What came before the Big Bang?

[godnotgod]

How could a dead brain generate consciousness? That makes no sense.

Your assumption is that consciousness comes from the brain, but using the metaphor of the TV set, the TV set may be broken, but the TV signals are still present.

The notion that the brain is the origin of consciousness and the mind is nothing more than a hypothesis in the scientific world, wrongfully labeled 'Emergent Theory'.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

hopping in on this for some clarification, because I jsut can't quite follow what you're saying here...

I don't think you're getting the other half of the message, which is that I am using the logic of the materialist, who says that the brain and the person are one and the same.

ok...

If the brain is active during sleep, then the person must also be active (ie; conscious) but he is not.

Well, there is activity. Bodily functions don't cease when you sleep, your heart beats, you breathe..
Why do you think the body must be active, and what is your definition of active.

The brain gets a wild card to create imagery as it pleases. The "I", (which is the brain) is nowhere to be found.

I'm have a sense of self in dreams. I feel that I'm me, in my dreams, not someone else, or a non-being. How much sense of "I": are you looking for here?

It is found only in the waking state, when consciousness resumes. Therefore, "I" is a product of mind, which is a product of consciousness.

I is a product of the mind, yes, not a product of consciousness. What aspect of being unconscious do you feel would prevent the brain from processing information to yourself?

All the brain is doing during sleep is using imagery from memory to create fantasy scenarios. IOW, what one dreams is not actually going in as in the waking state. It is all a concoction on the part of the brain.

No, did someone suggest what your dreaming is really going on?

EDIT as a side question, you do know that the body TRIES to move, as if the dream is real, correct?
The fact that our bodies are not up and running around while we sleep, isn't because of some part of our brain saying "it's ok, it's fake" because, we would, if we could... Or bodies actually can't really tell the difference between "dream scenarios" and real ones very well.

 

[godnotgod]

hopping in on this for some clarification, because I jsut can't quite follow what you're saying here...


ok...

Well, there is activity. Bodily functions don't cease when you sleep, your heart beats, you breathe..
Why do you think the body must be active, and what is your definition of active.

Of course I agree with you. I am following the logic of the materialist view, which says that the brain equates to the "I" self. So, if that is true, it follows that, since the brain is active during sleep, the "I" self should also be present. Bunyip says that the brain tucks it in for the night and then goes out partying. I say the "I" self doesn't exist in the first place.

I'm have a sense of self in dreams. I feel that I'm me, in my dreams, not someone else, or a non-being. How much sense of "I": are you looking for here?

But your dreams are not real, and neither is the "I" self in the dream. When you awaken, the "I" self realizes it was dreaming; that the "I" self in the dream was illusory.

I is a product of the mind, yes, not a product of consciousness. What aspect of being unconscious do you feel would prevent the brain from processing information to yourself?

I said that "I" is a product of mind, and that mind is a product of consciousness.

No, did someone suggest what your dreaming is really going on?

Not understanding this.

EDIT as a side question, you do know that the body TRIES to move, as if the dream is real, correct?
The fact that our bodies are not up and running around while we sleep, isn't because of some part of our brain saying "it's ok, it's fake" because, we would, if we could... Or bodies actually can't really tell the difference between "dream scenarios" and real ones very well.

Yes, but what does any of that have to do with the question of consciousness and or the "I" self being a product of the brain?

Materialists are saying that the mind; the "I" self, and consciousness, are created by the brain, but there is no conclusive evidence of this, this idea known as 'Emergent Theory'.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

I said that "I" is a product of mind, and that mind is a product of consciousness.

.

Ah,
This is the part I would disagree with, I don't see why consciousness is required for a mind.

An active, living, functioning brain is required for mind, to the best of my knowledge.

Why do you think unconsciousness would limit the brain from reacting?

 

[godnotgod]

Ah,
This is the part I would disagree with, I don't see why consciousness is required for a mind.

An active, living, functioning brain is required for mind, to the best of my knowledge.

Why do you think unconsciousness would limit the brain from reacting?

However, an 'active, living, functioning brain' is dependent upon consciousness.

The "I" self has it backwards, of course. It is the nature of the "I" self to be self-centered.

Here is the crux of the matter:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=8AS9weqr-yw

"You are not a physical being that has evolved a consciousness;
you are a conscious being that has evolved a physical experience"
Ashton Moss

Actually, that is not quite correct, either, since the concepts of physical and non-physical do not actually exist in Reality.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

However, an 'active, living, functioning brain' is dependent upon consciousness.

