things are going on. But I don't think it's the whole story. — EugeneW

Well, shit man. You should have led with that.

You should have led with that. — Garrett Travers

I did. I wrote many times that it's what inside the material you refer to that counts. We are not our brain but our body, in between what's outside of us and inside of us.

I did. I wrote many times that it's what inside the material you refer to that counts. We are not our brain but our body, in between what's outside of us and inside of us. — EugeneW

No, it seemed to me that you were rejecting my position, and replacing it with your hypothesis. Had you told me that the data was at least acceptable to you, but that you were approaching things differently, I would have been with you this whole time.

I'm not dismissing science, but questioning your interpretation of what it entails; two very different things.

Also, if you actually read what I wrote you would know that I don't have a position on the question of the nature of consciousness.

I have no argument with the results of neuroscience, as far as they go.

I have no argument with the results of neuroscience, as far as they go. — Janus

Next time lead with this, and keep your insults to yourself. It's not cute, nor are they accurate thus far.

That'd be an appropriate comment if I had insulted you.

That'd be an appropriate comment if I had insulted you. — Janus

I wasn't speculating.

Well, your speculation failed to be in accord with the facts. If you felt insulted that would be a different thing, but that would not be a matter of speculation.

Well, your speculation failed to be in accord with the facts. If you felt insulted that would be a different thing, but that would not be a matter of speculation. — Janus

Recapitulation: I wasn't speculating.

You've lost me then: what were you not speculating about?

You've lost me then: what were you not speculating about? — Janus

Disregard it.

OK, no worries.