Discussion in 'Critical Discussions Among Proponents and Skeptics' started by steve001, Oct 6, 2014.
Since the brain can do this should it not be able to create its own awareness?
I understand that the brain is a cause of awareness, but you pretend that this proves that there can not be a personal afterlife? There is good evidence that points to that there is a personal afterlife, for example in books as The Enigma of Survival, by Hornett Hart, so might be that in antemortem the brain is a cause of consciousness, while in postmortem the cause of consciousness is other different support.
Shouldn't this go in the "New Stuff In Neuroscience" thread?
Better organized that way. I believe the answer to the question in the OP is found there by reading the links to Raymond Tallis' philosophical arguments.
Since the brain can do what? What is it you think these researchers have discovered?
My posting of this indirectly challenges the notion that consciousness requires the non local argument and it should not be implied this relates to an afterlife.
Well I doubt I'm going to get an explanatory reply to my earlier question as to what you think these researchers have discovered?
"..inner GPS.."... lol... an Oxymoron if ever I've seen one.
He's going to need a second. He's got to run to JREF and cry for help over there. Give him a day or so.
These folks along with other researchers are discovering how the brain does what it does by studying it. In other words, to discover where consciousness comes from look nowhere else except the brain.
You didn't answer his question.
Trolling again I see. I'll have to post the that quote to remind you how often you break the forum rules. I'll add it later.
My my how quickly you've forgotten. These rules
In posting these Steve, you neglect the following. This has no bearing on the hard problem, at all. Secondly, it is curious that you treat neuroscience like a holy grail, yet fail to take into account that it has a poor replication rate, and that this paper like others you have posted, always fail to mention replication successes or failures.
How exactly did I break any of those rules? You weren't abused, unless you wish to define someone pointing out your past actions as abuse. I wasn't being overly aggressive, unless you wish to define someone pointing out your past actions as overly aggressive. And trolling is the act of putting on a false persona shrouded in anonymity and taking a fake position in the hopes of pissing people off. Considering my position has been remarkably consistent, and various members of this forum have my personal information ( email address, facebook, etc. ), I would hardly define it as trolling.
Maybe you're just being over-sensitive. I don't blame you. I would recommend that if you don't want people pointing out the things you do, I would stop doing those things.
Like this paper for instance.
Here are the salient points:
a."They identified "grid cells"—nerve cells which generate a coordinate system, rather like longitude and latitude, and allow the brain to make precise positioning and pathfinding."
From the second article
b. "Nearly a decade later, in 2005, the Moser team discovered cells in the entorhinal cortex region in the brains of rats that function as a navigation system. These grid cells, as they are called, are responsible for the animals' knowing where they are, where they have been, and where they are going; they are constantly working to create a map of the outside world. Constructed in the nervous system from tactile, visual, and other sensory input, grid cells have provided fundamental insights into how spatial location and memory are computed in the brain. The mapping information flows from the entorhinal cortex to the hippocampus and then back, and scientists are now working to understand how the grid cells inform place cells, and vice versa."
All this builds upon the earlier work of Dr. O'Keefe
c."In 1971, Dr. O'Keefe discovered specific cells in the hippocampus that record location. These place cells, as they are called, register the locations of specific landmarks, such as the laboratory, or the corner deli. While recording the firing of neurons in rats as they moved from one location to another, he found that each location was logged by its own unique set of nerve cells in the CA1 region of the hippocampus, suggesting that the cells form a virtual map of the animal's location. The firing location of each cell was stable over time, and moving the animal to another location caused it to form a new map, using some of the same cells, in addition to new ones. When the animal was returned to its original location, it replayed the initial map that it had formed.'
This as the researchers noted has implications for how memories are formed. Memories are apart of awareness. Is that enough of an explanation?
Also, Steve. I sort of feel that you have a rather strict, binary view of consciousness. Something which sadly characterises many proponents too; either the brain produces consciousness or it doesn't. Whereas it can be both; matter has a sort of proto-conscious characteristic and that this becomes a brain to produce full blown human awareness and to other animals too. Or, there is neutral monism; mind and matter just two faces on one die.
But in your OP, you claimed that:
Except spacial mapping and consciousness are two very different things. That's like saying " Since my car has electric windows, should it not be able to go 0-60 in 1.23 seconds? ". You're comparing apples and oranges.
Interesting. Would be cool for someone to compare the reliability of neuroscience as a field to parapsychology.
Read Maaneli and Johann's paper. They very briefly touch on it.
Separate names with a comma.