The "I" self has it backwards, of course. It is the nature of the "I" self to be self-centered.

Here is the crux of the matter:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=8AS9weqr-yw

"You are not a physical being that has evolved a consciousness;
you are a conscious being that has evolved a physical experience"
Ashton Moss

Actually, that is not quite correct, either, since the concepts of physical and non-physical do not actually exist in Reality.

ah, thank you.

I made it 5 min in, and was unimpressed.
I do wish he would have sourced the study he was talking about, that sounded interesting and I'l be googling what I can, but the rest of his argument, I found less than amazing.

To be fair, I didn't make it PAST the 5 min point, so maybe he 180'd and had great ending points.

 

[godnotgod]

Ah,
I don't see why consciousness is required for a mind.

Thinking exists within the sphere of mind. When there is no thought occurring, where is mind? There is none. There is only pure, conscious awareness. So consciousness precedes mind. This is the crucial difference between thinking about reality, and seeing it as it actually is.

'Mind' and "I" exist only when one thinks it into existence. It is self-created. It is an illusion.

 

[godnotgod]

ah, thank you.

I made it 5 min in, and was unimpressed.
I do wish he would have sourced the study he was talking about, that sounded interesting and I'l be googling what I can, but the rest of his argument, I found less than amazing.

To be fair, I didn't make it PAST the 5 min point, so maybe he 180'd and had great ending points.

It did.

The message is not about impressing anyone; it is to present an argument against materialism.

 

[Bunyip]

Your assumption is that consciousness comes from the brain, but using the metaphor of the TV set, the TV set may be broken, but the TV signals are still present.

The notion that the brain is the origin of consciousness and the mind is nothing more than a hypothesis in the scientific world, wrongfully labeled 'Emergent Theory'.

. Break the brain and the signal is gone forever. TV's are just recievers.

 

[Bunyip]

I don't think you're getting the other half of the message, which is that I am using the logic of the materialist, who says that the brain and the person are one and the same.

Not according to my logic or yours apparently - so why not leave these 'materialists' out of it until you are talking to one?

If the brain is active during sleep, then the person must also be active (ie; conscious) but he is not.

That does not make sense, the brain is active while the person sleeps - that is a medical fact.

The brain gets a wild card to create imagery as it pleases. The "I", (which is the brain) is nowhere to be found.

The 'I' is NOT the brain, it is a product of the brain.

It is found only in the waking state, when consciousness resumes. Therefore, "I" is a product of mind, which is a product of consciousness. All the brain is doing during sleep is using imagery from memory to create fantasy scenarios. IOW, what one dreams is not actually going in as in the waking state. It is all a concoction on the part of the brain.

 

[godnotgod]

. Break the brain and the signal is gone forever. TV's are just recievers.

So is the brain, as the Jacobo-Zyberbaum experiment proves:

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

But why do you assume the signal is 'gone forever' if you don't know where the signal originates in the first place?

How do you explain archetypes in human consciousness?

 

[godnotgod]

Not according to my logic or yours apparently - so why not leave these 'materialists' out of it until you are talking to one?

Because when you state that "I" is a product of the brain, you are reflecting the materialist view.

That does not make sense, the brain is active while the person sleeps - that is a medical fact.

But where is this so-called 'person' that is asleep? I see a sleeping body, but is the body the person called "I"? The body is not aware of itself during sleep, so where is "I".

The 'I' is NOT the brain, it is a product of the brain.

Which is just saying that the brain is "I".

 

[Bunyip]

So is the brain, as the Jacobo-Zyberbaum experiment proves:

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

But why do you assume the signal is 'gone forever' if you don't know where the signal originates in the first place?

How do you explain archetypes in human consciousness?

I am familiar with that experiment, and it most definitely did not prove that. All that experiment demonstrated was two brains responding to a stimuli at the same time.

Why would I assume the signal is gone forever when the brain is destroyed? ANSWER: Because we have countless millions of examples. So far 100% of human experience in this field demonstrates that personalities do not survove the destruction of their brains.

 

[Bunyip]

Because when you state that "I" is a product of the brain, you are reflecting the materialist view.

It is also the view of the scientific field of neuro psychology, and of science in general. I would advise you to use YOUR logic, rather than try to assume that of others - it just confuses things my friend.

But where is this so-called 'person' that is asleep?

Well right there, but shhhh........she's asleep.

