Daniel Dennett: Stop Telling People They Don't Have Free Will

I wouldn't argue that consciousness is separate from the brain, but since 2010 we've known that the brain uses it's own EM field (from the firing of it's neurons) to train it's networks and influence future firing - as a feedback loop. Hence you could argue that it is a transceiver - over very short distances.

That said, EM fields interfere with EM fields, so, as we can pick up EM fields using crude sensors mounted on the scalp, the brain is clearly not isolated from external EM fields, logic says it must be affected by them. Indeed there is plenty of evidence to show that it is affected by very weak external E/M fields, and can apparently transduce external E/M fields.
Here's something interesting.
microwave auditory effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_auditory_effect
It's clear to me that the idea of the brain working like a radio receiver is underpinned to occur from a metaphysical if not a spiritual plane as is the belief consciousness is non local; existing somewhere other than the physical plane. Ordinary EM fields don't meet criteria
 
Here's something interesting.
microwave auditory effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_auditory_effect
It's clear to me that the idea of the brain working like a radio receiver is underpinned to occur from a metaphysical if not a spiritual plane as is the belief consciousness is non local; existing somewhere other than the physical plane. Ordinary EM fields don't meet criteria

Wikipedia is not a reputable source for accurate scientific data, especially given how the guerilla skeptics group has used Wikipedia in a dishonest fashion to ruin the biographies of many hard-working scientists, and smear their faith based materialism on most of the pages that discuss parapsychological research.

Wikipedia, We Have A Problem: http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/
 
Why do you ask "Got any hint"? You're here on the Skeptico forums. You listen to Alex I presume? Are you being facetious? Why is it Skeptics ask the same question over and over again while dutifully ignoring the scientific research regarding NDEs, or parapsychology? Are you not aware of any of the 65 studies in NDE research? Are you not aware of any of the parapsychological work at the Rhine institute? Why aren't you aware of the scientific work both these institutions have collected and published in peer reviewed scientific journals?
None of those are direct evidence. Even if I accept the evidence, it says nothing about the mechanisms of mind /= brain.

No it does not demonstrate mind = brain. It demonstrates there is a correlation but it does not demonstrate the two are the same. So for the third time, I will ask you: name me one scientific fact that demonstrates consciousness is a product of the brain.
First please give me an idea of what sort of evidence you would accept as direct evidence of mind = brain. No matter what neuroscientists come up with, you can always say that it is just a correlation. Especially when you don't feel obliged to come up with any direct evidence for your hypothesis.

~~ Paul
 
I wouldn't argue that consciousness is separate from the brain, but since 2010 we've known that the brain uses it's own EM field (from the firing of it's neurons) to train it's networks and influence future firing - as a feedback loop. Hence you could argue that it is a transceiver - over very short distances.
Yup, no argument here. I think the big issue with the transceiver analogy is that there is an external store of memories or other mind-related things.

That said, EM fields interfere with EM fields, so, as we can pick up EM fields using crude sensors mounted on the scalp, the brain is clearly not isolated from external EM fields, logic says it must be affected by them. Indeed there is plenty of evidence to show that it is affected by very weak external E/M fields, and can apparently transduce external E/M fields.
Yup, no argument here.

~~ Paul
 
None of those are direct evidence. Even if I accept the evidence, it says nothing about the mechanisms of mind /= brain.

You are blinded by your materialistic Skeptic faith. Science is a methodology and is not materialism. Skeptics regularly make the claim there is no evidence, as if their materialistic ideology makes it true.

In addition, most of the scientists who have done the NDE and parapsychological research (unlike most Skeptics who for the most part, do little or no research at all) - state exactly the opposite that you assume with your materialistic bias here, i.e. that the evidence does relate to mechanisms of the mind/body.

First please give me an idea of what sort of evidence you would accept as direct evidence of mind = brain. No matter what neuroscientists come up with, you can always say that it is just a correlation. Especially when you don't feel obliged to come up with any evidence for your hypothesis.

My question is simple: Name me one scientific fact that demonstrates consciousness is a product of the brain.

Since you have it all figured out, and are so sure of yourself regarding your faith based materialism, surely you can provide but one example?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tim
Yup, no argument here. I think the big issue with the transceiver analogy is that there is an external store of memories or other mind-related things.

Yeah, but I would say that those sorts of things are just stored in what we understand as 'time' (Edit: 'processed', rather than 'stored' might be a more accurate term), and access to them is stored 'spatially' in the brain, like anything else you want to have access to again in the future.

