Mind is more than the brain

[siti]

...dramatically important things lie beyond the reach of today's physical science

Certainly can't disagree with that - how 'the mind' (whatever that is) works being a particularly important one of these things.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Ah, but the signal is still present, brain or no brain. Consciousness is non-local, contrary to both popular and scientific opinion.

First, your second statement is, so far as I know, totally false. "Human consciousness has been proved to be a non-local." There is no convincing, reproducible evidence for non-locality in the human brain. All of the arguments for consciousness being a quantum effect are similar to saying that consciousness is mysterious and quantum mechanics is mysterious and therefore they must be related. And that's it!

As to the bizarre notion that "the signal is still present, brain or no brain," let me point out that you seem to be drawing an unsupportable analogy. I would certainly agree that radio signals exist, whether there's a radio handy to receive and make them heard. But that's because there's still the producer of that radio signal out there, somewhere, broadcasting merrily away without knowing whether you have a radio handy or not. Thus, your analogy requires that somewhere, consciousness is being "aired" by some source generating it, yet I promise you, you will never be able to locate nor demonstrate such a source.

And in any case, you seem to be a bit hazy on what consciousness is. It isn't a "think" that we pick up. If my eyes perceive a tree, it is almost certain (providing I'm not comatose) that I will be conscious (or aware) of that tree. But if my brain shuts down, even though that tree remains, the unique consciousness of it that is mind will cease to exist. Nobody else on earth, or off of it, will have the conscious experience that I did.

Frankly, I find your whole notion puzzling. Who or what do you think is "broadcasting" your conscious experience of needing to pee, or eat, or the lust that washes over your brain at the nearly nude beauty on the beach? Who or what are the script writers for these conscious episodes of yours, that you think continue whether your brain does or not?

 

[godnotgod]

First, your second statement is, so far as I know, totally false. "Human consciousness has been proved to be a non-local." There is no convincing, reproducible evidence for non-locality in the human brain. All of the arguments for consciousness being a quantum effect are similar to saying that consciousness is mysterious and quantum mechanics is mysterious and therefore they must be related. And that's it!

As to the bizarre notion that "the signal is still present, brain or no brain," let me point out that you seem to be drawing an unsupportable analogy. I would certainly agree that radio signals exist, whether there's a radio handy to receive and make them heard. But that's because there's still the producer of that radio signal out there, somewhere, broadcasting merrily away without knowing whether you have a radio handy or not. Thus, your analogy requires that somewhere, consciousness is being "aired" by some source generating it, yet I promise you, you will never be able to locate nor demonstrate such a source.

And in any case, you seem to be a bit hazy on what consciousness is. It isn't a "think" that we pick up. If my eyes perceive a tree, it is almost certain (providing I'm not comatose) that I will be conscious (or aware) of that tree. But if my brain shuts down, even though that tree remains, the unique consciousness of it that is mind will cease to exist. Nobody else on earth, or off of it, will have the conscious experience that I did.

Frankly, I find your whole notion puzzling. Who or what do you think is "broadcasting" your conscious experience of needing to pee, or eat, or the lust that washes over your brain at the nearly nude beauty on the beach? Who or what are the script writers for these conscious episodes of yours, that you think continue whether your brain does or not?

Thank you. I am on the run right now, but this video is a good starter. I have more later.

Since this group of experiments were made in 1994, I believe, there have been other variations in more modern times to confirm its findings.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Thank you. I am on the run right now, but this video is a good starter. I have more later.

Since this group of experiments were made in 1994, I believe, there have been other variations in more modern times to confirm its findings.

All right, I watched and listened very carefully. And all the "experiment" in question actually did, whether you see it or not, is validate the non-locality of entangled particles. Subject A's brain, in reacting to what happened in his environment, had an effect on some entangled particles from the previous interactive focus with Subject B, and when they reacted, so did the entangled particles in Subject B's brain.

But did you listen carefully to what your prof actually said? He said that while "Subject B's brain went Blooop, Blooop" Subject B was UNAWARE of it. Now, there are 2 points to be made here. First, it was not Subject B's BRAIN going Blooop, it was some few entangled particles within his brain (those particles are not his brain). And second, since we are talking about consciousness, what does it say to you that Subject B was UNAWARE (in other words, NOT CONSCIOUS) of this happening?

Consciousness, unlike a few subatomic particles, was not shown to be entangled (or non-local) in the experiment as he described it. I haven't found the actual experiment yet to check out whether peer review agrees with me, but I'll continue looking.

 

[godnotgod]

All right, I watched and listened very carefully. And all the "experiment" in question actually did, whether you see it or not, is validate the non-locality of entangled particles. Subject A's brain, in reacting to what happened in his environment, had an effect on some entangled particles from the previous interactive focus with Subject B, and when they reacted, so did the entangled particles in Subject B's brain.

But did you listen carefully to what your prof actually said? He said that while "Subject B's brain went Blooop, Blooop" Subject B was UNAWARE of it. Now, there are 2 points to be made here. First, it was not Subject B's BRAIN going Blooop, it was some few entangled particles within his brain (those particles are not his brain). And second, since we are talking about consciousness, what does it say to you that Subject B was UNAWARE (in other words, NOT CONSCIOUS) of this happening?

Consciousness, unlike a few subatomic particles, was not shown to be entangled (or non-local) in the experiment as he described it. I haven't found the actual experiment yet to check out whether peer review agrees with me, but I'll continue looking.

The point of the experiment was to prove that the BRAIN had the capacity for nonlocality. This was not about information transfer.

A and B's entire brains were entangled, since the EEG patterns between them matched up. It is the brain responding, not the particles.

Here is the original paper of the experiment in .pdf format for download. I did not have time to post it previously:

http://www.deanradin.com/FOC2014/Grinberg1994.pdf

Obviously, the physical brains are local, but wouldn't you think that consciousness would have to be present in order to connect them in nonlocality.. (I would suggest an underlying holographic condition.)