I see a sleeping body, but is the body the person called "I"? The body is not aware of itself during sleep, so where is "I".

Right where she was when she fell asleep, she is still there - but is asleep.

 

[godnotgod]

I am familiar with that experiment, and it most definitely did not prove that. All that experiment demonstrated was two brains responding to a stimuli at the same time.

If that is your conclusion, then you are making up that you are 'familiar' with the experiment, and NO, the experiment did NOT prove anything of the sort. You are deliberately twisting what the details of the experiment actually state.

Why would I assume the signal is gone forever when the brain is destroyed? ANSWER: Because we have countless millions of examples. So far 100% of human experience in this field demonstrates that personalities do not survove the destruction of their brains.

'Personality', ie; 'Identity', is not consciousness, which you are confusing with each other. Thought, which creates identity and personality, is not consciousness. Consciousness precedes thought, mind, and identity.

 

[Bunyip]

If that is your conclusion, then you are making up that you are 'familiar' with the experiment, and NO, the experiment did NOT prove anything of the sort. You are deliberately twisting what the details of the experiment actually state.

Not at all. I am familiar with the experiment and came to the same conclusions as another member here who is far more educated about science than I am. It does not prove that thoughts come from outside of the brain - and more importantly since you are accusing me of dishonesty it does not even claim to have done so.

Had it done so, it would have made the researchers famous. There is a standing million dollar prize that has waited 30 years for just such a discovery, and your researchers did not even attempt to claim it. Nor did they claim to have proven that thoughts come from outside of the brain as you say.

 

[godnotgod]

It is also the view of the scientific field of neuro psychology, and of science in general. I would advise you to use YOUR logic, rather than try to assume that of others - it just confuses things my friend.

As I previously stated, that 'scientific' view is nothing more than a hypothesis, wrongly labeled 'Emergent Theory'. It proves nothing.

Well right there, but shhhh........she's asleep.

Right where she was when she fell asleep, she is still there - but is asleep.

There is no "I" that is asleep; there is only sleeping itself, just as there is no river that flows; no whirlpool that whirls, etc. The body is not the self.

Show me where the self called "I" of the sleeping body is located. When asleep, such a body has no knowledge of any such "I" self. It doesn't exist.

 

[idav]

And what are the cerebral cortex and alpha wave output associated with? the higher intellect. IOW, ordinary everyday brain activity is not of the higher type, as it is a conditioned consciousness. Apparently, meditation 'wakes up' areas of the brain that ordinary consciousness does not use, while subduing the thinking process.

Yes, and? The brain is a machine and can only do so much output. There is a myth that humans can only utilize like 10% of the brains actual capacity. That is how powerful the brain is. However the myth part is it is only using 10% of the brain at once. So you tone down some parts and you utilize others, quite simple.

Nothing about the brain from any studies whatsoever can compare the brain to a mere receiver. The only way we have confirmed input to the brain is through our major 5 senses. It is a highly sophisticated machine and to act like it is just a receiver is to ignore how powerful and sophisticated the brain actually is. Further there is nothing about the brain or studies that indicate that the brain is receiving outside information without the major 5 senses, it just can't be done and to just assert it without any evidence, cause there is none, is inane.

 

[godnotgod]

Not at all. I am familiar with the experiment and came to the same conclusions as another member here who is far more educated about science than I am. It does not prove that thoughts come from outside of the brain - and more importantly since you are accusing me of dishonesty it does not even claim to have done so.

Had it done so, it would have made the researchers famous. There is a standing million dollar prize that has waited 30 years for just such a discovery, and your researchers did not even attempt to claim it. Nor did they claim to have proven that thoughts come from outside of the brain as you say.

It did NOT prove that thoughts come from outside the brain! Are you dense? I have told you several times now, but you are not listening! The experiment deliberately avoided testing for information transfer. Instead, it focused on the hardware itself; the brain, to see if the brain was capable of non-locality. Non-locality was what the experiment proved.

Jacobo Grinberg-Zyberbaum ARE famous.

Stop rambling on as if you know what you're talking about. You don't. Read the .pdf doc I provided, then return. But since you don't know how to read, I can't see how you will know what the experiment is actually saying.

 

[idav]

'Personality', ie; 'Identity', is not consciousness, which you are confusing with each other. Thought, which creates identity and personality, is not consciousness. Consciousness precedes thought, mind, and identity.

Consciousness is a product of thoughts and memories not the other way around. We don't have any sky drives in our brains. No thoughts, no memories, then no consciousness.