In Psycology you can see these same two tensions at work in the potentially competing systems used to explain learning... on the one hand some scientists prefer to explain learning in terms of high-level cognitive processes that give rise to propositional knowledge... and on the other many other scientists prefer to explain learning in terms of purely associative links formed automatically. There are very good arguments for both ideas, yet neither idea on it's own seems to encompass all of our observations.

For many reasons which I haven't time to lay out here, it seems somewhat obvious to me now that both general ideas are right, but each only has part of the picture. I think they can be unified by the acceptance that past brain states can directly interfere with future brain states... mechanism still to be discovered.
 
Last edited:
You are blinded by your materialistic Skeptic faith. Science is a methodology and is not materialism. Skeptics regularly make the claim there is no evidence, as if their materialistic ideology makes it true.

In addition, most of the scientists who have done the NDE and parapsychological research (unlike most Skeptics who for the most part, do little or no research at all) - state exactly the opposite that you assume with your materialistic bias here, i.e. that the evidence does relate to mechanisms of the mind/body.
So you have examples of scientists making direct connections between, say, NDE research and some hypothesis about a transceiver model? I mean, other than simply suggesting that it might be so. I'd love to see that.

My question is simple: Name me one scientific fact that demonstrates consciousness is a product of the brain.

Since you have it all figured out, and are so sure of yourself regarding your faith based materialism, surely you can provide but one example?
I asked you to first describe the sort of evidence you're looking for. I note that you do not seem willing to do anything other than insult those nasty materialist skeptic scientists. You could start with some other field of science and explain the evidence that convinces you that

~~ Paul
 
Last edited:
Yeah, but I would say that those sorts of things are just stored in what we understand as 'time' (Edit: 'processed', rather than 'stored' might be a more accurate term), and access to them is stored 'spatially' in the brain, like anything else you want to have access to again in the future.
So there is an external memory store that is encoded in time? I really don't know what that means.

For many reasons which I haven't time to lay out here, it seems somewhat obvious to me now that both general ideas are right, but each only has part of the picture. I think they can be unified by the acceptance that past brain states can directly interfere with future brain states... mechanism still to be discovered.
The mechanism is simple: memory. I'm not sure what this has to do with the transceiver model.

~~ Paul
 
So you have examples of scientists making direct connections between, say, NDE research and some hypothesis about a transceiver model? I mean, other than simply suggesting it might be so. I'd love to see that.
Yes - in the last few decades 65 scientific worldwide studies in NDE research have been conducted, by qualified scientists publishing in peer reviewed journals. Are you not aware of any of these studies?

I asked you to first describe the sort of evidence you're looking for. I note that you do not seem willing to do anything other than insult those nasty materialist scientists.

Many Skeptics are a group of nasty arrogant individuals. Especially given how dishonest and libelous the Skeptic materialists have been on Wikipedia.

Again, I'm asking you a simple question here. It shouldn't be too difficult for you to answer: Name me one scientific fact that demonstrates consciousness is a product of the brain.
 
Yes - in the last few decades 65 scientific worldwide studies in NDE research have been conducted, by qualified scientists publishing in peer reviewed journals. Are you not aware of any of these studies?
I am aware of them. Which ones have a discussion section about the transceiver hypothesis that goes into details?

Again, I'm asking you a simple question here. It shouldn't be too difficult for you to answer: Name me one scientific fact that demonstrates consciousness is a product of the brain.
If by "demonstrates" you mean "strongly suggests," then my answer is all the evidence about how we can alter a person's consciousness by fooling with her brain. If you mean "proves," then there is no proof in science.

Name me one scientific fact that demonstrates that falling is a product of gravity.

~~ Paul
 
I am aware of them. Which ones have a discussion section about the transceiver hypothesis that goes into details?

Aware but obviously not knowledgeable, as you wouldn't ask this question if you were.

If by "demonstrates" you mean "strongly suggests," then my answer is all the evidence about how we can alter a person's consciousness by fooling with her brain. If you mean "proves," then there is no proof in science.

Name me one scientific fact that demonstrates that falling is a product of gravity.

Thank you. You are correct regarding gravity as well, since there is no scientific knowledge at this time what gravity actually is. In addition, there is no scientific evidence that consciousness is materialistic. None, zippo.
 
I don't see why not, they are clearly involved.
Take Bertha for example. Look at her recent replies, you can almost see the steam coming out of her ears she's so angry over the idea brain=mind. I feel that if consciousness as well as non local consciousness can be described as only EM fields would leave Bertha and many other members wanting. It seems certain members want a spiritual (immaterial) answer.
 
Back
Top